[ 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: 19 KB, 230x307, Chomsky.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3653006 No.3653006 [Reply] [Original]

How does /lit/ feel about Academia's Ron Paul?

>> No.3653017

you'll have to elaborate on that bullshit comparison

>> No.3653023

Who actually engages Chomsky? I've never felt compelled to read him because no one I usually read ever references him (outside of the famed foucault chomsky debate)

>> No.3653029

>>3653023

>Recent research on citations in three different citation indices show that Professor Chomsky is one of the most cited individuals in works published in the past 20 years.

>> No.3653035

>>3653023
look for the buckley chomsky debate. pretty hilarious how he gets WFB frustrated.

>> No.3653050

>>3653029
Plato is heavily cited too but if all I read is history then I might not ever see him cited.

>> No.3653054

>>3653050

Who actually engages Plato? I've never felt compelled to read him because no one I usually read ever references him (outside of the famed plato aristotle debate)

>> No.3653060

His stuff on American Imperialism is pretty damn good, I think.

>> No.3653062

>>3653029
That in no way answered my question

>> No.3653067

>>3653006
The fucker single-handedly ruined linguistics as a science. (In America, at least.)

The American version of Lysenko.

>> No.3653079

>>3653067
Please elaborate. How did he "ruin" linguistics as a science?

>> No.3653087

>>3653062

question: Who actually engages Chomsky?

answer: obviously a fuckton of people.

>> No.3653097

>>3653087
Clearly, it's a lot of people. You could be less of a dick and articulate who these people are, what corners of academia they hail from, what they write about etc. If you don't know the answer fine, It clearly doesn't matter much to me since marxists and post-structuralists don't care about him

>> No.3653113

>America is a polyarchy

sounds badass

>> No.3653124
File: 15 KB, 336x229, 1327644592167.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3653124

Chomsky is frustrating as all fuck

He can see how the government brutalizes other countries through it's foreign policy but fails to recognize the damage caused by welfare, social services, etc, anything domestic.

Not to mention he's a "left-libertarian" AKA blathering fucktard

>> No.3653129

>>3653079
By overstepping his bounds and acting like a physicist. He thinks that linguistics can solve things it very obviously cannot, and it overshadows the great work he has done in the field. It would be as though a lesser Einstein went around campus and laughed at all the other departments for thinking they are still relevant. He is a genius, but he is also an idiot.

>> No.3653141

>killing people is bad
>don't vote for the guy who says he will kill people
Pretty good.

>> No.3653158

>>3653060
Its pathetic tripe. Chomsky's speciality is linguistics and he should stick to what he knows.

>> No.3653207

>>3653141
killing people who oppose you is the only logical thing to do in a democracy.

>> No.3653216

>>3653124

>implying outright state terror and violent brutalization of civilian populations is equivalent to flaws in systems designed to support the poor

you seem to be the blathering fucktard here, friend

>> No.3653218

>>3653207

actually no, even machiavelli knew that opposition was essential to democracy (see discourses on levy)

>> No.3653220

>>3653129
But he doesn't do any of that anon.

>> No.3653233

>>3653158
so, since your speciality is nothing you should probably shut your face

>> No.3653234

>>3653158
> It's pathetic tripe.
Elaborate. How? Why?
What authors concerning American foreign policy and geopolitical relationships would you not consider pathetic tripe?

>> No.3653237

>>3653220
He shits all over the work of his graduate students who disagreed with them and hasn't done real work in the field in 30 years.

>> No.3653241

>>3653237
What is every single professor ever?

I've only seen Chomsky do it when someone's talking about his own work though, and not every single time. Plenty of linguists talk about it and don't get the same response from Noam as Lakoff.

>> No.3653261
File: 379 KB, 446x600, 1297816316873.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3653261

>commie anarchist

>rich as fuck because he's a prof. at a private uni

>> No.3653270

>>3653261

Chomsky is far from being a communist.

>> No.3653296

>>3653261
Ah, the undergraduate classic:

>if your a socialist why don't u just donate all your money xD

>> No.3653302

>>3653296
It's more conservative classic. How many times did I hear about the occupy movement "Ah, but isn't it hilarious how they're buying starbucks coffee and generally involved in the society in which they live? Ahahaaha!" from commentators on the right?

>> No.3653305
File: 54 KB, 444x337, 1360430088486.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3653305

>>3653261
>this 'argument' again

>> No.3653307

>>3653296
It's not really that, I just don't see how an academic at an american university can consider him or herself a socialist while daily exploiting students with overly inflated tuition and bloated useless coarse requirements. Higher education is an industry like any other, academic institutions in America are there to make money first and foremost.

>> No.3653314

I'm interested in how will generative grammar develop after Chomsky's death.
Not that I wish him to die.

>> No.3653319

>>3653307
And if Chomsky was a teacher at a public community college, we'd be reading about how he's just "jealous" of private uni teachers.

>> No.3653320

/lit/ has been feeling a lot like the comment section of the WSJ lately.

>> No.3653325

>>3653079
> Please elaborate. How did he "ruin" linguistics as a science?
'Universal Grammar' is an unfalsifiable and unscientific 'theory' (though actually closer to a religion). We've found absolutely _no_ evidence for it in 60 years, even though billions of dollars were wasted on looking for it.

Doubting a word of St. Chomsky's creed will get you tarred and feathered in American academic circles, however. The obvious and glaring holes in his 'theories' are resolved by redefining the problem area in self-referential logic circles.

>> No.3653371

>>3653325
>'Universal Grammar' is an unfalsifiable and unscientific 'theory'
It's completely falsifiable. It just hasn't been falsified in 60 years.

>> No.3653414

>>3653371
>It's completely falsifiable.
Give an example or STFU.
>It just hasn't been falsified in 60 years.
It hasn't been falsified because they've shifted the meaning of 'Universal Grammar' to be 'whatever biological faculty necessary to make language possible'. Not only is this new definition unfalsifiable, it is squarely outside the scope of linguistics as a science.

Originally, 'Universal Grammar' was supposed to be 'a generative grammar hardwired into the human brain'. Obviously, no such thing exists, but Chomskyite cultists would never admit that Great Leader was fucking wrong and a fucking snakeoil salesman.

>> No.3653499

>>3653158
He knows more than many political science "gurus." He is much more knowledgeable than figures like John Lewis Gaddis. And also we should note that top political scientists such as Thomas Ferguson hold his work in high regard. By all means, if his work is just pure trite, go through book by book, go through all the sources and refute it.
I think the problem is that many people consider themselves to be very knowledgeable about politics, but in reality all they have done is philosophized for years on end over information and points of view that come from a very narrow spectrum.
When they see anything to the contrary they simply cast it aside as an aberration and berate the person bringing up the facts as unsophisticated and naive, when in reality if you take a look at all the facts you will eventually come to see they expose mainstream intellectual discourse in the United States as impotent for actually getting across any productive discussion, and only useful for serving the power structures.

So yeah, fuck off with the "haha simple plebian, I'm an enlightened liberal!" attitude and have some respect for people who go about questioning authority in a truly rigorous and effective manner, instead of starting out as many other so called "leftists" do: by being purely emotional with no grounding in facts, until they finally pull their head just slightly out of their ass, which has the effect of making them turn almost 180s out of embarrassment for their previous ignorance.
So now they adopt "enlightened" views, however two conditions remain in place: they still don't have a grounding in facts and they don't actually care for anyone but themselves.
I call this selfish reactionary liberalism.

>> No.3653500

>>3653307
>I just don't see how an academic at an american university can consider him or herself a socialist while daily exploiting students with overly inflated tuition and bloated useless coarse requirements.

Its not as though he personally sets the tuition fees or has full control over the course content.

It's no different than a person hating capitalist society yet engaging in it out of need to survive.

>> No.3653513

>>3653414
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SIOQgY1tqrU

Maybe you should educate yourself instead of talking out of your ass.

Just a suggestion.

>> No.3653519

>>3653414
>Give an example or STFU.
Give an example of current science being falsified or STFU. You just don't understand what falsifiable means, it's certainly not "science is just things that are wrong!".
>It hasn't been falsified because they've shifted the meaning of 'Universal Grammar' to be 'whatever biological faculty necessary to make language possible'. Not only is this new definition unfalsifiable, it is squarely outside the scope of linguistics as a science.
It's always been an explanation for language acquisition, that has not changed in the slightest.

>Originally, 'Universal Grammar' was supposed to be 'a generative grammar hardwired into the human brain'. Obviously, no such thing exists, but Chomskyite cultists would never admit that Great Leader was fucking wrong and a fucking snakeoil salesman.
I'm not convinced you know what that means.

>> No.3653520

>>3653261
he's a market socialist

>> No.3653526

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZOK0XEOEVI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRCwXZX5WzY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHU2AVcK5l8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68wFDvTBHys
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkZSmCe_u78

>> No.3653550

>>3653307
What, he should have guilt trips that he doesn't starve every day?

He's a pro good at his job, he is educating people in hi speciality and in his spare time he is educating himself and others about the current situation on this ssorry planet.

>> No.3653552
File: 582 KB, 3259x1922, DhkuL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3653552

>>3653520
>he's a market socialist
Ha ain't that, foo. He be socialist libertarian (aka proper anarchist), yo.

>> No.3653555

>>3653526
reported for CP

>> No.3653570

>>3653124
>>3653124
>>3653124
>damage caused by welfare, social services

I lol'd

>> No.3653572

>>3653129
cf wittgenstein?