/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4188609]

Suck on this you posturing charlatans.

[Anonymous No.4188621]

>>4188609
On what does he base this statement?

[Anonymous No.4188617]

>>4188609
Plain English is a vague term.

[Anonymous No.4188623]

>"Clarity of text is the sole incontrovertible sign of the maturity of an idea."

Left and right can agree on this.

[Anonymous No.4188628]

Chomsky's a pretty cool dude, but his shit flinging with people like Zizek and Foucault reflect poorly on him.

[Anonymous No.4188630]

>>4188621
Decades of experience in academia, I presume.

[Anonymous No.4188660]

This is easily refuted if you look at recent legal practices. There has been a move to "plain english" legislative drafting in Australia. The point was to make laws easier to understand and apply by getting rid of the archaic terms in which they were historically framed and using apparently uncontroversial words/framing. But when these new "plain english" laws came to the courts they found that they could be just as ambiguous as the old laws. The judges found that meaning is never "plainly" stated, but is always the product of interpretation. So "plain english" is a bullshit term to mask the necessary complexity of language.

[Anonymous No.4188699]

>>4188609
Can Chomsky explain what plain English is and can he explain why all ideas have to be explained in plain English?

[Anonymous No.4188708]

But Joe Sixpack on the street wouldn't be able to comprehend Chomsky, so what's he jabbering on about plain English for?

[Anonymous No.4188712]

>>4188630
So it's anecdotal?

[Anonymous No.4188717]

>trusting language

lol

[Anonymous No.4188737]

>>4188609
>mon fishage quant the cunt doesn't realise that without people transcending the plain language of their time there wouldn't be the thing he now calls plain english in the first place

[Anonymous No.4188742]

>>4188737
Yes, we all know Chomsky's political contributions are vacuous and the worst thing to happen to Anarchist political thought since Woodcock's death.

You don't need to say it. We all agree.

[Anonymous No.4188752]

>>4188699
Uh isn't the latter basically summed up as
>Humans have innate language capability, as evidenced by the poverty of stimulus.
>Poverty of stimulus: that gap between the total language we are exposed to and the total language we can produce.
>If grammars are innately preorganized, them the case could be made that human societal structures are as well, hence anarcho-syndicalism.
Lacan could learn a thing or two from this sort of logical clarity.

[Anonymous No.4188754]

>>4188609
But Chomsky is a great author of political books

[Anonymous No.4188770]

>>4188742
Doesn't hurt to make sure.

[Anonymous No.4188784]

>>4188742
He hasn't really contributed to anarchist political thought and hasn't intended to. He makes political struggles better known and writes a bit on how the ruling class effectively functions, that's it.

[Anonymous No.4188803]

>>4188609

Jesus Christ, /lit/ is a board full of fucking idiots that can't tell their asses from their faces.

Do you ever look up quotes or verify what you are told? I'm guessing not, because obsession with made-up shit like literature panders to those that memorize by rote and are incapable of forming their own complex ideas.

The quote is fake you troglodytes.

[Anonymous No.4188816]

>>4188803
I'm pretty sure I recall him saying so. Even if he didn't verbatim say it, he has doubtlessly wrote things to that effect.

[Anonymous No.4188822]

>>4188784
Chomsky hegemonises left political discourse with trite works out of date as of the 1945 which would fit at home better in the pre-1930 CPUSA.

Chomsky is systematically retarding leftist political through with his emphasis on bourgeois states rather than on proletarian self-activity.

The standards employed, in a disciplinary sense, in Chomsky's political works are pre 1930s. They're actually worse methodologically than Hammond and Hammond's Town Labourer and Village Labourer.

Chomsky's political works are retarding hack jobs of no disciplinary merit. As such Chomsky is directly retarding the revolution.

[Anonymous No.4188841]

>>4188822
>hur hur he is influencing people away from what i want
>he is just a nobody hack

if your views are so correct, write a fucking book. until then, you're just a backwash cunt who can't differentiate talented leaders from untalented

[Anonymous No.4188842]

>>4188816
actually, this is a troll thread that some guy from /sci/ started.
You /lit/ users are retarded.

[Anonymous No.4188848]

>>4188841
>if your views are so correct, write a fucking book.
My god, the PURE IDEOLOGY.

Bourgeois leftists cannot into the class praxis.

[Anonymous No.4188851]

>>4188803
The quality of the ruse is that people can easily imagine Chomsky saying some shit like that.

[Anonymous No.4188853]

>>4188842
That may be as it is, but he still do think that.

I agree with him, by the way.

[Anonymous No.4188857]

>>4188853
Read the critique of _Class War_'s love affair with one segment of the British working class, and why it was strategically limiting.

[Anonymous No.4188864]

>>4188822
>Chomsky is systematically retarding leftist political through with his emphasis on bourgeois states rather than on proletarian self-activity.

He's been involved in 'proletarian self-activity' since he was a kid.

The books he writes aren't the entirety of his political engagement, dude.

[Anonymous No.4188869]

>>4188853
>they don't think it be like it is but it do

[Anonymous No.4188874]

>>4188857
What does that have to do with a call for ideas to be possible to explain in plain English?

[Anonymous No.4188879]

>>4188842
>authorial intent lives

Prepare to be deconstructed.

[Anonymous No.4188884]

>>4188874
Class War spent 10 years selling newspapers advocating the burning of policemen while alive to British workers. The newspapers were in plain English. They were in plain English for only one segment, white blue-collar lumpenish. They were not in plain English for white-collar Pakis. There are many, simultaneous, plain Englishes. We need to call for the burning of policemen in all of them.

>>4188864
Yeah bullshit. Anti-Zionism is so fucking relevant to organising an academic department to be strike ready.

[Anonymous No.4188885]

>>4188842
>authorial intent

[Anonymous No.4188890]

>>4188879
>>4188885
Internet discussions must mean a lot to you

[Anonymous No.4188893]

>>4188885
You may drink Champagne today in your beautiful home. Well done. Have a chip.

[Anonymous No.4188922]

>>4188884
>Yeah bullshit. Anti-Zionism is so fucking relevant to organising an academic department to be strike ready.

You're right, the moment you criticize Israel's policies, you lose the ability to participate in REAL action.

[Anonymous No.4188944]

>>4188699
That wouldn't be possible to do in plain English so it isn't even worth doing.

[Anonymous No.4189006]

>>4188922
And this is why anti-zionism is irrelevant.

The only solution is a zero state solution, read your Marx on illusions in bourgeois nations.

[Anonymous No.4189020]

there's not a problem that I can't fix, cause I can do it in the mix.

[Anonymous No.4189025]

u.s. should be trialed in the hague, yet dr dipshit keeps supporting tyrannical marxist governments.

he's a dipshit.

[Anonymous No.4189026]

If an idea can be represented in verbal language, it isn't an idea worth discussing.

[Anonymous No.4189039]

If an idea can be represented, it isn't an idea worth discussing.

[Anonymous No.4189055]

If an idea can't be discussed in Akkadian, it isn't a real idea.

[Anonymous No.4189056]

>>4189039
damn

[Anonymous No.4189057]

>>4188609

“Anything that in the realms of possibility could be attributable to the insidious and omnipresent forces of Western imperialism is attributable to the insidious and omnipresent forces of Western imperialism. And that includes myself" ~ Noam Chomsky.

[Anonymous No.4189073]

>>4189039
>not realising that idea = representation
>not realising that by bringing the essence into prominence one degrades the hitherto misapprehended appearance to a bare semblance, a deception. the essence of the world, so attractive and splendid, is for him who looks to the bottom of it — emptiness; emptiness is — world's essence (world's doings). ....

[Anonymous No.4189081]

>>4189057

"I might be wrong" ~ Noam Chomsky

[Anonymous No.4189111]

>>4189081
>gnome chomsky
>tfw only now i realise

[Anonymous No.4189116]

>>4189081
"I fully support this statement" ~ Myself

[Anonymous No.4189127]

>>4189073
Your second point exactly supports mine and contradicts the first point.

[Anonymous No.4189132]

>>4189111

The day I realized, everything started to make more sense. I envy you yanks, because you can go to his classes and have a chat afterwards, even take pictures of him with a gnome, I bet he has a fuckton of interesting stuff to say.

[Anonymous No.4189135]

>>4189132
http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/chomsky/index.html

You can mail him if you have something you want to shoot the shit about, he seems to answer every post he gets.

[Anonymous No.4189140]

>>4189135
>http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/chomsky/index.html
He does.

[Anonymous No.4189143]

>>4189135
He responded to an email I sent once. I asked what he thought about the IWW and about gun control.

[Anonymous No.4189146]

>>4189127
That's not very problematic since the consensus among literary theorists these days is that consistency of authorial intent between utterances is no longer considered mandatory in non-formal circumstances, seeing as a 'post' can't really be said to be a singular text or a multiplicity of them.

[Anonymous No.4189160]

>>4189073

Aren't we assuming we can get to the inner workings of the intellectual objects we conceive, and perceive?

What we represent of those objects, are the objects themselves?

Have they got a sense without someone representing them? Have they got a separate entity? Have they got an essence without the use we make of them?

So many questions, so little answers...

>>4189135
I wouldn't know what to ask. I was thinking more of a "relaxing cup of café con leche" and a nice chat in some lost campus of MIT. But I guess that will only happen in my dreams. :^)

I think /lit/ and these questions in general would be much more enjoyable in an Internet Relay Chat. Maybe someday, not far from now, we'll get to have actual debates somewhere, and those logs be stored for the millenia to come. Socrates and his band would have loved that, and posterity much more.

[Anonymous No.4189170]

>>4189146
Jeez, the hell are you saying. I'm just saying that all representations of an idea are just that, representations, not the actual idea. In fact, all representations of an idea are themselves different ideas.

Then the rest depends on whether you believe in noumenon, I do for no real reason, maybe just to comfort me.

[Anonymous No.4189216]

>>4189170
>believe in noumenon

So, basically, all significative language, and what makes possible to say something about something, stands, for you, on a leap of faith?

[Anonymous No.4189225]

>>4189170
There is no actual idea.

[Anonymous No.4189237]

>>4188737
>mon fishage quant
fuck it, i quit.

[Anonymous No.4190944]

>>4189143
what did he say, anon?

[Anonymous No.4190966]

>>4188609
> Chomsky
> complaining about ideas not in 'plain English'
The ironing just went supernova.

[Anonymous No.4191011]

>>4188770
>chomsky
>hack
i think i've seen everything now, my life is now complete

[Anonymous No.4191036]

>>4190966
Have you ever read Chomsky? His prose is fantastically spartan.

[Anonymous No.4191041]

>>4189216
Yes. I've still taken that leap of faith, though.

[Anonymous No.4191054]

>>4188712
I think you mean empirical.