Hercules Lianos :: That is also a good point, but Chomsky is a linguist when he says he doesn't understand something he needed to use the sentence you used :: "too convoluted to be taken seriously".
Yeah, I'd say what he means is "I get it, I just don't think it's that impressive or earth shattering." I'm reminded of a line: "the ideas that are true aren't new and the ideas that are new aren't true." All I'd add (to be fair to PoMo) is "the ideas that are new and true didn't need to be written in Eqyptian hieroglyphics."
"Hey man, you being tired to death, is you know, like the culture's way of dominating you with a technocratic bourgeoisie bull crap to keep you enslaved to the man and what not, because like they don't want you realizing the ultimate reality. Did you know stuff in space smells like diesel fuel. So like, yeah that's probably due to.... Hey man, ever heard of Focault? Do you smoke? Hey, later man."
Yeah, I don't think that's what they say though. I think it's more that you can find truth about your own mind and internal workings, and that indicates that you cannot gain access to truth about the world. Not that I agree, but I think that's a more accurate reading of postmodernism.
@@alexisdumas84 postmodern (and more specifically, post structuralism) leans away from the kantian idealism and more towards the idea that everything, as semiotoloty, has to be defined by other signs and cannot be defined in itself. I like Chomsky’s works, but he has a very bad understand of postmo
I have always wondered if postmodernists deconstructed their paychecks instead of cashing them. As for them not being undertandable, there is a branch of postmodernim which i quite intelligible: Postmodernist architecture. In his book "Complexity and contradiction in architecture", a sort of Gospel for potmodernist archictects, Mr. Robert Venturi, in clearly understandble language, tells how he secretly mocked the residents of a home for aged ualers he designed ("Guild House"), by topping the building with a non-functioning tv antenna "as a symbol for the elderly who watch so much television". Also windows that make their expected potted plastic plants look good.
I really like the way he thinks and talks. It always has several layers to it, yet he manages to have a clear message he is trying to communicate. A clear mind who is ahead of his time and contemporaries. And who is not afraid to say what he really thinks. Here he is not saying that social constructivism is a complete nonsens. No, he says there is something quite obvious about it. A truism. And we should not be constructing endless theories about truisms but instead concentrate on practical things. Thinking should fuel social movements for real social change. It should not be a subversive instrument leading people to pasivity.
Chomsky is right, post modernism hides meaning so a group understands while the other group doesn't. I get he feeling the word 'woke' is such a word which is meant different by different groups. Can you please say what is meant by different groups.
@@sonarbangla8711 I think postmodernism and social constructivism are just the natural ways where the rationalism eventually leads you. There is in principle nothing negative about seeing things completely rationally. Analyzing the meaning of words and social phenomena to their core is a great thing. But you should also rationally understand the psychological processes of dissociation which come with deep qualitative knowledge of phenomena. And you should preserve the capacity of putting back the emotional hat at some moments. Because otherwise you get into cognitive dissonance. For example, deeply understanding the terrible facts of Shoah should not make you completely emotionally indeferent to the suffering of those people. Otherwise your knowledge of terrible facts will be in dissonance with you showing absolutely no emotions to that. And not acting to show your disapproval for that. And then your psychological mechanisms will work without you realizing it, turning you into sarcastic and indeferent monster.
@@sonarbangla8711 So, to reply to you, in the world of postmodernism, we have different groups who "work" with words. We have rational social scientists who analyze concepts, such as "woke". Some of these scientists become dissociated and lose capability of activism, some of them, like Chomsky, do not. And then we have spontaneous political movements, who use sometimes the same words for their political activism, but they give it a completely different meaning. They hope their narrative will be assumed by popular masses and will influence the prevailing social narratives. It is not the postmodernism itself who hides the meaning. It is rather the storming social reality where the main fights have become the ones on the narratives and the meaning of words.
@@peterk.6093 Noam claims he doesn't understand post modernism because they mean something to outsiders while means something else to his group and thinks post modernism signifies something insignificant and meaningless.
@@sonarbangla8711 Ok, can you just please cite the part here where he is saying that so that I can make sure we both understand it the same way? I must admit I did not re-listen to the whole of it this time.
Ooh Chomsky! Yeah. I was looking at the wrong video. Yeah, secular prophet is an excellent description. These videos of him have been a gift to my continued education and a medicine for mind in these warped times.
Also, against common belief (aka Jordan Peterson's followers), postmodernists are generally not leftists. Most are anti-capitalist, yes, but mainly because they reject the metanarratives required for capitalism (providing a belief system for entrepreneurship, a certain sense of self-determination, the belief that progress is achievable and desirable, a belief that profit is worth the effort and so on), but NOT out of an economic understanding and they usually don't maintain their own economic philosophy. Nick Land or Peter Sloterdijk are examples for right wing thinkers influenced by postmodernists. Postmodernism is an umbrella term for all kinds of thoughts that criticize Modernism, it's not a unitary school of thought. Deleuze for example is often described as postmodern, but he has his own metaphysics and heavily criticized what he called "critique without creation", which is, I think, exactly what Chomsky meant in this video with all this "oh, they're just talking without even wanting to make any sense".
postmodernism hits way differently after you realize it's also what Henry Kissinger is doing. Someone who believes in post-truth, who believes in will-to-power as truth, who names his doctrine "Realism", is quite an expert.
Lmao that's like the whole point of people like derrida..derrida fundamentally attacks the positivist logocentric approaches of people like Chomsky..ofc Chomsky won't like the dismissal of his own thought system..also what you just did is a fallacy called appeal to authority
I went to design collage in the early 1990s and this was still being taught as part of it design theory program. We learn for example to write an essay deconstructing a billboard from a postmodern feminist perspective. It was interesting and it made some good points but it taught you how to be a cynical armchair critic and never taught you how to create anything commercially viable. In fact creating anything to a commercial standard using commercial tools (like Adobe Software) was actively discouraged.
I once had freind who studied philosopy and won a scholarship to Berkey to do his M.A.(ridicously ambitous) We started with Nietchze, he was our high school peer group's secret knowledge, a great cure for teenaged acne but he could alway explain philosopers to me. I liked reading Foucalt books, Jacque Derrida was song on the radio by Scitti Politti and my freind at UNI got into WITTINGSTIEN and it was the first time my freind (I had known him since primary school) said to me "I can't explain it to you Bruce". It was like when my father stopped playing with me to concentrate on his carreer. Apparently you need a lot of philosopy in your head to understand WITTINGSTIEN. Later on when I got into metaphysics, I realised Wittingstein was just a buddhist, if you want hard read Nagajuna.
Could please someone write the names of the authors of the book nominated at min 10? I' m italian and I have some difficulties to understand the correct form of their names...the title Is Dangerous solutions? ( the automatic subtitles write Dangerous illusions...but I hear solutions...-). ) Thanks
I've recently wrote a response to my sexuality teacher who bases his views on sexuality as an attack on the value of love; very postmodernistic, it doesn't exist, love is a mode of opression, bla, bla, bla, I wrote how many of the concepts postmodernists use are close to truth and are borrowed by previous phylosophycal movements, which is why the arguments can be convincing, but I also talked about how that speech is being used by nationalistic movements nowadays to rally the mass, and the paradoxical nature of postmodernism as a mode of controlling since they're using reason to prove their point that reason is used to control, he's a very intelligent man, it blows my mind how people can be postmodernistic nowadays looking at how politicians and certain groups exploit the master vs slave attitude and ressentiment.
Chomsky reflects a rather misinterpreted and misunderstood idea of Postmodernism. How the most brilliant minds of Century could repeatedly say ‘most of the time I can’t understand what they’re saying’ would signify some sort of personal bias as opposed to a genuine lack of substance on the part of such great writers on the subject. Postmodernism has far reaching effects for society, culture, politics, policing and healthcare, greatly overshadowing any influence of the sort from Mr. Chomsky.
Yeah Chomsky was not a fan of these guys... Looking into these videos to better understand why. He seems to be one of the early peddlers of the "post modernism is nonsense" bag...
Well, at least he tries to be honest and admits that he doesn't understand. Then blurs his pov thinking that since he doesn't understand, no one does. Of course, he is from the "1st world", si he naturally thinks that his mind can be apllied to everyone, but for many of us here in the "3rd world" moral universality such as Chomsky's, just doesn't make sense
This is the best dissection of what has led to the current post satire political and cultural life. Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Petersen have far more commonalities than they do differences: both forward ideas that are supposedly 'dangerous and radical' but which function to simply rehash old ideas that don't really challenge the status quo and are in fact allied to it. In Peterson's case its this paranoia that Liberal capitalist democracy is at threat from 'neomarxist postmodernism' and in zizeks case its some vague and circuitous point reflecting back on lacanian psychoanalysis. This is bad enough in the realm of intellectuals onanistically debating each other but its incidious when in Petersons case its used to spark right wing paranoia and in Zizeks case when no objective truth is allowed and this lends credence to anti vaxxers and conspiracy theorists.
Agreed. Although Peterson has done a great job, in my opinion, of dissociating himself from that "bad" right wing. You should watch his interview with Douglas Murray where he is very clear about the alarms of the right wing (one of the many many many examples [eg. Russel Brand podcast is another one]). I think the paranoid right just like to cherry-pick and use his very valid critiques for their own political statements and biases
I don't think Peterson's embrace of psychedelics like mushrooms and Ayshuasca is a spark for neo right people. I would think that the majority of people seeking out Ayahuasca are liberal and at least not in the neo right camp. I also think that his debates with for example Sam Harris and Russel Brand shows a willingness to expose his ideas to discussion. I like those sides of Peterson.
I absolutely have no idea how listening to Zizek can lead to people becoming anti vaxxers. When I listen to Zizek I usually end up more confused than at the start, with some exceptions.
Very good comment. Actually, while I agree they have something in commom, I think it is more useful to just ignore Petersen (for me a pitiful personality in dissintegration) and concentrate on Zizek. For me Zizek is interesting because he is touching the things that should be discussed but he does it in a way that completely kills the thinking and discussion. He makes impression that some things have been discussed, yet there is never any conclusion that comes out from it. Just a standup comedy. To me that is more dangerous to humanity than the North Corean or Russian approach to intelectuals. The best thing ever is just to concentrate on Chomsky and think how his approach to the mission of an intelectual can be followed.
Thanks so much for this. I'll definitely be using this video I'm debates/arguments I have with friends/acquaintances, and particularly strangers online when I'm faced with the increasingly common meme that post-modernism is Marxist, and the thought breakdowns happening amongst certain people on the left, particularly on modern universities, is an example of Marx wreaking havoc, etc. Wrong. Some of the most outspoken opponents to post-modernism for decades now have been Marxists, or those on the left with views similar to traditional Marxism (like our man, Chomsky). I detest the fact that these views have been coined as "now-Marxist" and/or "cultural Marxism" in some circles. It just gives people who've never bothered to read Marx, or who are ignorant to the history of these movements, the false impression that the problem with today's left is Marxism. Marxists, the few actual Marxists that are left, and others on the left and right may have different perspectives, but we don't like the post-modern left anymore than fucking conservatives, in fact, I'd venture to say we take much greater issue with them, as they give the left a bad name. Cheers 🍻✌🏼 (For the record, I'm a libertarian-leftist, with views that borrow bits from a wide range of philosophies, primarily Liberal (enlightenment era through Rawlsian, not neoliberal), Marxist, and some pre-Christian modes of classical philosophy).
Nikola Demitri if anything, the theme that academia has taken on. Tending to ridiculous needs such as crying corners, and suppression of free speech seems more along the lines of Leninism. If you travel down that road of thought. Although Lenin believed his interpretation was the pure, definite way to execute the capitalist critic/revolution that is classical ma
SJWs Cultural Marxists, neo-Marxists or the Frankfurt school - call them what you will are a branch of Marxism kind of like Mormonism is a branch of Christianity. The one clearly came from the other, but it introduced a whole bunch of weird shit that no one in the original group is really comfortable with. Marxism focuses on class, which is far and above the single biggest predictor of actual privilege. Not race or gender. And SJWs are useful idiots for the upper class. And they actively are keeping the left divided.
I think people refer to it as cultural Marxism because it tends to adopt Marxist principles and the Marxist model of borgeoise/proletariat and apply it to other things. See Feminism.
6:10 you dont necessarily need the post-strucuralist baggage to make this critique, as the French historical epistemologists (Bachelard, Canguilhem) who preceded Foucault and Althusser were already making this point about how science is formed in a particular cultural and historical context that comes with its own limitations and incentives. Even if you don't fully agree with Chomsky here, he is absolutely right that there are other approaches which don't have to concede that science is always a perfectly rational, objective representation of reality
Love ❤. And damn, this is from 1997. The trends about which he speaks have escalated beyond belief since then! Embarrassing, indeed. Hardly want to admit I have a PhD.
Two magnificent books on this topic: 1.) "Fashionable Nonsense" by Sokal and Bricmont, and 2.) "The Sokal Hoax" by the editors of Lingua Franca. Can't recommend these two dynamite books strongly enough.
Drew Hunkins i agree with u, but they still dnt refute derridas or Foucault theories. And the first focuses on the various liberties they have taken mathematicall and scientificall examples to show diff ways of thinking , not their theories
@@drewhunkins7192 Baudrillard is a marvelous poet, yes, like the folks who brought us the Bible and all the joy and fluttery flying semi-o-sense that came with that old merry go round. --- Finally, there's just him there going about, dancing across his web after another tiny paper tiger in a room that's running out of oxygen making a circular argument to The machine about The machine for The Machines ( who he might just be one of---) (who might care about it). There's no nature, none at all in any of it, nothing that would count as anything or towards anything or supersede anything, particularly the mind writing the sentences you're serving your time with until you die and escape or are struck blind or sensible and stop buying the books. --- I mean, you are just trapped in his skull, his semi-o-sense until it ends somehow. --- One hell of a poet though. Should have started a religion: but, oh, he left that to his daughter, didn't he, Judith Butler Circular Logic?... Sokal had it right.
Satan is the Supreme Anarchist mixing truth with lies. There are none better than Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Michael Parenti and Richard Wolf. The antiques of 20 Century History Revisionists, Deconstruction and Critical THEORY. The tried and true Demagogue methods of true sociopaths the perfect counter parts of any POLITICIAN and/ or Corporate CEO. "Meet the "New" Boss same as the Old Boss.....a holes. Except these "New" bosses conveniently ERASE all 20 TH CENTURY left wing mass murder as mere aberrant results to a valid ethos of Cultural and Moral suicide. People like CHUMPsky are classic passive aggressive sociopaths in every psychological metric. Extremely dangerous. So dangerous that V.Lenn, Stalin and Trotsky murdered these "useful things diots' in their first order of business. In 1918 alone in a two week period they murdered 20,000 of these useful Idiots and began the infamous precursor to Concentration Camps the massive murder machines called Gulags. "Nothing in human history slaughtered more man beings in peacetime for SOCIALISM than the Post Modern movement called Communism and Marxism" Alexander Solhynitisen
Derrida and Foucault aren't that interesting but that shouldn't discourage one from looking back to the french thinkers which came before them: Bergson, Jean Wahl, Simondon, Hyppolite, Deleuze, to name a handful. A lot of what the big pomo names do is take ideas from real thinkers like Nietzsche and Deleuze and then spin them into obscure parlour tricks with sexy sounding terms.
Real thinkers like Nietzsche? Oh good grief. He was an angry poet with no formal logic. His writings were a life long quest to give himself a pep talk. Intriguing writing, sure, but he's not really a philosopher. Nobody under the age of 40 should read Nietzsche because all too often all it does is attract angsty teens, frat boy douche bags, and people in their 30's wanting to "turn it all around." Every time his name is mentioned it usually elicits eye rolls, and for good reason.
Nietzsche was the prime force that destabilized the modern intellectual world. This force may well have derived from an irrational source (blaming humanity's "murder of God" for his own father's death) but in our horrific world in which the 21st century will likely include human extinction it was only through this massive destabilization that any hope was generated at all. Of course, we've failed Nietzsche and ourselves, but he did what he could to avoid human extinction, and he did more than any other thinker. Because of this, I think that Nietzsche should be considered the greatest philosopher in history.
Greatest philosopher in history? Rantings and ravings and psychological projections trumps mathematics and logic? Nope. Nietzsche never got past his angst. He should have attempted to incorporate his rants into a form of mathematics. Maybe then he would have been the greatest.
"Nobody under the age of 40 should read Nietzsche because all too often all it does is attract angsty teens, frat boy douche bags, and people in their 30's wanting to "turn it all around." That doesn't sound caricatural. Formally he wasn't a philosopher, that's quite true, but that doesn't make his views uninteresting. He's far more interesting than most of his fellow german philosophers whose idealism is mostly intellectual masturbation. His philosophy incorporates elements of asian thought ( the same can be said about Schopenhauer) which after two thousand years of christianism is a breath of fresh air. Your criticism of Nietzsche sounds a bit like Cioran's, I take it you've read him, Kudos for that.
I'm a fan of Shopy. Nietzsche, not so much. Schopenhauer laid out the harsh truth of life and said, "There it is, deal or don't deal with it." While Nietzsche laid out his interpretation of hard truths and then went on a whine fest of how only strong uber-douches could hope to "rise" above. Ugh, I don't need Tony Robbins and Jordan Peterson in my philosophy.
the main argument against French theory, postmodernism, and poststructuralism as presented by Chomsky, Sokal, and others is that it's all a load of intellectual mumbo jumbo. They argue that these theories are often impenetrable, with convoluted language and opaque concepts that are more concerned with showing off intellectual prowess than actually contributing to our understanding of the world. Moreover, they argue that these theories have little to no empirical grounding and are often based on flawed assumptions or outright falsehoods. For instance, Chomsky famously criticized the poststructuralist idea that language is fundamentally unstable and arbitrary, arguing instead that there is an innate grammar that underlies all human language. Similarly, Sokal famously perpetrated the "Sokal hoax," submitting a nonsensical article to a postmodernist journal that was accepted and published, in order to expose the lack of rigor and critical thinking in the field. In short, the critics argue that French theory, postmodernism, and poststructuralism are more concerned with abstract, theoretical musings than with empirical reality, and that they are often guilty of substituting style for substance. According to Chomsky, the political consequences of postmodernism and French theory are potentially disastrous. He argues that these theories often lead to a nihilistic rejection of objective truth and a belief that power relations are all that exist. In turn, this can lead to a form of politics that is focused solely on identity and representation, rather than material conditions and structural inequalities. Chomsky sees this as particularly dangerous because it can obscure the real sources of power and inequality in society. Instead of challenging economic and political systems that perpetuate injustice, postmodernism and French theory can lead to a focus on individual identity and cultural expression. While these are important issues, Chomsky argues that they cannot be the sole focus of a progressive politics. Moreover, Chomsky argues that postmodernism and French theory can lead to a kind of moral relativism in which all beliefs and values are seen as equally valid. This, in turn, can make it difficult to challenge oppressive and unjust social norms and practices. In short, Chomsky sees postmodernism and French theory as potentially limiting the ability of progressive movements to challenge power and effect real change in society.
Post Modernism is a classic case of "My Karma just ate your Dogma" The Leftist world Agenda is pure Fascism. Fighting all the evils of mankind with their morally bankrupt evils of fascist control. They have become what they HATE. To disagree is to experience EXACTLY WHAT CHAIRMAN MAO did in the 1960's Cultural Revolution. Making each Citizen suspects of the State, to make each Citizen "Struggle" in a public lynch mob of conformity or exile from the States vision of Right versus Wrong. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and every 20 TH CENTURY dictator used the EXACT SAME METHODS to inflict devastating Mass murder in forced labor camps where starvation and disease killed over decades millions of human beings who did not fit the Socialist ideology and rule by MEN instead of Laws.
I don't really agree with Chomsky on this issue. I read some Foucault books and found them very interesting. My main problem with him is that, as a historian, he hardly ever gives specific dates or even years. So, we learn that this or that psychoanalytic theory was proposed, believed in, discarded by another in France. But when? You get hints that it was maybe around the time of the French revolution or perhaps the Napoleonic period, the medieval period or some such. Perhaps he was writing for people who already knew enough about French history to put it all together. I think if somebody had just simply put a chronology in the backs of his books that readers could refer to, it would help a lot. Perhaps, somebody could still do this or already has, but it isn't in his books. That is one reason he seems intentionaly obscure.
Foucault is not the best example of what he is critiquing. Foucault, while flawed politically especially later in life, made valuable contributions and was more or less understandable.
“Because they claim to be concerned with the welfare of whole societies, governments arrogate to themselves the right to pass off as mere abstract profit or loss the human unhappiness that their decisions provoke or their negligence permits. It is a duty of an international citizenship to always bring the testimony of people's suffering to the eyes and ears of governments, sufferings for which it's untrue that they are not responsible. The suffering of men must never be a mere silent residue of policy. It grounds an absolute right to stand up and speak to those who hold power.” So much for the notion that certain people don't believe in objective truth. It's a shame to see Chomsky expose himself as an old man who can't even do basic research.
Chomsky’s isn’t a structuralist, his teacher was a structuralist, but Chomsky’s revolutionary theory is in the lineage of Kantianism, that rationally we can deduce innate faculties of mind which are universal and not socially conditioned. He interprets Kant in biological way but he wasn’t the first to do it.
While what C says is plausible about many post-structuralists, C should be aware that he here analyzes post-structuralism as discursive power. That is, here C gives a post-structuralist analysis of post-structuralism. Sokal showing post-structuralists do not understand science is more promising. We need to criticise post-structuralism for its disinterest in how humans relate to the broader physical world.
Chomsky got this right, at least. Every intellectual con artist in the world will tell you that if you don't understand his cant it's because it's too complex/subtle/difficult for a mere dolt/peasant/clod like you to twig to. End of discussion. Which, of course, is exactly what the grifter wants. Actual discussion would lead to exposure, and exposure is bad, bad, bad. No more tenured professorships there. No sirree. Not one.
What are you talking about? Postmodernism is something that you *have* to talk about, and it’s something people get excited to discuss at universities. I find that the only ones that will try to shut down discussion using the tools of deconstruction are naive ones that are excited about something they just learned (and don’t quite know what they’re talking about) or con artists, as you said. But postmodern theorists, and a lot of what I see in academia, are certainly neither. Really, whether you believe postmodernity is a good thing to embrace or a decaying force that we must overcome, academics tend to *react* to it. You are forced to react to it. Marxists have to deal with their narratives being deconstructed. Postmodernists have to find a way to pick up the pieces of history again, perhaps with the old lenses or with some exciting new one. And that’s where all the discourse is. If you’re getting shut down, then you’re talking to the wrong people.
Love papa Chomsky, yet his functionalist view is so riggid one its not effective at all. There is some vlaid criticism, but searching for a purpose and a transcendental truth in explanations is redicilous. Yes, the data is what the data is, but how you construct the narrative is how you understand the data and that's a huuuuge deal.
I wasted a few years on that 💩 , was relieving to leave that in the 🚽 and move on. As Noam says , it’s just simple ideas made to sound like spending . Zizek is the current form, but at least he’s funny. “Fashionable Nonsense” by Alan Sokal is great book revealing the charade, but these Noam vids are even more incisive as he goes into how they distract from real change.
@@gabbar51ngh Not really, no. There are many anticapitalists, who prefer other systems (parecon) because they DO understand the capitalist economics, have seen the poverty it leads to and have sympathy torwards those, who do not have freedom to exercise their power in workplace in democratic process. Shouldn't be surprising, that most economists with a snipet of altruism turn to other economic systems. Those, who don't, rationalize it as "someone's gotta be at the bottom. Too bad for them. We make progress here, not happiness."
@@themage4232 which other system are you referring to? Don't say socialism. It's thoroughly debunked & it's pretty much flat earth theory of economics relying upon LBV which has been outdated & barely in use since marginal revolution. So far consensus regarding economics is pro capitalism. There hasn't been any good argument against it. Also capitalism doesn't lead to poverty but prosperity. You seem to be making some very huge fundamental mistakes regarding Economics & capitalism in general. It undermines your views on the subject.
"Social science" is an oxymoron that reeks of desperation to be acknowledged as "science." The most irritating thing about studying this field was how hard they tried to incorporate math and a system of quantification to human behavior
The question is not if it's possible or not, but if the results are indeed explanations or not. So it's a methodological question. Can science driven standarts "explain" human reality, being, behavior? Think in history, or the books that shape history, or history events, or the debates inside of the methodology of the historic science. Can it be "explain" with quantifiable measures?
It's a bit ironic that Chomsky admits to changing his presentation depending on his audience...also, his statement "you always tell people what they don't want to hear". These statements seem rather fluid and relative, rather than fixed and universal. "Truth" seems to be shifty, slippery, and contextual after all.
What Chomsky says to the Israeli audience and what he says to the Palestinian audience are not contradictory. The flaws of the Israeli and Palestinian governments are both objectively true; they are not true relative to the audience (it is not "shifty"). Chomsky's point - which I think is a good one - is that by focusing on the shortcomings of the Palestinian state when talking to Palestinians and vica versa, the argument is more forceful. The assumption is that Palestinian university students know more about the wrongs of the Israeli state than they do the wrongs of their own (and vica versa). Thus, by focusing on themselves, those who hes addressing get a better understanding of the conflict as a whole.
Giving the same presentation to every audience is neither a sufficient nor necessary condition for being truthful. there's just no such connection. Think about how crazy what you're saying is. If you are a teacher and you write the same critique and give the same grade to every paper and project submitted by students, you're more robot than teacher. No human would do such a thing. This is so obvious, it makes me feel stupid for pointing it out. But just in case your comment was actually serious, I feel like someone really should say something, even if it feels dumb to do so.
God you really made hard work of this. If he speaks to Palestinians he criticises the PLO corruption. If he speaks to Israelis he criticises the settlements. Where is the "relativity" in this?
I'm a born sceptic. That includes Chomsky. I want reasons, I want data, I want logically constructed arguments. I question everything. Its good to see that Chomsky and I have the same conclusions on post modernism. I still reserve the right to question his linguistic thesis. Too many unfounded assumptions without a proper source of empirical data. His metaphysics are good, I can't argue that. Of course, I pose these questions because I don't approve of post modernist arguments. He has a good start on his theory, I just think it has some contradictions. I will go with objectivism here. If the logic is right, and there is a contradiction, then check the premises. I think he would approve of my criticism. He might disagree, it is a valid criticism nonetheless. That's how truth is found with the Socratic dialect. (not to be confused with Hegel's dialectic)
He's 100% aware that he's doing the equivalent of strawmanning materialism and using examples /strawmanning as post talk justification cause he's triggered.
In regard to poststructuralist thought, unfortunately, Chomsky relies on the incoherent argument that "nobody can understand what they're saying, and yet I know it's nonsense." If anybody is interested in understanding, I recommend my videos: ruclips.net/user/BrianArtese
Kyiv stuff :: Your point is very-well taken ; but, you're being generous with the word "sketchy". For an intellectual, like Chomsky, at best, his statement seems anti-intellectual. Chomsky is so highly-respected, he can get away with non-sensical statements until people like you who are listening with very sharp hearing. . As far as the tuberculosis story of the Ancient Pharaoh having a disease that was only discovered in the 19th century doesn't mean the Pharaoh didn't have tuberculosis. Those DNA tests probably showed sighs of the disease based on the knowledge of tuberculosis --- Today ! It could just as easily be that "tuberculosis" has existed for centuries and was only "discovered" in the 19th century. The Egyptians just didn't have a name for it or even understood it as a medical issue. That seems like an elementary conclusion but I must be missing something as I'm not an intellectual.
@@cliffgaither Foucault denied the idea that we could determine our “natures” and focused on the structural changes from era to era, rather than claiming things to be universal. Chomsky does not dismiss structuralism (and Foucault considered himself a structuralist), but thinks it’s absurd to adopt this point of view which dismisses scientific epistemology or theories that narrow down the possibilities of human nature. I do too. But I still value Foucault because too many people try to overly universalize, Foucault had some interesting observations. But those that followed Pomo took anti-universality into really absurd territories, they still do.
This isn't the contradiction you think it is. I've read stuff and "understood" it to be pretty vacuous. Either making a valid point that could be made infinitely simpler and more efficiently with no loss of valuable content, or a wrong point or no point at all, obfuscated by verbosity because it is rewarded in academia. That is the critique. It is not anti-intellectual. It is pro-usefulness, pro-clarity, pro-rigour. This stuff is a retreat from class politics and movements, with a superficial, false veneer of radicalism.
Freaked me out when his picture didn’t start talking.
Same
Hahah I was wondering why he was so stern
haha same
Hahahahahaha I had the same
🤣🤣
Brilliant man. Clarity, and the search for truth in the world! I wish we had more people like that.
Book is called "Fashionable Nonsense", by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont.
thank you!
It's a good one for sure. Funny, awful, emperor has no clothes kinda stuff, dead on & bullseye.
Thank you!
I get the impression that when Chomsky says "I" can't understand it, he is really saying it's too convoluted to be taken seriously.
He seemed to handle himself well in the Foucoult debate, seemed to understand, and didn’t seem to get frustrated opposing it.
Hercules Lianos ::
That is also a good point, but Chomsky is a linguist when he says he doesn't understand something he needed to use the sentence you used :: "too convoluted to be taken seriously".
Yeah, I'd say what he means is "I get it, I just don't think it's that impressive or earth shattering."
I'm reminded of a line: "the ideas that are true aren't new and the ideas that are new aren't true."
All I'd add (to be fair to PoMo) is "the ideas that are new and true didn't need to be written in Eqyptian hieroglyphics."
He is being modest and reasonable. If he was rude he'd say it's over-inflated, even bs.
15:15 He's talking about Kristeva
"there's no such thing as objectivity and there's no such thing as truth, and that's the objective truth" - some guy in the audience in the first clip
"Hey man, you being tired to death, is you know, like the culture's way of dominating you with a technocratic bourgeoisie bull crap to keep you enslaved to the man and what not, because like they don't want you realizing the ultimate reality. Did you know stuff in space smells like diesel fuel. So like, yeah that's probably due to.... Hey man, ever heard of Focault? Do you smoke? Hey, later man."
Yeah, I don't think that's what they say though. I think it's more that you can find truth about your own mind and internal workings, and that indicates that you cannot gain access to truth about the world. Not that I agree, but I think that's a more accurate reading of postmodernism.
@@alexisdumas84 postmodern (and more specifically, post structuralism) leans away from the kantian idealism and more towards the idea that everything, as semiotoloty, has to be defined by other signs and cannot be defined in itself. I like Chomsky’s works, but he has a very bad understand of postmo
@@MAAEEULAZ interesting point. Glad I saw this.
I have always wondered if postmodernists deconstructed their paychecks instead of cashing them.
As for them not being undertandable, there is a branch of postmodernim which i quite intelligible: Postmodernist architecture. In his book "Complexity and contradiction in architecture", a sort of Gospel for potmodernist archictects, Mr. Robert Venturi, in clearly understandble language, tells how he secretly mocked the residents of a home for aged ualers he designed ("Guild House"), by topping the building with a non-functioning tv antenna "as a symbol for the elderly who watch so much television". Also windows that make their expected potted plastic plants look good.
I really like the way he thinks and talks. It always has several layers to it, yet he manages to have a clear message he is trying to communicate.
A clear mind who is ahead of his time and contemporaries. And who is not afraid to say what he really thinks.
Here he is not saying that social constructivism is a complete nonsens. No, he says there is something quite obvious about it. A truism. And we should not be constructing endless theories about truisms but instead concentrate on practical things. Thinking should fuel social movements for real social change. It should not be a subversive instrument leading people to pasivity.
Chomsky is right, post modernism hides meaning so a group understands while the other group doesn't. I get he feeling the word 'woke' is such a word which is meant different by different groups. Can you please say what is meant by different groups.
@@sonarbangla8711 I think postmodernism and social constructivism are just the natural ways where the rationalism eventually leads you. There is in principle nothing negative about seeing things completely rationally. Analyzing the meaning of words and social phenomena to their core is a great thing.
But you should also rationally understand the psychological processes of dissociation which come with deep qualitative knowledge of phenomena. And you should preserve the capacity of putting back the emotional hat at some moments. Because otherwise you get into cognitive dissonance.
For example, deeply understanding the terrible facts of Shoah should not make you completely emotionally indeferent to the suffering of those people. Otherwise your knowledge of terrible facts will be in dissonance with you showing absolutely no emotions to that. And not acting to show your disapproval for that.
And then your psychological mechanisms will work without you realizing it, turning you into sarcastic and indeferent monster.
@@sonarbangla8711 So, to reply to you, in the world of postmodernism, we have different groups who "work" with words. We have rational social scientists who analyze concepts, such as "woke". Some of these scientists become dissociated and lose capability of activism, some of them, like Chomsky, do not.
And then we have spontaneous political movements, who use sometimes the same words for their political activism, but they give it a completely different meaning. They hope their narrative will be assumed by popular masses and will influence the prevailing social narratives.
It is not the postmodernism itself who hides the meaning. It is rather the storming social reality where the main fights have become the ones on the narratives and the meaning of words.
@@peterk.6093 Noam claims he doesn't understand post modernism because they mean something to outsiders while means something else to his group and thinks post modernism signifies something insignificant and meaningless.
@@sonarbangla8711 Ok, can you just please cite the part here where he is saying that so that I can make sure we both understand it the same way? I must admit I did not re-listen to the whole of it this time.
The man is a secular prophet. That's all there is to it. True treasure to humanity.
Rogan?
Ooh Chomsky! Yeah. I was looking at the wrong video. Yeah, secular prophet is an excellent description. These videos of him have been a gift to my continued education and a medicine for mind in these warped times.
Also, against common belief (aka Jordan Peterson's followers), postmodernists are generally not leftists. Most are anti-capitalist, yes, but mainly because they reject the metanarratives required for capitalism (providing a belief system for entrepreneurship, a certain sense of self-determination, the belief that progress is achievable and desirable, a belief that profit is worth the effort and so on), but NOT out of an economic understanding and they usually don't maintain their own economic philosophy.
Nick Land or Peter Sloterdijk are examples for right wing thinkers influenced by postmodernists.
Postmodernism is an umbrella term for all kinds of thoughts that criticize Modernism, it's not a unitary school of thought. Deleuze for example is often described as postmodern, but he has his own metaphysics and heavily criticized what he called "critique without creation", which is, I think, exactly what Chomsky meant in this video with all this "oh, they're just talking without even wanting to make any sense".
He's a good ventriloquist
Jez Abernathy , way to belittle the mans whole talk. Nasty comment.
Mimi YouYou he said that because the picture in the video is a frozen image lol take a joke
@@MimiYouyu is that zzizek?
postmodernism hits way differently after you realize it's also what Henry Kissinger is doing. Someone who believes in post-truth, who believes in will-to-power as truth, who names his doctrine "Realism", is quite an expert.
I think in some ways everything since the begining of XX century can be called "postmodern" in that sense.
@@2fiafisdoafw34Edward Bernays and Freud?
The best expose of academic post-modernism yet 05.00 "...........and it serves as an instrument of power"
so... Foucault?
By nature "it's all over the place".
The book he references at 5:48 and 10:00 is "Fashionable Nonsense" by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont
ruclips.net/video/Rnmfe6qskRY/видео.html
Sokal's Hoax was wonderful.
When one of the founders of modern linguistics can't understand the language you're using, then maybe you're the problem.
Lmao that's like the whole point of people like derrida..derrida fundamentally attacks the positivist logocentric approaches of people like Chomsky..ofc Chomsky won't like the dismissal of his own thought system..also what you just did is a fallacy called appeal to authority
@@seminalzing6358Chomsky is basically mad because they said why his decades long cringe computer language project was dumb and bad lol.
I went to design collage in the early 1990s and this was still being taught as part of it design theory program.
We learn for example to write an essay deconstructing a billboard from a postmodern feminist perspective.
It was interesting and it made some good points but it taught you how to be a cynical armchair critic
and never taught you how to create anything commercially viable.
In fact creating anything to a commercial standard using commercial tools (like Adobe Software) was actively discouraged.
Sounds about right.
You were taught to design collages? ;)
I went to a series of art schools I the 90’s too.
Same shit.
I once had freind who studied philosopy and won a scholarship to Berkey to do his M.A.(ridicously ambitous) We started with Nietchze, he was our high school peer group's secret knowledge, a great cure for teenaged acne but he could alway explain philosopers to me. I liked reading Foucalt books, Jacque Derrida was song on the radio by Scitti Politti and my freind at UNI got into WITTINGSTIEN and it was the first time my freind (I had known him since primary school) said to me "I can't explain it to you Bruce". It was like when my father stopped playing with me to concentrate on his carreer. Apparently you need a lot of philosopy in your head to understand WITTINGSTIEN. Later on when I got into metaphysics, I realised Wittingstein was just a buddhist, if you want hard read Nagajuna.
Could please someone write the names of the authors of the book nominated at min 10? I' m italian and I have some difficulties to understand the correct form of their names...the title Is Dangerous solutions? ( the automatic subtitles write Dangerous illusions...but I hear solutions...-). ) Thanks
Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont
@@BiblicalMushroom thanks!
I've recently wrote a response to my sexuality teacher who bases his views on sexuality as an attack on the value of love; very postmodernistic, it doesn't exist, love is a mode of opression, bla, bla, bla, I wrote how many of the concepts postmodernists use are close to truth and are borrowed by previous phylosophycal movements, which is why the arguments can be convincing, but I also talked about how that speech is being used by nationalistic movements nowadays to rally the mass, and the paradoxical nature of postmodernism as a mode of controlling since they're using reason to prove their point that reason is used to control, he's a very intelligent man, it blows my mind how people can be postmodernistic nowadays looking at how politicians and certain groups exploit the master vs slave attitude and ressentiment.
I would love to read that :-)
still my favourite picture of chomsky
Did anyone get the book he is referring to?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashionable_Nonsense
1:24 top-tier principles implied there
amazing video, i will annoy the hell out of my friends with it
Chomsky reflects a rather misinterpreted and misunderstood idea of Postmodernism.
How the most brilliant minds of Century could repeatedly say ‘most of the time I can’t understand what they’re saying’ would signify some sort of personal bias as opposed to a genuine lack of substance on the part of such great writers on the subject.
Postmodernism has far reaching effects for society, culture, politics, policing and healthcare, greatly overshadowing any influence of the sort from Mr. Chomsky.
Yeah Chomsky was not a fan of these guys... Looking into these videos to better understand why. He seems to be one of the early peddlers of the "post modernism is nonsense" bag...
Good respectful takes by choms
Sheesh, some pretty harsh criticisms from Chomsky lol
Noam Chomsky is something else. Where else on earth can you get that raw truth from?
Volume please
Well, at least he tries to be honest and admits that he doesn't understand. Then blurs his pov thinking that since he doesn't understand, no one does. Of course, he is from the "1st world", si he naturally thinks that his mind can be apllied to everyone, but for many of us here in the "3rd world" moral universality such as Chomsky's, just doesn't make sense
This is the best dissection of what has led to the current post satire political and cultural life. Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Petersen have far more commonalities than they do differences: both forward ideas that are supposedly 'dangerous and radical' but which function to simply rehash old ideas that don't really challenge the status quo and are in fact allied to it. In Peterson's case its this paranoia that Liberal capitalist democracy is at threat from 'neomarxist postmodernism' and in zizeks case its some vague and circuitous point reflecting back on lacanian psychoanalysis. This is bad enough in the realm of intellectuals onanistically debating each other but its incidious when in Petersons case its used to spark right wing paranoia and in Zizeks case when no objective truth is allowed and this lends credence to anti vaxxers and conspiracy theorists.
Agreed. Although Peterson has done a great job, in my opinion, of dissociating himself from that "bad" right wing. You should watch his interview with Douglas Murray where he is very clear about the alarms of the right wing (one of the many many many examples [eg. Russel Brand podcast is another one]). I think the paranoid right just like to cherry-pick and use his very valid critiques for their own political statements and biases
I don't think Peterson's embrace of psychedelics like mushrooms and Ayshuasca is a spark for neo right people. I would think that the majority of people seeking out Ayahuasca are liberal and at least not in the neo right camp. I also think that his debates with for example Sam Harris and Russel Brand shows a willingness to expose his ideas to discussion. I like those sides of Peterson.
I absolutely have no idea how listening to Zizek can lead to people becoming anti vaxxers. When I listen to Zizek I usually end up more confused than at the start, with some exceptions.
Very good comment. Actually, while I agree they have something in commom, I think it is more useful to just ignore Petersen (for me a pitiful personality in dissintegration) and concentrate on Zizek.
For me Zizek is interesting because he is touching the things that should be discussed but he does it in a way that completely kills the thinking and discussion. He makes impression that some things have been discussed, yet there is never any conclusion that comes out from it. Just a standup comedy. To me that is more dangerous to humanity than the North Corean or Russian approach to intelectuals.
The best thing ever is just to concentrate on Chomsky and think how his approach to the mission of an intelectual can be followed.
Thanks so much for this. I'll definitely be using this video I'm debates/arguments I have with friends/acquaintances, and particularly strangers online when I'm faced with the increasingly common meme that post-modernism is Marxist, and the thought breakdowns happening amongst certain people on the left, particularly on modern universities, is an example of Marx wreaking havoc, etc. Wrong. Some of the most outspoken opponents to post-modernism for decades now have been Marxists, or those on the left with views similar to traditional Marxism (like our man, Chomsky). I detest the fact that these views have been coined as "now-Marxist" and/or "cultural Marxism" in some circles. It just gives people who've never bothered to read Marx, or who are ignorant to the history of these movements, the false impression that the problem with today's left is Marxism. Marxists, the few actual Marxists that are left, and others on the left and right may have different perspectives, but we don't like the post-modern left anymore than fucking conservatives, in fact, I'd venture to say we take much greater issue with them, as they give the left a bad name. Cheers 🍻✌🏼
(For the record, I'm a libertarian-leftist, with views that borrow bits from a wide range of philosophies, primarily Liberal (enlightenment era through Rawlsian, not neoliberal), Marxist, and some pre-Christian modes of classical philosophy).
Nikola Demitri if anything, the theme that academia has taken on. Tending to ridiculous needs such as crying corners, and suppression of free speech seems more along the lines of Leninism. If you travel down that road of thought. Although Lenin believed his interpretation was the pure, definite way to execute the capitalist critic/revolution that is classical ma
SJWs Cultural Marxists, neo-Marxists or the Frankfurt school - call them what you will are a branch of Marxism kind of like Mormonism is a branch of Christianity. The one clearly came from the other, but it introduced a whole bunch of weird shit that no one in the original group is really comfortable with. Marxism focuses on class, which is far and above the single biggest predictor of actual privilege. Not race or gender. And SJWs are useful idiots for the upper class. And they actively are keeping the left divided.
I think people refer to it as cultural Marxism because it tends to adopt Marxist principles and the Marxist model of borgeoise/proletariat and apply it to other things. See Feminism.
Viva Revolution comrade 🌺
Yeah the Peterson fans are loving this criticism. Even though it follows that his interpretation of history is...wrong
It's like watching someone sleep with their eyes open.
6:10 you dont necessarily need the post-strucuralist baggage to make this critique, as the French historical epistemologists (Bachelard, Canguilhem) who preceded Foucault and Althusser were already making this point about how science is formed in a particular cultural and historical context that comes with its own limitations and incentives. Even if you don't fully agree with Chomsky here, he is absolutely right that there are other approaches which don't have to concede that science is always a perfectly rational, objective representation of reality
13:59 I literally laughed out loud
I laughed so hard at that 😂
I have a lot of respect for Chomsky, but Foucault was more involved in the anti-prison movement than Chomsky ever was...
Well that settles it for me!
Split the difference; the naive truth seekers morally decided to use their power block to disrupt apartheid.
Love ❤. And damn, this is from 1997. The trends about which he speaks have escalated beyond belief since then! Embarrassing, indeed. Hardly want to admit I have a PhD.
Two magnificent books on this topic: 1.) "Fashionable Nonsense" by Sokal and Bricmont, and 2.) "The Sokal Hoax" by the editors of Lingua Franca. Can't recommend these two dynamite books strongly enough.
Drew Hunkins i agree with u, but they still dnt refute derridas or Foucault theories. And the first focuses on the various liberties they have taken mathematicall and scientificall examples to show diff ways of thinking , not their theories
Two horrible books. Read serious philosophy. Try Baudrillard and then watch any TV show and see how right he is
@@cola3173 Baud's indeed a marvelous philosopher but you embarrass yourself deriding these books as "horrible."
@@cola3173 He might be right about TV shows but since when was that considered serious philosophy?
@@drewhunkins7192 Baudrillard is a marvelous poet, yes, like the folks who brought us the Bible and all the joy and fluttery flying semi-o-sense that came with that old merry go round. --- Finally, there's just him there going about, dancing across his web after another tiny paper tiger in a room that's running out of oxygen making a circular argument to The machine about The machine for The Machines ( who he might just be one of---) (who might care about it). There's no nature, none at all in any of it, nothing that would count as anything or towards anything or supersede anything, particularly the mind writing the sentences you're serving your time with until you die and escape or are struck blind or sensible and stop buying the books. --- I mean, you are just trapped in his skull, his semi-o-sense until it ends somehow. --- One hell of a poet though. Should have started a religion: but, oh, he left that to his daughter, didn't he, Judith Butler Circular Logic?... Sokal had it right.
At this moment, in 2023, listening to this is like listening to God.
Satan is the Supreme Anarchist mixing truth with lies. There are none better than Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Michael Parenti and Richard Wolf.
The antiques of 20 Century
History Revisionists, Deconstruction and Critical THEORY.
The tried and true Demagogue methods of true sociopaths the perfect counter parts of any POLITICIAN and/ or Corporate CEO.
"Meet the "New" Boss same as the Old Boss.....a holes.
Except these "New" bosses conveniently ERASE all 20 TH CENTURY left wing mass murder as mere aberrant results to a valid ethos of Cultural and Moral suicide.
People like CHUMPsky are classic passive aggressive sociopaths in every psychological metric. Extremely dangerous. So dangerous that V.Lenn, Stalin and Trotsky murdered these "useful things diots' in their first order of business.
In 1918 alone in a two week period they murdered 20,000 of these useful Idiots and began the infamous precursor to Concentration Camps the massive murder machines called Gulags.
"Nothing in human history slaughtered more man beings in peacetime for SOCIALISM than the Post Modern movement called Communism and Marxism"
Alexander Solhynitisen
Pre post civilationalism.
Ahahah, sacré Bernard.
Derrida and Foucault aren't that interesting but that shouldn't discourage one from looking back to the french thinkers which came before them: Bergson, Jean Wahl, Simondon, Hyppolite, Deleuze, to name a handful. A lot of what the big pomo names do is take ideas from real thinkers like Nietzsche and Deleuze and then spin them into obscure parlour tricks with sexy sounding terms.
Real thinkers like Nietzsche? Oh good grief. He was an angry poet with no formal logic.
His writings were a life long quest to give himself a pep talk. Intriguing writing, sure, but he's not really a philosopher.
Nobody under the age of 40 should read Nietzsche because all too often all it does is attract angsty teens, frat boy douche bags, and people in their 30's wanting to "turn it all around."
Every time his name is mentioned it usually elicits eye rolls, and for good reason.
Nietzsche was the prime force that destabilized the modern intellectual world. This force may well have derived from an irrational source (blaming humanity's "murder of God" for his own father's death) but in our horrific world in which the 21st century will likely include human extinction it was only through this massive destabilization that any hope was generated at all.
Of course, we've failed Nietzsche and ourselves, but he did what he could to avoid human extinction, and he did more than any other thinker. Because of this, I think that Nietzsche should be considered the greatest philosopher in history.
Greatest philosopher in history? Rantings and ravings and psychological projections trumps mathematics and logic? Nope.
Nietzsche never got past his angst. He should have attempted to incorporate his rants into a form of mathematics. Maybe then he would have been the greatest.
"Nobody under the age of 40 should read Nietzsche because all too often all it does is attract angsty teens, frat boy douche bags, and people in their 30's wanting to "turn it all around." That doesn't sound caricatural.
Formally he wasn't a philosopher, that's quite true, but that doesn't make his views uninteresting. He's far more interesting than most of his fellow german philosophers whose idealism is mostly intellectual masturbation. His philosophy incorporates elements of asian thought ( the same can be said about Schopenhauer) which after two thousand years of christianism is a breath of fresh air.
Your criticism of Nietzsche sounds a bit like Cioran's, I take it you've read him, Kudos for that.
I'm a fan of Shopy. Nietzsche, not so much.
Schopenhauer laid out the harsh truth of life and said, "There it is, deal or don't deal with it."
While Nietzsche laid out his interpretation of hard truths and then went on a whine fest of how only strong uber-douches could hope to "rise" above. Ugh, I don't need Tony Robbins and Jordan Peterson in my philosophy.
the main argument against French theory, postmodernism, and poststructuralism as presented by Chomsky, Sokal, and others is that it's all a load of intellectual mumbo jumbo. They argue that these theories are often impenetrable, with convoluted language and opaque concepts that are more concerned with showing off intellectual prowess than actually contributing to our understanding of the world.
Moreover, they argue that these theories have little to no empirical grounding and are often based on flawed assumptions or outright falsehoods. For instance, Chomsky famously criticized the poststructuralist idea that language is fundamentally unstable and arbitrary, arguing instead that there is an innate grammar that underlies all human language. Similarly, Sokal famously perpetrated the "Sokal hoax," submitting a nonsensical article to a postmodernist journal that was accepted and published, in order to expose the lack of rigor and critical thinking in the field.
In short, the critics argue that French theory, postmodernism, and poststructuralism are more concerned with abstract, theoretical musings than with empirical reality, and that they are often guilty of substituting style for substance.
According to Chomsky, the political consequences of postmodernism and French theory are potentially disastrous. He argues that these theories often lead to a nihilistic rejection of objective truth and a belief that power relations are all that exist. In turn, this can lead to a form of politics that is focused solely on identity and representation, rather than material conditions and structural inequalities.
Chomsky sees this as particularly dangerous because it can obscure the real sources of power and inequality in society. Instead of challenging economic and political systems that perpetuate injustice, postmodernism and French theory can lead to a focus on individual identity and cultural expression. While these are important issues, Chomsky argues that they cannot be the sole focus of a progressive politics.
Moreover, Chomsky argues that postmodernism and French theory can lead to a kind of moral relativism in which all beliefs and values are seen as equally valid. This, in turn, can make it difficult to challenge oppressive and unjust social norms and practices.
In short, Chomsky sees postmodernism and French theory as potentially limiting the ability of progressive movements to challenge power and effect real change in society.
Post Modernism is a classic case of
"My Karma just ate your Dogma"
The Leftist world Agenda is pure Fascism.
Fighting all the evils of mankind with their morally bankrupt evils of fascist control.
They have become what they HATE.
To disagree is to experience EXACTLY WHAT CHAIRMAN MAO did in the 1960's Cultural Revolution. Making each Citizen suspects of the State, to make each Citizen "Struggle" in a public lynch mob of conformity or exile from the States vision of Right versus Wrong.
Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and every 20 TH CENTURY dictator used the EXACT SAME METHODS to inflict devastating Mass murder in forced labor camps where starvation and disease killed over decades millions of human beings who did not fit the Socialist ideology and rule by MEN instead of Laws.
I don't really agree with Chomsky on this issue. I read some Foucault books and found them very interesting. My main problem with him is that, as a historian, he hardly ever gives specific dates or even years. So, we learn that this or that psychoanalytic theory was proposed, believed in, discarded by another in France. But when? You get hints that it was maybe around the time of the French revolution or perhaps the Napoleonic period, the medieval period or some such. Perhaps he was writing for people who already knew enough about French history to put it all together. I think if somebody had just simply put a chronology in the backs of his books that readers could refer to, it would help a lot. Perhaps, somebody could still do this or already has, but it isn't in his books. That is one reason he seems intentionaly obscure.
Foucault is not the best example of what he is critiquing. Foucault, while flawed politically especially later in life, made valuable contributions and was more or less understandable.
“Because they claim to be concerned with the welfare of whole societies, governments arrogate to themselves the right to pass off as mere abstract profit or loss the human unhappiness that their decisions provoke or their negligence permits. It is a duty of an international citizenship to always bring the testimony of people's suffering to the eyes and ears of governments, sufferings for which it's untrue that they are not responsible. The suffering of men must never be a mere silent residue of policy. It grounds an absolute right to stand up and speak to those who hold power.”
So much for the notion that certain people don't believe in objective truth. It's a shame to see Chomsky expose himself as an old man who can't even do basic research.
A structural linguist who doesn't like post-structuralism. Really surprising
Chomsky’s isn’t a structuralist, his teacher was a structuralist, but Chomsky’s revolutionary theory is in the lineage of Kantianism, that rationally we can deduce innate faculties of mind which are universal and not socially conditioned. He interprets Kant in biological way but he wasn’t the first to do it.
While what C says is plausible about many post-structuralists, C should be aware that he here analyzes post-structuralism as discursive power. That is, here C gives a post-structuralist analysis of post-structuralism. Sokal showing post-structuralists do not understand science is more promising. We need to criticise post-structuralism for its disinterest in how humans relate to the broader physical world.
Chomsky got this right, at least. Every intellectual con artist in the world will tell you that if you don't understand his cant it's because it's too complex/subtle/difficult for a mere dolt/peasant/clod like you to twig to. End of discussion. Which, of course, is exactly what the grifter wants. Actual discussion would lead to exposure, and exposure is bad, bad, bad. No more tenured professorships there. No sirree. Not one.
What are you talking about? Postmodernism is something that you *have* to talk about, and it’s something people get excited to discuss at universities. I find that the only ones that will try to shut down discussion using the tools of deconstruction are naive ones that are excited about something they just learned (and don’t quite know what they’re talking about) or con artists, as you said. But postmodern theorists, and a lot of what I see in academia, are certainly neither. Really, whether you believe postmodernity is a good thing to embrace or a decaying force that we must overcome, academics tend to *react* to it. You are forced to react to it. Marxists have to deal with their narratives being deconstructed. Postmodernists have to find a way to pick up the pieces of history again, perhaps with the old lenses or with some exciting new one. And that’s where all the discourse is. If you’re getting shut down, then you’re talking to the wrong people.
Who knew that what Chomsky said about postmodernist ideas dominating academia would still be relevant today. I totally agree with him.
It really is a divine experience to sit in the man's presence, as with the Dalai Lama, and he in fact preaches humanism, justice, equality and truth.
Love papa Chomsky, yet his functionalist view is so riggid one its not effective at all. There is some vlaid criticism, but searching for a purpose and a transcendental truth in explanations is redicilous. Yes, the data is what the data is, but how you construct the narrative is how you understand the data and that's a huuuuge deal.
I wasted a few years on that 💩 , was relieving to leave that in the 🚽 and move on. As Noam says , it’s just simple ideas made to sound like spending . Zizek is the current form, but at least he’s funny. “Fashionable Nonsense” by Alan Sokal is great book revealing the charade, but these Noam vids are even more incisive as he goes into how they distract from real change.
The logic is evident: "I don't like postmodernism because I don't understand it."
This comment is too underrated.
This kinda applies to every anti capitalist too. They don't understand economics or capitalism so they don't like it.
@@gabbar51ngh Not really, no. There are many anticapitalists, who prefer other systems (parecon) because they DO understand the capitalist economics, have seen the poverty it leads to and have sympathy torwards those, who do not have freedom to exercise their power in workplace in democratic process. Shouldn't be surprising, that most economists with a snipet of altruism turn to other economic systems. Those, who don't, rationalize it as "someone's gotta be at the bottom. Too bad for them. We make progress here, not happiness."
@@themage4232 which other system are you referring to? Don't say socialism. It's thoroughly debunked & it's pretty much flat earth theory of economics relying upon LBV which has been outdated & barely in use since marginal revolution.
So far consensus regarding economics is pro capitalism. There hasn't been any good argument against it. Also capitalism doesn't lead to poverty but prosperity. You seem to be making some very huge fundamental mistakes regarding Economics & capitalism in general. It undermines your views on the subject.
@@gabbar51ngh I guess you skipped over the part, where I said parecon. I recommend you read a book on it.
The fakers who are laughing at the beginning are sooo busted
"I don't understand it therefore it's nonsense."
Jealous of the students
"Social science" is an oxymoron that reeks of desperation to be acknowledged as "science." The most irritating thing about studying this field was how hard they tried to incorporate math and a system of quantification to human behavior
Why wouldn't be this possible?
The question is not if it's possible or not, but if the results are indeed explanations or not. So it's a methodological question. Can science driven standarts "explain" human reality, being, behavior? Think in history, or the books that shape history, or history events, or the debates inside of the methodology of the historic science. Can it be "explain" with quantifiable measures?
It's a bit ironic that Chomsky admits to changing his presentation depending on his audience...also, his statement "you always tell people what they don't want to hear". These statements seem rather fluid and relative, rather than fixed and universal. "Truth" seems to be shifty, slippery, and contextual after all.
What Chomsky says to the Israeli audience and what he says to the Palestinian audience are not contradictory. The flaws of the Israeli and Palestinian governments are both objectively true; they are not true relative to the audience (it is not "shifty"). Chomsky's point - which I think is a good one - is that by focusing on the shortcomings of the Palestinian state when talking to Palestinians and vica versa, the argument is more forceful. The assumption is that Palestinian university students know more about the wrongs of the Israeli state than they do the wrongs of their own (and vica versa). Thus, by focusing on themselves, those who hes addressing get a better understanding of the conflict as a whole.
You have to deliver the message in terms by which it is accessible to the audience.
Giving the same presentation to every audience is neither a sufficient nor necessary condition for being truthful. there's just no such connection. Think about how crazy what you're saying is. If you are a teacher and you write the same critique and give the same grade to every paper and project submitted by students, you're more robot than teacher. No human would do such a thing. This is so obvious, it makes me feel stupid for pointing it out. But just in case your comment was actually serious, I feel like someone really should say something, even if it feels dumb to do so.
God you really made hard work of this.
If he speaks to Palestinians he criticises the PLO corruption. If he speaks to Israelis he criticises the settlements.
Where is the "relativity" in this?
I'm a born sceptic. That includes Chomsky. I want reasons, I want data, I want logically constructed arguments. I question everything. Its good to see that Chomsky and I have the same conclusions on post modernism. I still reserve the right to question his linguistic thesis. Too many unfounded assumptions without a proper source of empirical data. His metaphysics are good, I can't argue that. Of course, I pose these questions because I don't approve of post modernist arguments. He has a good start on his theory, I just think it has some contradictions. I will go with objectivism here. If the logic is right, and there is a contradiction, then check the premises. I think he would approve of my criticism. He might disagree, it is a valid criticism nonetheless. That's how truth is found with the Socratic dialect. (not to be confused with Hegel's dialectic)
KozzmoKnight ...with good vibrations for you! "If the heart could think, it would stop beating immedieately." (Fernando Pessoa)
KozzmoKnight
If you're a skeptic then why don't you question your own methods?
Why would you assume that I don't? I question myself most of all.
KozzmoKnight
Good, so why did you elect to use the Socratic Method?
Just to see if anyone had a sense of humor. Any more questions?
Post-modernism is an intellectual embarrassment says one of the world's leading intellectuals.
Are you insinuating something or just surmising the video? I genuinely can't work it out.
Pretty brave of an intellectual to attack a popular intellectual movement.
Ok boomer
He's 100% aware that he's doing the equivalent of strawmanning materialism and using examples /strawmanning as post talk justification cause he's triggered.
In regard to poststructuralist thought, unfortunately, Chomsky relies on the incoherent argument that "nobody can understand what they're saying, and yet I know it's nonsense." If anybody is interested in understanding, I recommend my videos: ruclips.net/user/BrianArtese
Sokal is itself a joke... ninguem serio deve levar sokal a serio
Ninguém sério deve levar o pós-estruturalismo a sério.
Por que?
The Sokal hoax was brilliant, very revealing.
So he doesn’t understand it but still confident to make a judgment? I’m not a postmodernism fan but this seems sketchy.
Kyiv stuff ::
Your point is very-well taken ; but, you're being generous with the word "sketchy". For an intellectual, like Chomsky, at best, his statement seems anti-intellectual.
Chomsky is so highly-respected, he can get away with non-sensical statements until people like you who are listening with very sharp hearing. .
As far as the tuberculosis story of the Ancient Pharaoh having a disease that was only discovered in the 19th century doesn't mean the Pharaoh didn't have tuberculosis. Those DNA tests probably showed sighs of the disease based on the knowledge of tuberculosis --- Today ! It could just as easily be that "tuberculosis" has existed for centuries and was only "discovered" in the 19th century. The Egyptians just didn't have a name for it or even understood it as a medical issue.
That seems like an elementary conclusion but I must be missing something as I'm not an intellectual.
@@cliffgaither Foucault denied the idea that we could determine our “natures” and focused on the structural changes from era to era, rather than claiming things to be universal. Chomsky does not dismiss structuralism (and Foucault considered himself a structuralist), but thinks it’s absurd to adopt this point of view which dismisses scientific epistemology or theories that narrow down the possibilities of human nature. I do too. But I still value Foucault because too many people try to overly universalize, Foucault had some interesting observations. But those that followed Pomo took anti-universality into really absurd territories, they still do.
This isn't the contradiction you think it is. I've read stuff and "understood" it to be pretty vacuous. Either making a valid point that could be made infinitely simpler and more efficiently with no loss of valuable content, or a wrong point or no point at all, obfuscated by verbosity because it is rewarded in academia. That is the critique. It is not anti-intellectual. It is pro-usefulness, pro-clarity, pro-rigour. This stuff is a retreat from class politics and movements, with a superficial, false veneer of radicalism.
OK, Chomsky. Can you now please come out and condemn modern feminism.
Tell me your scared of women without telling me your scared of women 🙄
@@missc2742 . . . yeah, they terrify me.
At least Post Modernism has a sense of humor and can laugh.
This guy is way too humorless.