[ 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: 44 KB, 641x400, ChumpvsSlav.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3884478 No.3884478 [Reply] [Original]

It's scientist versus philosopher; linguist versus psychoanalyst; modernist versus postmodernist; socialist versus marxist. If these two social critics were to go at it who would come out the victor? Which one truly understands the political and ethical dilemmas of our times? It's a /phil/ fight. Pick a side fanbrats, pretentious versus edginess.

Chomsky draws first blood. Will Zizek retaliate?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1dJbqdG_UM

>> No.3884481

Zizek easily.

>> No.3884483

Chomsky easily.

>> No.3884488

this is a terrible premise for a thread

really bad even by shitposting standards

>> No.3884489

Apparently Chumpsky has a history of bad blood against the likes of Zizek. Does bitterness make this old chump immortal?

http://critical-theory.com/noam-chomsky-calls-jacques-lacan-a-charlatan/

>I’ve dipped into what they write out of curiosity, but not very far, for reasons already mentioned: what I find is extremely pretentious, but on examination, a lot of it is simply illiterate, based on extraordinary misreading of texts that I know well (sometimes, that I have written), argument that is appalling in its casual lack of elementary self-criticism, lots of statements that are trivial (though dressed up in complicated verbiage) or false; and a good deal of plain gibberish.

~Chumpsky 1995

>> No.3884495

chomsky is a scientismic sheep

>> No.3884498

>>3884488
>can't into philosophical debate
>MUH PREMISES

>> No.3884516

>>3884495
>scientismic
Why do you people feel the need to use words no one has heard of? Its like you're kind are against rationalism in favor of invention.

WTF?

>> No.3884519

>>3884478
Since when was Zizek a philosopher?

>> No.3884534

>>3884519
Since he got a Ph. D. in Philosophy at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. What cave have you been living in?

http://www.egs.edu/faculty/slavoj-zizek/biography/

>> No.3884553

>>3884478
>It's scientist versus philosopher

No. Its philosopher X philosopher.

Chomsky is a cognitive scientist, at best. He is known for the most part for his linguistics, but his theories are seen by most linguists as unrealistic.

>> No.3884559

>>3884553

>denies that Chomsky is a scientist
>proceeds to describe him as a scientist

>> No.3884560

I agree with >>3884488
This is a pathetic attempt to construct a significant thread out of a small segment of an interview with Chomsky.

To rebut some of the implicit propositions of your OP:
Chomsky is a philosopher and linguist, not a scientist. Second of all, it would be ideologically impossible for these two men to "go at it", as you say, as Chomsky points out in the very video you link to - their philosophical positions, even their dialectical procedures, are so different from each other they would literally have nothing meaningfully argumentative to say to each other. They would just continually beg the question out of each other's position and approach.

You are a moron and an asshole. Please leave /lit/.

>> No.3884569

>>3884560

>Chomsky is not a science

Linguistics is a science.

>> No.3884575

>>3884569

Well shit, obviously I meant 'scientist'.

>> No.3884577

Zizek: why do science when theory has disproven it?
Chomsky: why do theory when it has no proof?

>> No.3884579

>>3884560

Did you watch the video? Chomsky doesn't think he and the Continentals have 'different positions', he says they don't have any positions or substantial theories at all. That's the premise: whether Lacan, Derrida etc really are as vacuous as they are made out to be by the Anglo tradition.

>> No.3884584

>>3884575
In the broad sense in which mathematics is a science and in which there is no good reason to prevent even philosophy from being a science, yes. In the strict sense of being a rigorous empirical study of the natural world, which is what is generally understood by the word "science", no.

>> No.3884586

>>3884478
>zizek
>marxist

try again, pomo boy

>> No.3884587

>>3884579
Yes, I watched the video.

>> No.3884588

>>3884559

What I mean is that "cognitive science" and "linguistics" are just an excuse for people who do not know enough mathematics being able to say that they are scientists.

>> No.3884590

>>3884584

There's no reason to prioritize the strict sense over the broad sense though, and

>which is what is generally understood by the word science

You have no way of backing up this claim. You're basically claiming that your favoured definition of science is correct because it is somehow a priori the correct definition. Which is fallacious.

I know I'm nitpicking, but you're the one that started the autistic 'hurr chomsky isn't a scientist' shit. Well, if that's the case, he isn't a philosopher either.

>> No.3884594

>>3884553
>his theories are seen by most linguists as unrealistic.
generative grammar is still more or less the paradigm in contemporary linguistics

>>3884478
>Zizek
>postmodernist

Zizek is like an arch-modernist (with a few dirty jokes up his sleeve) in a field of postmodernists.


also I had expected Chomsky to do better than the same line analytic phil. has been spewing for years i.e. "muh nonsense" as opposed to actually engaging with ideas.

>> No.3884598

He's right on money (pun intended) about Zizek.

He is not influential, but his whole image is influential. If he didn't have all those 9000 quirks no one would pay attention. Don't kid me for a second to say that pithy little reductive statements about toilets are influential.

He's loved by undergrads only.

>> No.3884599

>>3884588

>if you don't do natural sciences it's because you can't do math

Thanks for reminding me why I usually don't bother with serious discussion on 4chan.

>> No.3884600

>>3884590
Fair enough, what motivated my initial detour into disciplinary semantics was to expose the nonsensical dichotomy presented in the OP used to illustrate the difference between Chomsky and Zizek as "scientist versus philosopher". I'm happy now to lay this nitpicking to rest.

>> No.3884601

>>3884553
You're not making a strong argument. Chomsky is more scientist than philosopher, while Zizek is more philosopher than scientist. Similar but not the same.

You said it yourself Chomsky is a scientist. His Phd. is Linguistics, which is a science like it or not. While it's true Chomsky has studied philosophy, his primary 'field' however is rooted in science. His pragmatic approach of talking about things has always nodded towards a scientific like enquiry.

It's almost opposite with Zizek. He has a Phd. in Philosophy but has also studied psychology which is a science, like it or not. His approach is also pragmatic like Chomsky. But Zizek goes about it differently. His style seems to withdraw from the scientific background and go into a philosophical enquiry.

Both have been recognized in public as being philosophers, but the qualifications of them being called that are radically different. Then again, science in a sense is 'kind' of philosophy. (Before a scientist were originally referred to as Philosophers of Nature)

>> No.3884604

>>3884594

>muh nonsense

So you reject Chomsky's claim that there are in fact no ideas to be found in Lacan, Derrida and Zizek?

>> No.3884606

>>3884594
Why are the nasty, ignorant anglo analytics obliged to care about post-structuralists? It's not like the post-structuralist don't more or less completely dismiss the analytics.

There is nothing more hypocritical than when some continentals scoff at analytics for "not engaging in muh ideas."

>> No.3884609

>>3884600

You probably could have made your point in plain English rather than turning it into a debate about the definition of science. Done.

>> No.3884610

>>3884560
If you're having a hard time understanding the stasis here, you could always ask for clarification instead of acting like pretentious little bitch.

>> No.3884613

>>3884609
> ladies and gentlemen, the continentals!

>> No.3884618

>>3884598
What contemporary philosophers do you think really are influential for their ideas? Don't act like Zizek doesn't know it's an act; whether or not he's "theory for dumb people" (a nice trick of elitism by people supporting Chomsky), it gets people interested in theory. Pervert's Guide to Cinema remains one of the most accessible guides to psychoanalysis, in any event.

>> No.3884620

>>3884606

It isn't hypocrisy because while the Continentals might ignore the analytics, they don't attack them in the way that analytics do the Continentals.

See the Searle v. Derrida debate for an example of a Continental philosopher understanding the analytic's position completely, but without the analytic bothering to do the same in turn.

>> No.3884624

>>3884610
I don't even know what you're talking about. If you wish to reply to one of my posts please either quote me directly or paraphrase one of my points before giving a reply, so I know how it ties in.

>> No.3884626

>>3884606
>why can't we be dumb if they're dumb?
not an excuse but I see your point and agree there should be mutual engagement, where there largely isn't.

>> No.3884627

>>3884626

>>3884604

>> No.3884635

>>3884590
>HUUURRR

But Chumpsky is recognized firstly as a scientist. He built his Phd.'s thesis on the study of Linguistics. His papers in that subject are classified as scientific papers. What naive fandom are you trying to ship here?

>> No.3884637

>>3884635

>linguistics
>science

hurp durp

>> No.3884638

>>3884635

I don't know what your point is here. I'm opposing the other anon's claim that Chomsky isn't a science. Practice reading comprehension.

>> No.3884639

>>3884604
I have never studied Lacan or Derrida, so I can't comment there. Zizek, however, is full of actually insightful (if problematic) ideas. They're not stated on the same plan as the tailored, artificial neatness of analytic philosophy, but that's because they're different ideas. the form changes with the content. It strikes me as really quite dishonest and reprehensible to just dismiss something as nonsense without having even attempted to engage with it. The worst thing you can do is claim the opponent is saying nothing. Even Adorno, who hated Heidegger, blasted Carnap for saying Being and Time said nothing. If the philosopher really is so dangerous, then there is nothing more dangerous than treating their work as gibberish beyond consideration. That's how horrible things pass right under your nose.

>> No.3884643

>>3884637

Linguistics is a science unless you're specifically distinguishing the natural sciences from the social sciences, which we aren't here as the contention is between someone who is involved in the sciences and someone who isn't (Zizek).

>> No.3884644

>>3884638

Shit, meant 'scientist'.

>> No.3884651
File: 23 KB, 282x389, NP.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3884651

>>3884639
>If the philosopher really is so dangerous, then there is nothing more dangerous than treating their work as gibberish beyond consideration. That's how horrible things pass right under your nose.
please let this mean Zizek will become the next Stalin, please
wasn't he in the military at some point? Maybe just for compulsory service but still

>> No.3884653

>>3884639

Why did Adorno hate Heidegger? Just curious.

>> No.3884655
File: 21 KB, 468x402, lelstalin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3884655

>>3884651
let's hope

>> No.3884660

>>3884620
>Searle v. Derrida
Got any citations/references/articles for that debate or just some wiki trash?

>> No.3884663

>>3884653
that's a really long story - Adorno spilled tons of ink critiquing Heidegger. Basically he finds Heidegger positing a transcendence of representational thinking - say a pure experience of the object - which ignores the dialectical mediation of subject and object.

>> No.3884664

>>3884660

I have some secondary literature. Not sure if it's online though.

>> No.3884667

>>3884663

>dialectical

Whenever I see that word my eyes glaze over.

>> No.3884676

>>3884667
so the subject mediates the object (presents conditions for its representation) and the object mediates the subject (objective society conditions subjects' capacities of representation).

>> No.3884709

>>3884663
Personally I find Adorno & Phenomenology metaphysically and ontologically in error for maintaining the distinction between "objective" and "subjective."

>> No.3884711

>>3884709
Or in other words, for their ontological dualism.

>> No.3884712

>>3884711
Otherwise I find Adorno's critique of culture interesting.

>> No.3884717

>>3884709
check out Adorno's "on subject and object." In fact he shows how the distinction between subject and object, considered strictly, is illusory - in fact, dialectically of course, each one contains moments of the other. The "maintenance" is not one of metaphysical deduction but of a representation of the world as it is, which in fact seeks at once to subsume objects under the subject's domination (nature), and to subsume subjects under the domination of an objective society. Dialectics is the state of the world in its wrongness.

>> No.3884723

>>3884717
So he uses an erroneous concept to discuss the erroneous function of society? I wish that were made clear at the outset in prefaces. The introductions I've read not so focused on his semantics and premises, and rather tried to graft relevance onto his works by discussing them re postmodernism or other "movements", which I found a little distasteful if somewhat telling of his inferior standing among the great thinkers.

>> No.3884731

>>3884723
well, he uses a theoretical model which mimes the wrongness of the world, which is to say, of the violence which subject does to object and vice versa, and tries to break through them (by showing their not being complete in-themselves object but the results of historical processes).

>> No.3884745

I can say with certainty that Chomsky has zero understanding of Derrida. At least he avoided mentioning anything about Derrida directly, perhaps he knew that he would be saying something foolish. Derrida himself is AGAINST these "theories". Deconstruction and differance are anti-theory theories. Derrida was for the death of philosophy (Non-Heidegger philosophy at least)

>> No.3884853

>>3884620
Are you fucking kidding me? Derrida does nothing but completely shut down Searle at every instance.

There are points of overlap between the two but Derrida just insisted on showing off deconstruction and scoring debate points. I hope you're trolling because I thought that debate made very clear Derrida's condescension and arrogance towards anything that is not deconstruction.

>>3884660
Don't listen to this guy, he doesn't have a clue. I bet he's one of those guys who insists that Derrida is political.

>> No.3884863

>>3884745
I agree with you that Derrida was for the death of philosophy. He was hoping to see philosophy replaced by deconstruction.

To me deconstruction is just another theory. Because it labels itself as anti-theory does not mean it really is. I don't buy the whole "deconstruction has no method" because it does. That's just the slogan Derrida likes to spout.

Derrida remains trapped inside metaphysics. A good Wittgensteinian reading banishes deconstruction to the dustbin where it belongs.

>> No.3884866

>>3884667
>>3884676
im not really sure if this was a sick burn or a patient explanation

>> No.3884869 [DELETED] 

>>3884676
can't tell if this was a sick burn or a patient explanation or both

>> No.3884893
File: 63 KB, 239x357, adornojung.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3884893

>>3884866
i was trying to patiently explain at that moment - I should hope that I make it clear when I'm just trying to be a dick i.e. "i dialectically mediated ur mum last night"

>> No.3884998

as much as I like Zizek he really doesn't say anything that has content.

The only thing I could repeat that he said that makes sense is how sometimes the media asks the wrong questions, like reducing racism to a problem of tolerance, or reducing the financial crisis to a problem of "greedy bankers"

but overall I can't really repeat any points he makes or find value in them

>> No.3885008

chomsky is right there is no principle or "theory" in continental theory.

It's just gibberish and what-ifs. but there's no substance or method you can apply to deduce anything interesting

anytime they say something true it's also really obvious but just mystified with their stupid jargon

>> No.3885012

>>3884745

chomsky debated french philosophers in the 70s, they had nothing of value to say then, and nothing of value to say now

>> No.3885013

>>3884489
In other words, Chumpsky understands Lacan,but not well enough to go anywhere with it?

>> No.3885014

>>3884478
>everyone loses

>> No.3885015

there's nothing to understand in lacan its just made up bullshit like scientology

>> No.3885016

>read a zizek book
>watch zizek debate

I literally can't recount anything important or use any of the info he presents.

>watch chomsky for 10min
>learn 30 interesting facts and 3 new interesting ideas

Chomsky is coherent and actually has content.

>> No.3885017

>>3884893
>i dialectically mediated ur mum last night
Is that where you fuck her, then she fucks you and you fuck each other

>> No.3885022

>>3884618
Zizek is theory for dumb people. Vulgar jokes have been the humor for "slaves" since at the very least Cicero. It is an attempt to make them think.

>> No.3885024

>>3885016
this is because Chomsky recounts Bathroom Reader factoids with elementary analysis; Zizek requires you to ruminate like a cow where all nights are black and so on

>> No.3885033

Guise. This thread was started by a Randian. Divide and Conquer, right? Resist the impulse.

>> No.3885068

I watched the Foucault-Chomsky debate earlier today, and I have to give it up to my main bromosexual Foucault. Tore Chomsky a new one. Probably why Chomsky is feeling ALL KINDS of indignant towards Zizek and people of his ilk

>> No.3885109

>>3885033
This guy gets it.

>> No.3885127

>>3885068
They end up agreeing on almost every issue. They just come at it from different perspectives. Are you really suggesting Chomsky has a 40 year grudge because of a debate? Please.

>> No.3885131

>>3885068
Was that the Dutch TV one? It has been ages since I've seen that. Baldylocks certainly comes out on top.

>> No.3885132

If god does not exist than
the laws of physics state
that everything is impossible

>> No.3885133

>>3885127
To be fair, though, I'm somewhat of a moron. You ought to have the intellectual prowess to refrain from my unsubstantiated claims

>> No.3885146

>>3885127
its philosophy's beatles vs stones
whenever i watch it it seems like
Chomsky: this is what i think about stuff
Foucault (not responding to the previous statements) : this is what i think about stuff...
Chomsky (not responding to the not rebuttal): this is what i think about stuff cont., etc

>> No.3885165

Zizek calls himself a "materialist Christian."

What's Chomsky?

>> No.3885168

>>3885165
Anarcho-syndicalist

>> No.3885190

>>3885024
>factoids
That's a pretty butthurt way of saying "evidence".

>> No.3885216
File: 451 KB, 640x480, wtfadorno.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3885216

>>3885017
that's where we realize that our identity is constituted by our being penetrated by the other.

so i guess i get pegged. eh.

>> No.3885292

>>3885216
we all get pegged, to be fair

>> No.3885371

Chomsky is a retarded fascist.

>> No.3885394

>>3884478
You're mislabeling Chomsky, first off...
Also, to everyone saying that Chomsky is known mostly for his work in linguistics, you're retarded. That's how he gained prominence in the academic community- he's known now for his critiques of U.S. foreign policy.

>> No.3885421

>>3885371
Explain.

>> No.3885432

>>3885371
anon, I want you to go right up to Chomsky's million-dollar Cape Cod vacation home, which he paid for through hard work with the Department of Defense, and apologize to this upstanding gentleman

>> No.3885528

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=lJtHNEDnrnY#t=198s

>> No.3885561

>>3885432
>anon, I want you to go right up to Chomsky's million-dollar Cape Cod vacation home, which he paid for through hard work with the Department of Defense, and apologize to this upstanding gentleman
A million-dollar house, big deal. Have you heard of inflation, Generation X-Fag?

>> No.3885566
File: 13 KB, 378x378, 1349618253961.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3885566

>Linguistics
>Hard science

>> No.3885571

Chomsky: decent political mind, mostly propaganda
Zizek: fat guy that promotes hedonism

>> No.3885576

>>3885566
>any science
>hard

pick one

>> No.3885578

>>3885571
>has never read either

>> No.3885579

>>3884601

Zizek's degree is in psychoanalysis, not psychology. Psychoanalysis is more like the hermeneutics of mind than the science of mind (of course that's a gross oversimplification, but this is 4chang.com, after all).

>> No.3885582

>>3885571

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

>> No.3885584

>>3885576
This. Western academia is degenerated. Bunch of military nonsense. It's like a containment zone for leftists too. You can promote faggots, but never really question the state capitalist system.

>> No.3885588

>>3885582
Nice debating with you.

>> No.3885605

>>3885584
>but never really question the state capitalist system.

Yes. There certainly is nothing like that going on in the west. Nobody dares.

>> No.3885616

>>3885605
>Yes. There certainly is nothing like that going on in the west. Nobody dares.
They don't. They either go after the state for capitalism, or after capitalism for the state. In fact there is no division. Markets are defined by empires.

>> No.3885628

>>3885584
The Frankfurt school pretty much exhausted it. Now we just need someone to work out a coherent theory and we will have the revolution

lel

>> No.3885638

>>3885628
>The Frankfurt school pretty much exhausted it. Now we just need someone to work out a coherent theory and we will have the revolution
I don't follow. They pretty much exhausted what? Their power in university systems?

>> No.3885647

>>3885605
This.
>>3885616
It isn't that they aren't critical of the state capitalist system,not at all. They simply don't have an answer to it. No matter what they say the underlying problem boils down to "whatcha gunna do?"

>> No.3885663

>>3885647
>No matter what they say the underlying problem boils down to "whatcha gunna do?"
Eh, no, I disagree. I don't participate in the state capitalist American empire. I steal everything while helping others. I'm like Robin Hood or Batman.

All you have to do is not participate and live in the real world. Whereas if you are a university leftist in a track lifestyle, trained to be a proper PC 'activist', obviously you don't know who to function, and have all your creativity blocked.

>> No.3885725

>>3885663
As a personal lifestyle choice, I'm sure that works great.

It isn't an answer,though. You are combating the symptoms and not the disease. Batman never took the crime out of Gotham,catch my drift?

>> No.3885759

>>3885725
>It isn't an answer,though. You are combating the symptoms and not the disease. Batman never took the crime out of Gotham,catch my drift?
You're not supposed to. You're supposed to stop participating in actual crime. What you're talking about is ruling the system in someone else's stead, which of course you cannot do.

What do we do with what?

And there is no answer to -what- question?

Once you have it figured out most critical theorists are paid to justify themselves and that it doesn't make any sense that the government would teach you the proper way to oppose itself the 'answer' is quite simple: do not participate. Ignore the urge.

Someone who did a good job recently: Snowden. He saw a problem, dropped out and called it out.

Otherwise we're in that situation where 'everyone is just doing their job' that we project unto German concentration camps.

>> No.3885767

Chomsky's study can drive policy that actually helps people. Zizek can endlessly masturbate a topic in an entertaining manner without putting any of it to use and that's why Chomsky accuses him of being an actor.

>> No.3885786

>>3885767
>Chomsky's study can drive policy that - in his mind - actually helps people according to his ideological conviction.

ftfy

>> No.3885788

>>3885767
>Chomsky's study can drive policy that actually helps people. Zizek can endlessly masturbate a topic in an entertaining manner without putting any of it to use and that's why Chomsky accuses him of being an actor.
Cultist he has also said about postmodernists.

The endless circles postmodernists get into are egotistic time wasters.

I thought what Zizek said about love and politics had some political application though.

>> No.3885807

>>3885579
Le nope.

Zizek's degree is in Philosophy, he study psychoanalysis under Lacan's daughter. Psychoanalysis is a part of Psychology. Granted by the time he was doing graduate work he was already invested in using psychoanalysis to do philosophy, but that doesn't change the fact psychoanalysis comes out of the science of Psychology. He may have been pointing more towards the theories but that doesn't the field was vacant of experimentations etc.

>> No.3885815

>>3885788
Out of the two of them, the only one to actually make a foray into politics is Zizek. So while Chomsky may claim to be more practical/pragmatic, their actions suggest otherwise.

>> No.3885816

>>3884478
Chomsky got his ass kicked by foucault already. So imagine what would Zizek do to him.

>> No.3885834

>>3885127
Well they agree on the goal which is not difficult for leftists (and besides that non-marxist libertarian leftists), but Foucault shows thoroughly why Chomsky makes it way too much easy with his essentialism and the dangers that lie in it.

>> No.3885846

>>3885759
Nonsense.You obviously feel very strongly about this,though so I won't change your mind.

The government has every reason to want academia to be critical and oppose it. Governments don't survive by constantly resisting ideas, they assimilate and change. They maintain power by being responsive. The academic isn't going to fly off the handle and call for the destruction(what would happen if everyone refused to participate) of something without an alternative. The capitalist world system helps developed nations, and ruthlessly hurts the rest. Without anything though,everything goes to shit.A virtuous system is ideal,but any system is better than no system. If you disagree,with the way the world is currently going, you're likely to get your wish.

Snowden spied on Americans for something like 9 years before he got administrative privileges,meaning access to more valuable information, and dropped out. Hardly admirable.

>> No.3885892

They're both socialists; Chomsky is an anarchist, Zizek a Marxist.

>> No.3885901
File: 154 KB, 453x487, 1344297670725.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3885901

>>3885647
>the underlying problem boils down to "whatcha gunna do?"
probably the wisest position Adorno constantly espoused is that there is a division of labor that needs to be respected between the critic and the revolutionary, that is the practical political actor - for the former to be autonomous and spontaneous, they cannot be beholden to the pragmatic needs of a political situation.

so really you should be hoping for someone else to give you practical coordinates, or, I don't know, figuring it out on your own instead of hoping it'll be handed to you - not chastising the critic for not giving up their theoretical autonomy.

>> No.3885905

>>3885816
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0dM6j7pzQA

>> No.3885915

>>3884600
If you'd listen to the whole interview you'd realize Chumpsky is almost echoing the Logical positivism v. Metaphysics. Historically that old debate is what divorced Science away from Philosophy.

You have to remember when Chumpsky was witnessing the postmodern movement in philosophy he already established his credentials in Linguistic which was freshly considered a Science. Chumpsky's early research has even played a crucial in helping Linguistics get recognized as a Science.

Zizek doesn't have that to his history. He has always been philosopher through and through. But what he does share with Chumpsky is his contributions in academia becoming a springboard for him to procure a celebrity status with the media.

These are two different beast, historical wise. Actively, when they are making remarks about the world around them they are pulling from personal reflection. But that doesn't change the almost dichotomy that is there with their respective backgrounds

At some level this really is Scientist v. Philosopher. True, there is some overlap in some sense but their history keeps them separate.

It's Scientist v. Philospher

>> No.3885941

"Theory" is a meaningless Americanism, used by polemicists when they want to tar all European thinkers with the same brush.

>> No.3885967

>>3885901
I agree. My point was that simply raging against something blindly is no better than following the same thing blindly. Their own personal rebellions aside, the revolutionary without a practical theoretical solution only hurts society as a whole.

>> No.3885971

>>3885846
>The capitalist world system helps developed nations, and ruthlessly hurts the rest.
The American system is more where developing countries are currently gaining something from it, and becoming unpopular in first world countries where people are having trouble buying houses + raising families.

What you are repeating in a way is the same as a systemic line, "feel great you are better off than the inferior dark person in shitstan." In fact I've lived there too.

I would agree with your point about academia, but they criticize the market as a separate entity, they write articles about how this or that tv product is 'sexist', and they deny Western Civilization exists at all through deconstructivism, obfuscating any analysis about its decline and what to do in its absence. This is a big distraction. A state like will not survive and we would argue over whose intellectual has a bigger dick ITT.

One thing you can do is: anything. Will continue due to length.

>> No.3885997

Cont.

>>3885967
>I agree. My point was that simply raging against something blindly is no better than following the same thing blindly. Their own personal rebellions aside, the revolutionary without a practical theoretical solution only hurts society as a whole.

What I am saying is that the 'problem' is that people are dicking around. The only thing people could do is help each other. The system is extremely rotten and in its worse aspects recede when people stop participating in it, such as war making and consumption. Many people are already dropping the partisan dialectic, the need to compete with other people, or simply save their money and move back home.

We are taught a top-down 'revolution' which makes no sense if we are not at the top anyway. If you-general person want to influence other people, the only example is your own to people you know. A nagging voice may say otherwise, but this is the practical application of theory of not dicking around.

>> No.3886006

More importantly how do we fix žižek's nose for him so he doesn't touch it every ten seconds?

>> No.3886011

Where /g/ worships Richard M Stallman, toejam eater, /lit/ worships Zizek.

I wonder what you people /look/ like.

>> No.3886026

>>3885967
>raging against something blindly is no better than following the same thing blindly.

well, blind rage is not critique. The path to a solution can only be ascertained as a reaction to a clearly perceived problem - and I don't think it's a stretch to say: not many people perceive the problem, let alone think about it.

>> No.3886058

>>3885971
>>3885997

We both should have been more specific on who it helps. The semi-periphery benefits at the moment. It's a broken ass system anyways.

The distraction is necessary. The old blood that makes the arguments you described are simply trying to keep the proles from mindlessly tearing everything down. It's broken and they want to put as much distance between it and the rest of the "system" as they can. Isolating the problem area serves a more analytical purpose as well.

Old blood academia can't fix the problem,they are already too associated. They are being critical while supporting what they spent their lives working on. Even if they offered a solution, it wouldn't be fairly considered.

They've set the stage,but the real problem is that people THINK that people are simply dicking around. Consider what you said about how the only example is your own. What if everyone of the intellectual persuasion is simply leading by example,and we are cursed with ignorance of our shared goal by perspective?

>> No.3886089

>>3886058
I'm not saying all people are dicking around; most good acts won't be televised. I do think most academicians are, which is why my original post was a complaint about American education.

The example put forth by academicians is that you can basically think and argue your way out of material, worldly concerns, and yes that impacts people, negatively of course, and that you should absolutely do this till the world rots.

The modern ideology is that of having the right opinion over creating things and assisting others (actions). This is of course very conductive to mindless statism as we are supposed to only view morality as something which has to be synchronised with a mandate.

The overall motif seems to be that we all have to become superpowerful dictators that can force everyone else to do good things.

>> No.3886143
File: 8 KB, 125x190, 112341551.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3886143

>>3884534

what a fucking joke

a PHD in philosophy doesn't make you a philosopher any more than a PHD in art makes you an artist

eat shit

>> No.3886147
File: 15 KB, 190x216, 1282528256156.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3886147

This thread is the embodiment of everything odious about /lit/

You cannot imagine how much I despise you lot and your endless twaddle

>> No.3886205

>>3886089
Cutting to the chase, you're making the assumption academia is dicking around.

Even if you disagree with my prior explanation, what is to say they aren't simply incompetent? If they can't fix the problem, the best they can possibly do is try and keep everything from falling apart and set the stage for a solution.

In my opinion,what you are noticing is the death throes of the noble lie. Stressing a "right" view point is the only thing hiding that it may not be working out well.

Why? If they let things really start to breakdown,it becomes out of everyone's hands. When you have a revolution or the old system breaks down(people stop believing in it), you don't get to determine the result.The people find a new master they can believe in, and usually is a pretty nasty process. Ask the French or the H.R.E

Have a little faith. Doesn't matter what they do, one way or another they are the past. The student above anyone else is best suited to correct the mistakes of the past and the teacher.

>> No.3886262

>>3886205
>Even if you disagree with my prior explanation, what is to say they aren't simply incompetent?
I didn't say they weren't incompetent. Bureaucracy rewards incompetence. And currently, cheaters. I don't even know why we're still talking about academia. They're not an actual elite. They're just placeholders for nerds, while the jocks listen to football analysis.

>you don't get to determine the result.The people find a new master they can believe in, and usually is a pretty nasty process. Ask the French or the H.R.E
I don't think any of this is necessarily true because America is a particularly democratic culture with next to no inclination towards leader-worship. In fact, we tend to scapegoat figureheads.

That's why our intellectual 'leaders' are whoever can be the biggest critic and sound smart.

And for the last time, they are the problem. They can fix their being the problem by fucking off.

>> No.3886265

>>3885815
Oh, you mean as a candidate for the Liberal Democratic party? This is the self proclaimed radical marxist?

Bu-But he was still a Communist at heart. What a joke.

>> No.3886273

>>3884534
>Ph.D in Philosophy
>Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy

>> No.3886290

>>3886262
I really like you. I'm trying to follow your argumentation and, admittedly, it's a bit over my head, but do go on.

>> No.3886301
File: 192 KB, 550x359, foucaulta46.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3886301

I've seen both Chomsky and Zizek speak, and read their books (more Chomsky then Zizek admittedly).

tbh Zizek is quite full of shit, even though I like him. He has not had a single original idea: everything he says is straight from Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Lacan, Freud, or Hegel. He applies the ideas of those thinkers to mostly trivial cultural events. He's good for people getting into philosophy, he introduces some nice ideas and makes it cool to think which is great.

I disagree with Chomsky's scientism, but it is understandable and probably even endorsable given that his no-theory approach has had a massive practical effects in political organisation and raised the general consciousness of historical and political issues amongst people around the world.

Chomsky vs Foucault would be a much fairer and fruitful battle: to evaluate the effects of Chomsky's critique of state and corporate power for political greater freedom, as oppose to Foucault's re-evaluation of the multiple technologies of power in fields as diverse as law, medicine, sexuality, etc. in order to see whether we can deploy power in new and less repressive ways. I think they are both good, but people usually fall into one camp or the other (or the camp which denies them both for the "red pill"...)

>> No.3886313

>>3886262
I know you didn't say they are incompetent. I was going on without requiring you to concede my point. Offering one of many possible explanations. Like I said, you feel strongly and I won't change your mind. I'm still enjoying the conversation.

>I don't think any of this is necessarily true because America is a particularly democratic culture with next to no inclination towards leader-worship.

...Really? Nobody ever uses the "Founding Fathers" in a way that indicates they are special and to be revered? Compare how many presidents were either prominent members of the revolution, share a last name, or were war heroes? You want to really see scapegoating figureheads? Look at the democratic nations amongst the developing world, a non-revolutionary leader incumbent rarely survives.

They will fuck off,and the problem will still be there either way.

>> No.3886350

>>3886301

I'm not sure that Chomsky really advocates scientism. He readily admits that science isn't appropriate for complex social problems, and acknowledges that his commitment to anarchism is a brute one.

>> No.3886360

>>3886313
No one I know. But the FF are respected because they instituted a form of political liberalism. When Sarah Palin was asked which FF she liked the most, she couldn't name any. Think of how many people are like that with their partisanship. I used to check every one of my opinions/lines with Ayn Rand cuz ideologue.

And yeah I see the scapegoating currently, from Bush to just random celebrities the American public consumes like the games of Rome.

The Anglo-American cast you're talking about was of course in charge as a collective but the presidency never had as much power until FDR. Which is again why the Founders were respected to begin with. We have an elite but we like to pretend we don't and we scapegoat figures to that end. Besides, many of these presidents were worshipped only after they were dead, sanitized later like Lincoln, and I didn't confirm it but I suspect the media culture of today is little different than colonial Calvinism.

>> No.3886363

>>3886350
if you pay attention to the debate with Foucault, you'll see the bleedo-ver from the Cartesian cognitive science point of view into his politics i.e. the notion that human beings are hardwired with certain predispositions and requirements which luckily enough means that we're naturally suited for anarcho-syndicalism! thanks neurons!

>> No.3886374

>>3886363

Why is cognitive science necessarily Cartesian? Why does acknowledging hermeneutics mean we have to stop acknowledgin neurology and genetics?

>> No.3886376

>>3886313
>Look at the democratic nations amongst the developing world, a non-revolutionary leader incumbent rarely survives.

Here you're probably right but when I think of the developing world and their figures, they generally aren't torn down like American ones are. I'll give you the example of Pistorius in South Africa. Manslaughtered his girlfriend, still considered a hero to paraplegics in SA, while the American press tried to turn him into one of their celebrity villains
The reason I mention this is that Americans have very little ability to swarm around one guy in a Caesarist fashion. There is endless division and by now the demographics are even complicating any chance of 'potential fascism' or Jacobin mob

I think maybe the place we do have venerable figures is in pulp fiction because that is one place it can survive, because it's supposed to be bottom. But our literary culture is very critical otherwise.

>> No.3886381

>>3886374
Cartesian in the sense of viewing the mind as harboring innate predispositions.

and I nowhere implied the halt of neurological explanation - but it has its limits, and Chomsky clearly oversteps them by finding his ideal of justice in some psychological disposition.

>> No.3886384

>>3886381
that is, Chomsky explicitly links his project to Cartesian rationalism (cf. Cartesian Linguistics)

>> No.3886389

>>3886384

So he's failing to recognise the is-ought problem in the same way that Sam Harris does?

>> No.3886397

>>3886389
no, not really. he's just trying to derive social imperative from apparent psychological facts, which can be dangerous if it ignores that such imperatives are historical precipitates (which is Foucault's point, I take it).

>> No.3886404

>>3884478
>Zizek
Cripes

>> No.3886408

>human nature

>> No.3886423

>>3886408

>hurr I can question what words mean

Humans behave in predictable ways and there is a basis for this predictability. Deal with it faggot.

>> No.3886427

>>3886408
>socially constructed

>> No.3886431

>>3886423
>that basis for predictability is intrinsic

>> No.3886438

>>3886431

>number of times I've claimed anything is 'intrinsic'
>0

Yep, you're a faggot.

>> No.3886447

>>3886431
We prefer less assuming, more rigorous, more thorough, more precisely defined, and more directly supported theories because to prefer otherwise is willful ignorance. Nothing, really, is "intrinsic", but we'll still use the word where it's readily intelligible in contexts other than epistemology. Begone with your pedantry.

>> No.3886452

>>3886438
>human nature
>the nature of humans
>the nature of all humans
>the thing that all humans are like, deep down inside
>the intrinsic nature of humans
>humanity
>all humanity
>their nature
>intrinsically meaning Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing
>essential nature
>human nature
>actually fucking around with the definition of a concept to suit your insane internet arguments

>> No.3886459

>>3886447
>a human nature that is not, strictly speaking, the nature of humans
>what's the fucking point
>why can't we use other psychological concepts to discuss this predictability
>why does it have to be totalizing

>> No.3886461

>>3886452

>being an autistic literalist
>not realising that the meanings of words change with context

>> No.3886462

>>3886459
What the fuck are you even on about?

>> No.3886465

>>3886461
human nature is definitely not one of those morphed terms

>> No.3886468

>>3886363

as despicable as that seems, i think there's a grain of truth in it. we all have 5 fingers, we're all human, we all like to be free of domination, we all need to express ourselves, we all need to be in society/social relations with others, etc. i think you can build basic political premises from these things and judge a system or phenomenon which denies these things as bad.

>> No.3886475

>>3886468
>we all like to be free of domination
lel

>> No.3886478

>>3886468

>we all like to be free of domination

So much modernist brainwashing.

There is a plethora of human instincts that like nothing better than to SERVE, that can only find fulfillment in life through slavish devotion to another person, or a party, an ideology, a cause, etc.

>> No.3886481

Wittgenstein for understanding language, and fuck off with your wiki-pasted citations that his later work nullifies the Tractatus. Those citation trails never end with actual arguments anyways. Nietzsche for understanding life. Schopenhauer and Baudrillard for further reading on understanding society.

>> No.3886487
File: 32 KB, 682x400, 207vrk0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3886487

>>3886481

>Schopenhauer for society
>not metaphysics

>> No.3886492

>>3886481

Sup Icy

>> No.3886494
File: 51 KB, 814x500, 1309205348757.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3886494

>>3886487
>metaphysics
Made obsolete by Wittgenstein.

>> No.3886498

>>3886481
>fuck off with your wiki-pasted citations that his later work nullifies the Tractatus
go to bed Cora Diamond

>> No.3886499

>>3886478
>>3886475

there's a difference between finding meaning by contributing to or sacrificing oneself to a structure greater than oneself, and being a slave under an unjust political organisation. yes, there is always the impulse (instinctual or not) towards the former, but always the impulse against the latter. (perhaps it gets tricky if we bring sex into it, but i think sexual desire for domination is probably an admittance of the need for un-dominated relations outside of sex)

>> No.3886501

>>3886492
que

>> No.3886510
File: 22 KB, 195x195, 1342817793900.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3886510

>>3886494

Go read Fourfold Root again you casual

>> No.3886518

>>3886499

It's integral to female sexuality

I'd explain it's origin here but I really don't give enough of a fuck.

>> No.3886522

>>3886499
i thought /lit/ dug pynchon

>> No.3886526

>>3886518

perhaps, but only in the bedroom. (and even there its questionable: you would be dismissing the mechanics of seduction and the way power shifts so fluidly in situations of domination.)

>> No.3886529

>>3886494
In the same way that Ptolemy made the Sun obsolete.

>> No.3886549
File: 15 KB, 420x420, SalvadorDali.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3886549

>>3886526

In affairs of sexuality, woman wants to feel herself overtaken, overwhelmed; at bottom, claimed and forcefully possessed. But we with our bad eyes understand by these impulses the desire to be dominated, which is something else.

>> No.3886552

>>3886510
>>3886529
Really the obsolescence of "metaphysics" as a concept saw the beginning of the end in Hume. There is nothing other than the universe. The universe is everything that is the case. Everything else, including the value systems by which we rank axioms like the above, are best described as aesthetic judgments.

>> No.3886559

>>3886549

do you even Baudrillard? as soon as you reach the apex of domination over her you have already been reversed and have become dominated yourself. positions of power in sex are never clear or static, slave and master constantly flip so that it is impossible to tell who is commanding who, whence the fun of it. Kierkegaard was already the loser in the first page of Diary of a Seducer: he was already seduced by the one he seduced.

>> No.3886560
File: 27 KB, 550x371, 1288891643818.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3886560

>>3886552

Nothing like good old-fashioned materialism.

>> No.3886563

>>3886559
>Baudrillard

I'm sorry, who?

>> No.3886564

>>3886552

your post looks shit and is therefore wrong

>> No.3886571

>>3886563
An idiot.

>> No.3886572
File: 44 KB, 250x250, 1326138270451.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3886572

>>3886559

bro i dunno about all this philosophy shit but I'm pretty sure that when I have the bitch face down with her hands locked behind her back and bust in her ass I'm the one in charge

>> No.3886575

>>3886563

French and therefore irrelevant (aren't they all?)

>> No.3886576

>>3886487
>metaphysics

But we have science to help us work out what things are made of.

>> No.3886578

>>3886572

nope. you think so but that's why she gets off: she secretly coaxes you to do this or that with a certain jiggle or look in the eye, while you think it was all your choice to dominate her to begin with. she relishes the position and gets the double satisfaction of being both slave and master.

>> No.3886579

>>3886576

stay in your little bubble and keep working away

>> No.3886584

>>3886578

Slave and master are mutually exclusive, but I can see you're going to keep spitting twaddle at me, so I'm not going to argue with you.

>> No.3886585

>>3886584

nope

>> No.3886591

>>3886559
Incorrect. Identifying the dominant party in a genealogical sense is not ambiguous. But the seducer within the seduction, much like a player within a game, is still trapped in the closed system of the rules. The seducer may very well be the dominant cog in the clock, but is still but one part in the machine.

>> No.3886594

>>3886585

Gallomania is unbecoming of a philosopher living today. The French have thoroughly disgraced themselves over the past 200 years and ought not to be given parlance anywhere

>> No.3886598

>>3884478
I haven't studied Zizek's work in depth, but everything that I have consumed of his seems to be paralyzing rather than motivating. Not that the truth or right move is always dictated by the previous or the latter, but it seems to be very fashionable to think sound intelligent rather than act and try to change something and risk having your ideas put to the fire. What is it to be anything if you just sit at your table and drink coffee while binding everyone with your words so they don't do anything either. You can all just circle jerk while the world burns.

>> No.3886599
File: 32 KB, 250x272, 5763428843_ce57f1f3a9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3886599

>Communism

>> No.3886602

>>3886598

His philosophy is catatonic. A disciple would be paralyzed under the weight of his own abstractions, as you say. Zizek belongs to a long line of impotent philosophers. One could even say he is among the castrated caste.

>> No.3886606

>>3886598
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgR6uaVqWsQ

>> No.3886607

>>3886591
I agree with this sentiment. The one person allowed themselves to be seduced as much as the other seduced them thus being equally in "fault".

>> No.3886617

Started liking Zizek until I heard him defend censorship because MUH FEELS

never again listening to that sweatpig

>> No.3886623

>>3886607

'In fault'? For what?

>> No.3886629

This thread is controlled by the JIDF. Sage this shit.

>> No.3886633

>>3886598
This is why many Communists, especially Maoists constantly harp on about "self-criticism" If your ideas can not be put to the test and criticized, then shut the fuck up.

Mao covered this a bit in Combat Liberalism:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_03.htm

And quite a bit here in quotations:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/ch27.htm

My biggest problem with Zizek is that he likes to play devils advocate instead of actually inspiring people to change. His views on modern China where he basically praises it for being the peak of Capitalism, because it successfully merged Communist propaganda with the most exploitative capitalism seen in the world and essentially we should just 'deal with it'.

Zizek is only a Communist because as he has said himself, a Communist is simply a person that looks for a third way. (in a dialectical sense)

>> No.3886635

>>3884478
>It's scientist versus philosopher; linguist versus psychoanalyst; modernist versus postmodernist; socialist versus Marxist
So its barely anything worth mentioning?

Sort of unrelated but still related: Marx was wrong. Its true. Get over it. Find someone else that appeals to your emotions.

>> No.3886636

>>3886617
>defend censorship because MUH FEELS

i dont think you grasped his defense. he's a crypto-stalinist. censorship would be for political reasons, not feelings

>> No.3886644

>>3886598
>motivating
>expecting zizek to tell you how to overthrow the state and replace capitalism

do you even read? or do you just watch videos on youtube? his first book posits the subject as a void. what is there to expect from here? he's a lacanian psychoanalyst, but you want him to tell you how to participate in radical politics, what intellectual positions to take in order to impress your friends, vote in a plebescite, what to write in an email to your elected officials or something like this?

please get wrecked

>> No.3886651

>>3886644

It's because one can't possibly have any agency in the domain of politics today without being an actual politician

>> No.3886652

>>3886635
descriptive marxism ≠ normative marxism

descriptive marxism is basically the idea that the economy is the primary causal factor in social organization and historical development.

>> No.3886653

>>3886633
I agree with that sentiment, but at the same time I cannot accept the sentiment and attitude expressed in the Combat Liberalism link. It sounds like the attitude of /pol/ decided applied to a more left-wing authoritarian base. In fact, it sounds almost exactly like someone took notes from fascism. I think I'd actually prefer Zizek's philosophy of inaction to this, though I find them both repulsive.

>> No.3886654

Chomsky is, at least in the last years, advocating for a quasi social-democratic cause, a new kind of social regulation that enables the political engagement of those paralyzed by their current material conditions. In spite of what he defended ~30 years ago, around his famous Foucault debate, I think that calling him a anarchist is a little bir over the edge.

Zizek maintains his communist ideas, at least since his "Sublime Objetct...". He has gone from a standart heideggerian philosopher to a full marxist, dealing with ideology as a fundamental point of capital reproduction.

Their development as thinkers follows a kind of opposite path of moderation/radicalism. For me, the best way to trace patterns between their ideas is to follow this development.

>> No.3886657
File: 13 KB, 200x200, 1320367946176.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3886657

>>3886652

Trying telling that to Alexander or Napoleon

>> No.3886658

I honestly don't know how anyone takes either of them seriously with regards to politics except as an intellectual exercise. They're in a different reality.

>> No.3886660

>>3886657
>implying that Napoleon wasn't able to take his position because of chaos that stemmed from economic turmoil. Being this new at history.

>> No.3886661

How long until Zizek critiques Tumblr and social justice?

>> No.3886663

>>3886661

As soon as Judith Butler talks about tumblr, Zizek will say something on the subject.

>> No.3886664

>>3886658
I actually think Noam Chomsky is much more grounded than Zizek. He actually provides useful information, theories, and evidence to back up those theories. They aren't exclusive to his ideology, however. This is part of why he is so popular. He isn't a man with the end goal in mind so much as a man who looks at the world and critiques it based on a certain set of social values, many of which are universally shared.

>> No.3886666

>>3886661
low hanging fruit is low hanging fruit.
It is just a matter of time.

>> No.3886668

>>3886661
Never. They represent the same kind of metapolitic that he does.

>> No.3886671

>>3886660

How long till you graduate unibabby?

>> No.3886674

>>3886657
my mistake; you are right to use those counterpoints. marx writes about capitalism. descriptive marxism would then be limited to 19thc and on. one might try to make a case for mercantilism as a kind of proto-capitalism from the 17thc but thats iffy.

>> No.3886681

>>3886661
not tumblr, but he criticized multiculturalism--which is basically social justice--before criticizing multiculturalism was cool

>1997

http://www.opa-a2a.org/dissensus/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/ZIZEK_Slavoj_Multiculturalism_or_the_Cultural_Logic_of_Multinational_Capitalism.pdf

>> No.3886682

If it looks like this thread went to shit, it's because it was linked on /pol/

FuckthisthreadI'moutofhere.pdf

>> No.3886683

>>3884639
>tailored, artificial neatness of analytic philosophy

The word you want is clarity.

>> No.3886684

How intellectually dishonest is Chomsky? His "critique" is on the same level of something you'd find on this board. I just lost a lot of respect for him.

>> No.3886685

>>3886682
moot really needs to delete that cancer. He calls it a containment board, but it spreads to fucking everything else. The bastards can't stay on their own damn board.

>> No.3886688

>>3886658
Most academic political talk is just intellectual masturbation.

>> No.3886691

>>3886688
damn right. all i need is my copy of the constitution

>> No.3886697

>>3886684
Don't be an idiot. What he is saying is true. How many scientific breakthroughs and discoveries have their been using postmodernism? Science is the only way that we have now to discover knowledge of the world. Zizek and the rest of the Postmodernists propound nonsense.

>> No.3886702
File: 15 KB, 256x207, claudepeck_1297290169_johnb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3886702

>>3886697
>how many scientific breakthroughs do we get from non-science
>tfw

>> No.3886703

>>3886691
No, what you need is money.

>> No.3886704

>>3886697
Zizek is not a postmodernist, sweetie.

>> No.3886707
File: 41 KB, 300x400, inthetrashitgoes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3886707

>postmodernist; socialist versus marxist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaO69CF5mbY

>> No.3886710

>>3886697
You only think I'm an idiot because you've emotionally attached yourself to your argument and I'm disagreeing with you.

He isn't "saying" anything. He's using his influence to lazily dismiss another thinker and people will lap it up even though he critiqued absolutely nothing about Zizek's actual work. It's Chomsky's dismissal that lacks any substance. "They use big words. They're posturing." How dim.

>> No.3886726

>>3886710
So you dismiss science? How many diseases have been cured by postmodernism? How many technological breakthroughs have been brought about by postmodernism?

>> No.3886729

>>3886702
top lel

>> No.3886734

>>3886726
the advancement of society and culture in general

>> No.3886747

>>3886734
Specifics.

>> No.3886750

>>3886726
No, I don't dismiss science. It's something to rejoice, but you have to be careful to note your own biases when discussing it. Your question sneaks in the assumption that in order for anything to be worthwhile, it has to have technological application. That's a philosophical position and one that I disagree with.

Scientific breakthroughs are themselves neutral, but their implementation depends on a host of things that aren't scientific at all (culture, power structure, etc.). And science isn't at a point where it can analyze those things as well as theory can.

>> No.3886752

>>3886734
>postmodernism
>the advancement of society and culture in general
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7viHhfACRAY&t=2m15s

>> No.3886754

>>3886747
it's an intentionally vague point

>> No.3886757

>>3886726
Usually with Feyerabend and a blow job.

>> No.3886763

>>3886754
Yes, you are being vague intentionally to avoid criticism. You are not being vague because it is some edgy way of making people think and see things differently.

>> No.3886801

>>3886763
it's best for you to keep in mind that i'm a trillion times smarter than you. and that i haven't read any posts in this thread except for yours

notice how i redirected your question? your questions were obviously misguided and rhetorical. therefore edge god had to step in with the rhetorical correction of your mistakes. postmodernism is credited with opening many layers of subjectivity in the philosophical, socio-cultural, and intellectual landscapes. this progression of ideas, in tandem with the ever-changing flux of time, life, and science and technology itself, opens up to all these glorious enlightenment things that you honestly probably can't understand lmao

so i'm not about to name specifics. honestly it's a more personal thing anyway but it still takes precedence over whatever your argument is in terms of objective reality and facts

>> No.3886808

>>3886801
also the age we're in now is more modern than postmodern anyway....thanks to postmodernism

>> No.3886818

>>3886682

>implying they understand any of this except the shitposting

>> No.3886819

>>3886801

Grad AAA shitposting

I hope you stay here and rot the rest of your life. Intellectually castrated clown

>> No.3886883

>>3886801
top lel. Got checkmated with an honest question and all you could come up with is
>muh intelligence

Most readers of postmodernist texts, when asked to explain these texts, will typically respond with this obscurantist bull shit because they themselves have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. They will also, in an attempt to defend themselves, claim that the critic isn't intelligent enough to understand, or is not patient enough. This is tantamount to an individual who can't defend his Christian Bible saying that the atheist needs to accept the religion and let the Holy Spirit guide him to the truth.

The sad fact is that, like feminists, you have accepted course material that is targeted towards indoctrinating you simply because it is accepted scholarship by practitioners in the field of this particular inquiry without an ounce of criticism.

If you were at all as intelligent as you imply, then you would have majored in the hard sciences that require advanced math.

>> No.3886892

>>3886883
Nice, but include a critique of the actual content of postmodern texts next time.

>> No.3886906

>>3886892
Answer the question. What diseases has postmodernism cured and what scientific breakthroughs is it responsible for? Pretty simple question. If you asked someone defending science these same questions they would have a whole list going back centuries.

>> No.3886910

>>3886906
I already answered but you ignored it: >>3886750

>> No.3886911

>>3886883
muh intelligence is the whole point. i just explained this. my glory is infinite

>you have accepted course material that is targeted towards indoctrinating you
i start college in september. should b cool

>> No.3886913

>>3886906
How many diseases has astronomy cured?

>> No.3886921

>>3886883
>If you were at all as intelligent as you imply, then you would have majored in the hard sciences that require advanced math.
>If you were intelligent, you would have majored in an area where there is no jobs and a massive oversatuation of graduates

Cool story

http://theconversation.com/a-bubble-about-to-burst-why-we-dont-need-more-maths-and-science-graduates-15007

>> No.3886931

>>3886906

all of them, because they don't exist

chkm8 dumbcunt

>> No.3886963

>>3886576
>But we have science to help us work out what things are made of.

Lmao.

>> No.3887020

>>3886921
He's talking about the intellectual rigor required of hard sciences which the humanities, at least in this day and age, seem to lack.

Getting a degree in anything else practically means your good at fuck all other than sucking dick.

>> No.3887024

Chomsky already had his ass handed to him by Foucault in the 80's.

>> No.3887029

Where the hell is this conversation taking place? Is Chomsky in carbonite?

>> No.3887035

>>3887020

Tell me more about philosophy lacking intellectual rigor.

Then do the same for history and linguistics.

>> No.3887037

So in /lit/ philosophy is just continental philosophy, right?

>> No.3887039

>>3887037

Wrong.

>> No.3887041

>>3887037
No, we all worship Wittgenstein here.

>> No.3887042

>>3887020
>Getting a degree in anything else practically means your good at fuck all other than sucking dick.

This is so fucking sad. And it's not just this anon, it's so many fucking people nowadays. Equating what degree you go for with what "your" good at is the kind of lazy, presumptuous thinking you should have been taught to avoid in high school.

>> No.3887045

>>3887042
This.

>Icecoldburn.jpeg

>> No.3887046

>>3887042

Fetishism of science is a symptom. In my time posting on /lit/ I haven't seen anyone discuss the cause. Which is why these attitudes proliferate.

>> No.3887052

>>3887046
Yeah, nah, it is fedoras spouting that shit. None of them have done any research training in a disciplinary humanity. Scientists don't fall for that shit.

>> No.3887060

>>3884553

>He is known for the most part for his linguistics, but his theories are seen by most linguists as unrealistic.

Any more tales from bizarro land?

>> No.3887078

>>3887060
All linguists (except for perhaps in the USA) think that Chomsky's theory on universal linguistics is shit.

>> No.3887085

>>3887046

Power has shifted to the sciences, so naturally people will flock under that umbrella in order to get some of that perceived dominance. "Ooh, he can do math, he's smart!"

There's also this trend of trying to formalize success: get an engineering degree and you'll be guaranteed (lol) a good job and a decent salary. With a decent salary, you'll find love and won't be lonely anymore. Women hear it, too. "He doesn't have a good job? He isn't making ___k per year? How are you going to use him as a plinth to elevate your own status?"

Question is, why are THESE things happening?

>> No.3887103

>>3887078
There are plenty of universities in places other than the USA whose linguistic departments are tyrannized by Chomskyanists

>> No.3887120

Shame Chomsky never debated Milton Friedman

Boy would Friedman have slaughtered that poor soul