[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.98 MB, 1712x2288, chomsky.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3106366 No.3106366 [Reply] [Original]

Is this man as genius as he is reputed to be? Where should I start with him?

>> No.3106379

He's ok as far as a person's first foray into leftist thought, personally I'm a bit skeptical of him because too many of my friends read/watch his stuff and then never bother to dig any deeper.

I've watched a lot of lectures and interviews of his, which were all good. I read some of Manufacturing Consent which was very dry, although it might have blown my mind 4-5 years ago if I had read it while I was only just dabbling in political thought. Could probably get away with just reading the first chapter or two of that one.

>> No.3106387

>>3106366

He pissed off Skinner, and I like him for that. He has some interesting ideas in psychology. He's good, I think he's pretty clever.

>> No.3106395

>>3106379

Although my first point (about my friends stopping at him) is not Chomsky's fault of course, but the rather sharp limits on leftist representation in media. Lately I'm paranoid that Zizek is sort of the heir to the throne in this sense.

>> No.3106397

What about his work in linguistics?

>> No.3106402
File: 307 KB, 350x295, chomsky.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3106402

Noam is one of my favourite people in the world, and one of my favourite authors. His books are usually extremely concise and fact-filled, everything is cited and quoted and it's serious work, although you'll be surprised how many sarcastic comments he manages to add which gives it some comic relief, so to speak. For the most part he's dead serious so even the slightest deviation from it by him once you've read enough is really noticeable and more fun than it would otherwise be.

As for what you should start with... shit, man, there's so much to pick from. Just pick something that interests you in politics and it's almost guaranteed he's written about it either in article/essay form or an entire book either about it or touching on it.

>> No.3106398

Are you talking about his work on political thought or his work in linguistics?

>> No.3106404
File: 58 KB, 315x310, revvingintensifies.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3106404

>>3106398
Either, I'm interested in both

>> No.3106408

>>3106402
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=lJtHNEDnrnY#t=195s

>> No.3106409

>>3106402
I remember that thread with blinged authors. Jesus, I wish I saved some.

>> No.3106414
File: 45 KB, 500x329, noam sayin'.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3106414

>>3106408

I've seen it bro. Hilarous, and even funnier exactly because it's Noam!

I actually corresponded with Noam for quite a bit over mail. We shared in total 15 mails back and forth. Pretty neat.

For any other chess and Noam fans out there, like myself, he said something kind of funny about it. I'll quote directly:

"When I was a kid I was an avid chess player, even poring over and memorizing master games. When I was about 15 I had a sudden realization that this is a complete waste of time, and have never looked at a chess board again."

>> No.3106420

>>3106414

Holy shit that is a great quote.

>> No.3106422

>>3106420

I.. can't tell if sarcasm or not.

I think it's cool though. I didn't know he was such an avid chess fan growing up.

>> No.3106429

Yes, but ignore what he says about Bosnia.

>> No.3106442

>>3106422

I was being sincere. I understand where he's coming from. Chomsky's a cool guy.

>> No.3106456

As a linguist, I dislike the fact that people who don't know anything else about linguistics often want to hold up all of Chomsky's work in the field as irrefutable, even if they do not actually understand it, just because they know that he is famous for things that often have little or nothing to do with linguistics at all.

>> No.3106466

>>3106456
Isn't he famous for generative syntax? That's why I know if him. No clue what the fuck generative syntax is since I'm not well versed in linguistics though.

>> No.3106473

chomsky's a fucking hack
hurrdurr gangnam style lolxDDDD

>> No.3106477

>>3106408

brilliant

>> No.3106500

>>3106456
I went into uni thinking I would love linguistics, but got sick of the extreme UG/Nativist stance.

We need to bring my niggas Sapir and Whorf back.

>> No.3106508

>>3106466
Yeah, I don't have much of a problem with generative grammar, at least as a system of categorization and description of languages. But to follow from GG to the theory of UG and the LAD just feels like a huge unjustified leap to me, and UG especially is a concept that gets too much attention.

Granted, I am a rather outspoken continentalist, and I think that the move away from Saussurean structuralism that is often signified by Chomskyan Linguistics was premature and a result of several decades of flawed readings of Saussure, rather than flaws in Saussure's theories themselves.

One thing I do like about UG is that its inadequacy has lead to new theories challenging it, especially from people like Tomasello and Bruner. It is not an all-bad theory, but I don't think it shouldn't be treated as a be-all end-all when it comes to language acquisition.

>> No.3106532

>>3106397
Right up there with Saussure.

>> No.3106548

Finishing up a minor in linguistics this semester, Noam is a cranky old man who doesn't want to admit that his linguistics paradigm is not good and his holding back the field altogether. Cognitive grammar is where it's at.

>> No.3106553
File: 62 KB, 600x400, steven_pinker1_small.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3106553

>>3106548

P.S., my favorite linguist is Pinker

P.S.S., here is a funny video of Ali G (Sacha Baron Cohen) interviewing Noam Chomsky

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOIM1_xOSro

>> No.3106554

>>3106508
>>3106548
Not focusing on the superior fields of phonology and phonetics (fuck acoustic phonetics though)

>> No.3106559

>>3106554
Damn, thought I had green texted. Oh well.

>> No.3106564

>>3106553
>undergraduate
>post script script

>> No.3106566

>>3106554
I've never understood what people found so interesting about either of those fields. Which is funny because in addition to studying linguistics, I'm also a musician and a huge fan of poetry, and by all rights should have all sorts of interesting things to say and think about when it comes to the topic of "sounds and language."

>> No.3106570

Great linguist.
Brilliant linguist.
Not-so-great political theorist.

>> No.3106572

>>3106414
I've also had some correspondence with him. He said he'd be happy to meet up if I were in Boston, what an absolute champ.

I like him simply because his questions are so simple that they don't get asked by anyone else in his position.

Eg: I first fell in love with him when he was talking about the 2003 invasion of Iraq and he said something to the effect of "Everyone is asking how to win this war against terror. No one is asking why we deserve to win it."

His politics are hardly complex, which is probably the root of their appeal amongst every leftist. But the simplicity reminds me so much of Socrates asking "What is 'justice'?" in the Republic - it's basically an unanswerable question that undermines entire political platforms.

>> No.3106574

>>3106570

he'd be better if he read more marx

>> No.3106577

>>3106574
As would most political theorists.

>> No.3106580

>>3106566
For me personally, I just love sounds. I know that sounds really vague, but I guess what it comes down to for me. The physical production/articulation of sounds amazes me. That, and I'm great at producing the sounds of other languages, accents, etc.

>> No.3106581

>>3106574
You think you know Marx better than Chomsky does?
lol

>> No.3106592

>>3106581
I think he's just saying Chomsky's writing could be more inflected by Marxism.

>> No.3106593

>>3106581

Yeah

>> No.3107060

Noam Chomsky is not a political theorist. Also criticising him because the prose of Manufacturing Consent was 'dry' is amusing given that the vast majority of the text was written by Ed Herman.

>> No.3107082

>>3107060
I have no opinion on Chomsky's linguistics.

As a political writer he is an immature cunt. And I share much of his politics.

>> No.3107085
File: 28 KB, 400x296, CHOMSKY_AND_COLOGNE.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3107085

>>3106570
He's not a political theorist, and he makes no claims to be a political theorist. I've dealt with a lot of political theorists. I'd probably respect Chomsky less if he was one.

>> No.3107089

I think the word genius is used far too often.

>> No.3107091

>>3107085
So why does he put out a shit load of tripelicious positive political works? And not pamphlette lengths, full blown fucking monographs full of specious argument and normative moralism.

>> No.3107096

>>3107091
Cuz he white playa.

>> No.3107097

>>3107091

I say good sir, what an outrage!

>> No.3107094

>>3107091

lol

>> No.3107095

>>3107091
Writing about politics =! political theorist.

>> No.3107100

>>3106500
> I went into uni thinking I would love linguistics, but got sick of the extreme UG/Nativist stance.

Totally this. Americans shitted up the linguistics field pretty bad.

> We need to bring my niggas Sapir and Whorf back.

Fuck no. Leave that retarded shit to cheap paperback sci-fi novels.

>> No.3107101

>>3107095
Papiere bitte?

>> No.3107104

>>3107101
You first.

>> No.3107108

He likes to go on and on about how he's such a conservative man, yet he's never actually explained HOW he's conservative. Does he secretly despise black people or something?

>> No.3107113

>>3107104
You seem to be implying either that you're capable of demonstrating who political theorists are through normative reading and/or that a qualification is necessary.

I assert, instead, that Chomsky's spew intends and proposes itself as political theory.

>> No.3107120

>>3107113
>I assert, instead, that Chomsky's spew intends and proposes itself as political theory.
Yes, but on what grounds?

>> No.3107121
File: 24 KB, 200x329, n2219286761_38309.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3107121

>>3107108
It's been years since I've read anything of his, but I think it has to do with his distaste of government intervention. He says it kind of as a way to troll Americans who call themselves conservatives but support restrictions on certain social issues. Also as a way to distance himself from the orthodox communist left.

>> No.3107127

>>3107120
Genre, topic, content, Chomsky's slimey use of argument from authority in relation to his stature as a linguist, publication mode (monograph), publishing houses used, the number of times he tours for bourgeois undergrads on political as opposed to linguistic topics.

>> No.3107128

>>3107121
The "orthodox communist left" you believe he is distancing himself from ended in 1956 in Budapest.

>> No.3107134

>>3107127
You seem to be just looking to take a jab at someone who wants to talk about politics. Also, Chomsky has always written about politics, even if he is also famous in linguistics.

>> No.3107150

>>3107134
When a child shits itself, you clean it up. When a man shits himself in public, and keeps on doing it, you disassociate yourself from him loudly. (Pro-tip: back in the days when tenure was tenure, repeatedly shitting yourself in public was one of the few grounds for dismissal.)

>> No.3107160

>>3106366
He has so many works that there are introductions to subsets of his set of works. Are you interested in his linguistics? There is an introduction for that. Are you interested in his philosophical stances? Introduction for that. Are you interested in his politics (very interesting by the way)? Also, an introduction to that. You need to clarify.

>> No.3107334

Yes.

>> No.3107402

No, he's an idealist faggot.

>> No.3107417

>>3107150
When I shit myself in public I dissociate myself to avoid embarrassment.

>> No.3107486

>>3106572

I asked him if there was a chance of having a correspondance chess match... and his reply was really just that quote. ;_;

>> No.3107491

>>3107402

>attacking a position without providing an argument against it
>such is /lit/

>> No.3107507

>>3107402
that's funny, because he's written next to nothing on Idealism.

>> No.3107511
File: 23 KB, 282x389, zizek.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3107511

What do you fellows think of this guy?

>> No.3107517

My main man, Norman Chompsky.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOIM1_xOSro

>> No.3107519

>>3107511
Lit never has anything interesting to say about him. It's always either two things: he's far from entry-level reading, or he's entry-level reading. Apart from that pleb/patrician dichotomy, nothing interesting is ever said about -- or, there is some autonomist marxist who lurks here who likes to shit all over his lack of "praxis" etc., but I don't even think he's read him.

>> No.3107522

>>3107507

It's fair to say that Chomsky's views are relatively idealist when it comes to human nature and the values of the Enlightenment.

Not that guy, by the way.

>> No.3107528

>>3107522
One doesn't have to write on "idealism" for the implicit ideological or philosophical presuppositions in one's work to be formed through idealism. But not many people even know what "idealism" is.

>> No.3107531

>>3107511

He's really tough to read. Hard to follow him sometimes. Especially when he talks. Sometimes you can watch an entire talk and barely remember anything of what was said because it was so over-your-head.

>> No.3107534

>>3107528

What idealism "is" depends on the context. It's plausible to describe Chomsky as an idealist, but no one means German Idealism or anything like that when they say it.

>> No.3107536

>>3107531

I find him quite plain and simple to read. God knows what you would think of the Continentals.

>> No.3107565

Hitchens thought he was an inconsistant intellectual midget.

>> No.3107567

>>3107565

Bullshit. Hitchens openly praised Chomsky on many occasions.

>> No.3107578

>>3107565
Hitchens was a lightweight.

>> No.3107584
File: 19 KB, 460x276, christopher-hitchens-hay--007.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3107584

>>3107578

How many chins do you need to be a heavyweight?

>> No.3107590

>>3107584
LOL nice one breh

I mean intellectual lightweight, journalist hack, and one ugly inbred looking cunt.

>> No.3107592

>>3107590

Have you read Hitchens?

>> No.3107593

His formal language theory is pretty sick. It's all I've been doing in automata class this semester, along with DFA, NFA, PDA, etc.

>> No.3107603

>>3107491
This is pretty much every thread here. It's becoming a very tired gimmick to declare something is so and leave it at that. It's completely devoid of substance and it isn't cute or clever either. It just outs you as an aggressive, posturing retard with no argumentation skills.

>> No.3107605

>>3107565
Hitchens was a neocon. An ideological pile of shit no one in even the wingnuttiest right wing circles will touch with a 10ft pole anymore.

>> No.3107628

>>3107605

Hitchens wasn't a neo-con. He supported the war in Iraq but that hardly makes him a neocon.

He said it'd be wrong to still call him a socialist but that he was on the left side of politics still.

>> No.3107636

Chomsky is god-tier.

Fuck the post-structuralists. Seriously. This man does actual work.

I repeat, Fuck The Post-Structuralists.

>> No.3107651
File: 18 KB, 299x323, foucault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3107651

>>3107636
>Fuck The Post-Structuralists
let's do this

>> No.3107654

>>3107651

>implying Foucault was a post-structuralist

>> No.3107655

>>3107651
That debate was a bit retarded because both Chomsky and Foucault just talked past each other.

If Foucault won that debate, it's just because the post-structuralists are only debaters and nothing more (which is the case). If Chomsky won that debate, it's because he actually had substance.

Chomsky for life!

>> No.3107669

>>3107654
>implying that you got my post

>> No.3107703

>>3107636
Writing gobbledigook is not work.

>> No.3107724

I wanted to respect him but his illogical stance on Israel ruins it.

He's not stupid so that means he pushes his personal agenda. Like all the others he distorts the picture not by lying by but omitting things he like to include.

>> No.3107740

>>3107703

How is Chomsky "gobbledigook" in any sense of the word? He's the one clearest writers currently around.

>> No.3107761

>>3107724
> illogical stance on Israel

Yeah, nope. Yahweh forbid, we should ever criticize Israel.

But I don't even care. Chomsky is a great linguist.

It's ironic consider that post-structuralism and deconstruction claims to be political and claims to open up multiple ways of thinking and being and whatever, but it really doesn't. It's so far removed from anything. Chomsky is more political while avoiding the claim that his linguistics is politics and can somehow affect change in the world.

Chomsky's a hero.

>> No.3107774

>>3107761

>avoiding the claim that his linguistics is politics

strikes me as kinda weird praising a guy for laziness but whatever floats your boat i guess

>> No.3107780

>>3107724
yerp a roo little dogie

>> No.3107782

>>3107761
How exactly is anything about Chomsky's linguistics "political" except in the sense that UG is incredibly biased towards Western languages, and specifically English?

>> No.3107790

>>3107782

that in particular but in the broader sense language equals politics equals games

people are free to ignore that and cling to some figment of concrete meaning if they want but it's nothing to be commended for