Відео

4min30 children 12-13 years old NEVER want to have sexual relationship with noone. I can only speak for myself, but sexuality at that age was Disgusting for me. A child wants emotional bonding. Not sexual bonding. Hands OFF from children. it is a crime. Great damage has been done by those ideas.

What are some articles or books in which Chomsky advances this criticism?

2020 election. Biden. 81,283,501 Trump: 74,223,975 2024 Election: Harris:: 75,009,338 Trump: 77,297,721 So what happened to those 6.3 million votes that came out for Biden but not for Harris? That's completely aside from all the swing state illegalities that the courts ignored due to the Carl Schmittian State of Exception under the alleged COVID emergency.

String theory is the new post-modernism.

This reminds me of Tom Wolfe's description of 'clerisies'...

If the narrator could speak clearly and distinctly, it would be helpful, but maybe that is a bit postmodernist of me.

I don’t believe that, then proceeds to say that he does. He is consistent he doesn’t believe in following the law of non-contradiction.

My take is that the guy works at a university and doesn't want to get ostracized or worse. Meanwhile, today's Dems are insane with their enthusiasm for war, censorship and throwing their perceived enemies (including non-violent grandmas who protest in front of the Capitol or abortion clinics) into homegrown gulags. That's without even getting into zany immigration policies and very unpopular Gender Ideology-based programs.

as a progressive I still love Huemer

You've got it wrong Noam. Not all of it, but it sum.

Funnily enough, it would also undermine reductionist conceptions of subjectivism in just the same way (if it does work).

Thanks for putting this up. For me, the difference concerns a power structure (the US) acting violently vs a disenfranchised group (al Qaeda) acting violently. A power structure flexing its muscle to protect the status quo in another group's territory to extract their resources vs a disenfranchised group who is fighting against its oppressor. If there is to be a moral line, I would say the power structure acting violently is more in the wrong as they are abusing power, whereas the disenfranchised acting violently is a more defensible argument due to their weaker position as the resources from their own territory is being extracted by the power structure. Most people reading this in English would argue the western accepted definition of Islamic terrorism being a threat to a democratic state, but that is merely a subjective argument filled with self-serving bias in place of an objective argument, which Chomsky attempts to convey. The US may have an electoral system, but does not act or support democracies around the world. Sam Harris is not known for being objective, particularly when it comes to Israel. Harris is fast and detailed oriented when it comes to the crimes of Islamic and Christian nations and peoples, but just as fast and detailed at defending Israel's government which is peopled by rightwing religious zealots, and that is most likely because he himself comes from a Jewish family and many of his supporters are Jewish, which makes Harris a mere modern entertainer, not a serious intellectual concerned about objective morality.

Without postmodernism people would still be jailed for thinking outside the square.

Postmodernism: An ideology that says all ideologies are wrong because they are subjective. Am I being objective?

Profundity through obscurity.

Chomsky is a fraud, like most non-STEM scholars.

if postmodernists reject modern ideas and thats its MO. How would critiquing capitalism and its effects and the general population be postmodernist when any critique of any system to bring about change related to a modern idea and that may be implemented elsewhere in the world and this would still be modernist in nature. Post modernism is being used to label people that are critical but these people may belong to ideologies that are still grounded in modern ideas of community, government, sociability, and psychology.

This is a typical 'straw man' and deliberately simplistic presentation, especially since Chomsky himself does make use of some aspects of Postmodernism constructs (e.g. he himself denounced many of the grand or meta-narratives of the powerful...)

First, good video. I'm a rather firm proponent of Deleuze. So, It's nice to have outside perspective on so-called post-modern philosophers. But... 1.) Noam Chomsky: Worldwide, I can't think of any contemporary thinker with more decades-long, regularly-public, media-present populararity than Noam Chomsky. Chomsky has probably published and sold more books than most of the so-called post-modern thinkers, combined. ... 2.) Its reductive to sweep all Continental French thinkers under one umbrella. ... 3.) it's reductive to say that these thinkers wrote non-sense for the sake of popularity and profundity (e.g., Deleuze had no part in public life until near death. Regularly Refused interviews or public debate; whereas, Noam Chomsky: see my above comment). ... 4.) I'd genuinely like another video detailing instances of this "post-modern literature" and where it becomes nonsense. I'm serious, I'm always open to having perspective shifted. I'm open to persuasion of argument (difference 😉). ...

I wonder if Chomsky discussed these ideas with Jeffery Epstein.

Sorry, thumbs down on this one. Postmodernism indeed sucks in many ways, but simply uncovering power relations and the ways in which they are sustained is not postmodernism (what was Marx, a pre-modern postmodernist?). Also, how did your argument devolve from a leveled critique of some of the worst claims of postmodernism to a flat-out moral and ethical rejection of academics of all stripes? The pics you use illustrate this muddle as at least half of the individuals pictured are not postmodernists by any definition.

I love Chomsky, but he completely misrepresents Latour at 4:59. In the context of the article he refers to, Latour is making the general point about the construction of scientific knowledge--put simply, confusing a propositional description (i.e. this is "tuberculosis" and "the measurement of x, y, z in the Pharaoh's remains thus indicates that he died of tuberbulosis") with the facts illuminated through physical practice of science. He is NOT saying that the physical pathoogy of tuberculosis is a social construct that did not exist until it was discovered and named. Please remember, while he was a French philosopher contemporaneous with the dunderheads you are pointing out, Latour was a tremendous voice against the postmodernists. Latour and his peers in Science and Technology Studies basically dismantled the thinking the led to postmodernism (and the muddled episetmology of the scientific enterprise) and provided a path forward for contending with both the real, factual world and our social existence within it. Postmodernists hated Latour. Bruno Latour was an intellectual hero. It was a great loss to the world when he passed away two years ago.

He really took a chompsky out of postmodernism

There's no "postmodern" ideology or method. At best, there is a kind of loose aesthethic or style. Imagine if someone tried to dismiss all philosophers under "modernism" by making up a kind of extremely diluted "ideology of modernism" and ignored the fact that the "modernist philosophers" had massive disagreements: [You don't have to engage in any of these works, trust me when I say that all these modernists who claim to idealize reason and individuality are actually just spewing nonsense, I mean look at this: "Now from the empirical consciousness to the pure consciousness a gradual alteration is possible, where the real in the former entirely disappears, and a merely formal (a priori) consciousness of the manifold in space and time remains; thus there is also possible a synthesis of the generation of the magnitude of a sensation from its beginning, the pure intuition 5 0, to any arbitrary magnitude." Utter gobbledygook, completely untestable language games, academic jargon meant to seem sophisticated to reap the benefits of professorship etc. The effect of "modernism" is clear: fascism, rampant individualism and exploitation of natural resources, justified by the superiority of Man over Nature and the primacy of the individual over the collective. For those of you who are even a little familiar with these "modernists", it may seem like they disagree with each other but what's actually happening is a massive conspiracy orchestrated by the ivory tower of academia.] This is exactly what you sound like. If you want to criticize some philosopher, do so more specifically and from a position of understanding their work.

sounds very much like he is taking about himself and of course someone playing the oracle in the american intellectual desert has a problem with european philosophy

People who believe there is no such thing as truth use that belief so they can lie to get what they want. If there is no objective truth then one can do whatever they want. It's a philosophy of a two year old.

when people ask if philosophy is useful, I think about how viral it can be. Hegel and Marx released ideas that shaped our entire 19th century and the French focused and distilled ideas that pervade all western society since the late 20st century to current day. Deconstruction from post modernism has been horrible for us. Its resulted in unrecognizable society that is post-truth

"Appealing to the is-ought problem is an Internet favorite way of undermining moral realism of a naturalist kind." It doesn't just undermine moral realism of a naturalist kind, though, it undermines moral realism of a theistic kind too. If an ought can not be derived from an is, then nothing that is commanded by a god, or is in the nature of a god, can imply anything about morality.

Yikes pretty embarrassing takes straight off the bat

If the purpose is to get close to reality, ego should be set aside. In this way, it does not matter "who" is right. The important thing is to get closer to reality. Then only we could see aspects of reality, we hadn't seen before. But if we do not set aside our ego and try to prove "I" am right, instead of the idea in my head is right, then we will be fighting with words and we will not see the reality. Perhaps Peterson is saying that he gave up to fight with words, it does not matter who is right, so long as he understands the reality better. It is a very difficult task , sacrificing ego, to understand the reality better.

Yawn. You don't understand the philosophers you're discussing, that's clear. Chomsky's critique of celebrity and the need for constant flashy ideas applies more to someone like Zizek today than to the strenuous work of Derrida and Foucault. Your little ad hominems thrown in are bizarre and telling. Do you read French? How can you speak to how abstruse the ideas are or aren't? Name one incredible philosopher whose writing is easy to understand. Part of what gives Chomsky his eminence is his preternatural clarity; and obviously he focuses on praxis, so he's not the person to look to for appreciation of theory. His comments on "postmodernism" have been brief, minimal asides. He has a different project and there's no need to look to him for expertise on Continental Philosophy which he was never inspired to seek. Your video presentation here though is profoundly unnuanced, boring, gloomy, and superficial.

Subscribed.

Don’t go away mad, Chomsky. Just go away … you utter and complete egomaniacal hypocrite … please go away.

the idea that postmodernist tools of critique can be applied to postmodernism itself isn’t brutal at all. that’s a totally normal take in postmodernist philosophy.

Trump was right that the election was stolen, so trying to get it righted was the right thing to do. He didn’t ask them to make up votes, but to find legitimate ones. January 6th was a Federal false flag psyop and Trump has had illegal and immoral actions against him and his campaigns that Heumer simply ignores? Pretty poor Intuitionism.

Well that video was cringe.

I watched this video and was hoping it just might go beyond superficial stereotypes of French intellectuals. It didn't. The video presents Derrida and Levinas and Lyotard as if they lack ethics. I'm guessing the undeniable fact that Levinas placed ethics as First Philosophy would be news to those who created and accept this video. And I'm guessing they'd be stunned if they actually read The Postmodern Condition and recognized that it is a report and the nature of knowledge as it becomes commodified in an increasingly technologically dominated society. Lumping these scholars together is the first sign that the creators of the video are far, far more guilty of the crime they are accusing these different writers of being guilty of. Baudrillard is an exception. He's a turd.

Postmodernism is, not a genuine philosophy, but pseudo-philosophy...

Text is tenure. The more text you produce and the more obscure and impenetrable it is the more value you gain as an academic. It's a con.

damn Chomsky sucks

Thanks for teaching me about sunk-cost fallacy!

I think you are missing the point Eric makes at the beginning about pre committing to agreeing the election results, it’s the fact that they even asked the question to him on the first place. That has never happened especially in the very public manner in which it was done. No standing US president has ever been asked do you commit to agreeing with the election results 4 years before the next election, it is a ludicrous thing to ask a standing US president and was done so for only one reason which was his point ie they were trying to embarrass him, make him look like a fool. For as retarded as trump is, he clearly understood he was being mad fun of and humiliated publicly by being asked such a trivial question hence his response of “‘we’ll have to see”. Now unfortunately trump didn’t realize that by not caving to the establishments demands of admitting what they wanted to hear he ended up giving them more fodder to later attack him with, again demonstrating how retarded trump is, but simultaneously demonstrating what many ppl already understood ie the uniparty run by the oligarchs of the US is that they do not care about anyone but themselves nor do they care about democracy as they determine what is going to happen geopolitically as well as internally in the US. And before you say well trump got elected so they must care about democracy…. I will point out the president is not as important as ppl would like to believe, and there have been many structures erected within the US’s structure of power that allow for them (the elite) to enact what they want without the need for the president. Further the reason they asked him that question publicly was a test, a test to see if he was willing to play ball with the dominant group of oligarchs in the US and he clearly denied them that which lead to many problems for him as seen by the whole Russia probe etc… again i don’t like trump he is a retard, also I’m not a fan of Eric either incase someone is going to say something about that. You are right that there is some essence of dystopia which is being pushed by Eric, but he isn’t wrong either as this clearly has been at work since prior to WWII, bc it was already understood back then by the elite that more levers of control over the masses were needed to maintain their power, money and status in the world and is why we have observed many of the events over the 20th century. The shadowy reality of politic and the puppet masters who control it are not here for you and I the common folk but are only here to make sure they stay in power and continue to accumulate wealth at the cost of everyone else, hopefully though as more ppl start to wake up to the reality of the world we can start to change this, whether it be through force or thier (the oligarchs) own voluntary capitulations to the masses. Cheers

The images seem to imply that Chomsky and Foucault were intellectual adversaries for some reason?

Over and over Marxism has produced nothing but a body pile of millions of innocents - look at the evidence. mmmm, good point, I know let's just say truth and facts don't exist that will work we'll call it postmodernism. 'Marxism has been nothing but a horror show' - 'no it hasn't'.

Chomsky practises what he preaches. Agree with him or not he has been a consistently tireless activist for many decades and at the grassroots level. The postmodernists by comparison are exactly as Chomsky describes.

This video reeks of the “impression of profundity”. The critique of postmodernism - the school of thought that asserts power structures are inherent and self-reinforcing - is that it creates a power structure? Pas de merde, Einstein! Foucault would argue that to use language itself is to engage with power! Postmodernism is the recognition of underlying power structures at play in human life, not necessarily the destruction of power (in fact, most postmodernists would find that idea impossible).

So this is more of a critique of academic postmodernists. . . And much of the critique can actually be seen as being the fault of the University systems. It is more the case that, that the conservative nature of Universities (their structures) harbor these thinkers, even though the Universities’ essences are everything that these people critique. The thing is though, the academy is the only place that rewards these types of thinkers on a high level. Ideally, University’s would modify their humanities programs in line with their faculty, but, at present especially, Universities are profit driven. There are outliers to all of these assumptions as well, in the modern context. At least in the way that some of these critics/thinkers do practice what they write/talk about. The legal professor Bernard Harcourt is interested in this very problem. He seeks to link criticisms to implementable action. I also don’t think it is fair to equate postmodernism thinkers to having an unreadable style any more so than academics in general do; overall, I think the biggest problems that are actually at fault here, could be fixed with a massive deconstruction;) of Universities.

Chomsky's critique of postmodernism is strong. Where he struggles, I think, is offering a new vision for a world view that can take its place. Chomsky has a sort of "unfolding of liberty" view of human progress. But he never has really buttressed that view with a substantial foundation. The closest thing that I can think of that would support that notion seems to me to be Hegel