There are so many jewels of insight from this particular lecture and Q&A. Seems like a special night for the audience and Noam. It just seems like he was so ON. I know Chomsky always is but the clips from this particular lecture are almost like a showcase of some of his best insights and his way of thinking.
Has Chomsky ever talked about Ludwig Wittgenstein ? They share a lot in common when it comes to their unique take on philosophy that is based on linguistic insights and I can't find Chomsky even briefly mentioning Wittgenstein.
A hatred of complexity and difficulty, and the easy dismissal of challenging ideas as 'nonsense,' is the anti-intellectual spirit of late capitalism. You tell someone something like "actually racism is generated by propaganda which pertains to the privatised prison system," and in response you get "that's academic nonsense" or "that's just bullshit." Easy ways to run away from complex arguments. I appreciate Chomsky's points about nonsensical philosophy, but this is after he has taken the time to carefully parse through it and is applying his own philosophical premises (which are not neutral, uncontroversial or incontestable by any means) - even after doing this, the case can be made that his dismissive attitude weakens his position. I doubt that those of us on UA-cam are in an intellectual position that makes us worthy of such a simplistic dismissal of intellectual complexity. You only improve and learn if you engage with ideas, and don't just dismiss them. TLDR; dismissing difficult ideas is childish and anti-intellectual. Reality is difficult and often calls for "impenetrable" prose.
Chomsky has mentioned Wittgenstein in relation to theories of language and the way we picture the world. See the Stony Brook interview with Ludlow for one such example.
yo dude you dont even have to go that deep..check this.......I'm About To Make An Objective Statement..."Everyone Has Subjectivity"...argument Won - Uriel
Listening to Saint Noam the Prescient shit on Thomas Friedman gives me life.
There are so many jewels of insight from this particular lecture and Q&A.
Seems like a special night for the audience and Noam.
It just seems like he was so ON. I know Chomsky always is but the clips from this particular lecture are almost like a showcase of some of his best insights and his way of thinking.
Cheer~~~the quality of being objective.😊
Has Chomsky ever talked about Ludwig Wittgenstein ? They share a lot in common when it comes to their unique take on philosophy that is based on linguistic insights and I can't find Chomsky even briefly mentioning Wittgenstein.
Dragon Diver Wittgenstein wrote impenetrable, irrelevant nonsense. Another sphinx without a secret. The polar opposite of Chomsky. X
Chomsky is wrong, and Wittgenstein right (in my opinion). Anyways, their theories are not compatible with each other.
A hatred of complexity and difficulty, and the easy dismissal of challenging ideas as 'nonsense,' is the anti-intellectual spirit of late capitalism.
You tell someone something like "actually racism is generated by propaganda which pertains to the privatised prison system," and in response you get "that's academic nonsense" or "that's just bullshit." Easy ways to run away from complex arguments.
I appreciate Chomsky's points about nonsensical philosophy, but this is after he has taken the time to carefully parse through it and is applying his own philosophical premises (which are not neutral, uncontroversial or incontestable by any means) - even after doing this, the case can be made that his dismissive attitude weakens his position. I doubt that those of us on UA-cam are in an intellectual position that makes us worthy of such a simplistic dismissal of intellectual complexity. You only improve and learn if you engage with ideas, and don't just dismiss them.
TLDR; dismissing difficult ideas is childish and anti-intellectual. Reality is difficult and often calls for "impenetrable" prose.
Chomsky has mentioned Wittgenstein in relation to theories of language and the way we picture the world. See the Stony Brook interview with Ludlow for one such example.
I have heard him mention Wittgenstein in a lecture I can't cite, Monty Cantsin. Noam Chomsky does talk about him.
0:42 Accurate Reporting
1:56 Stick to facts - quite a worthy effort
2:25 NYT wants some stories to be accurate and others to not be accurate
he looks like the old man from Disney's UP in this video
We knew it all along. Now, in 2023 distorted reporting is just many times worse.
Report DON'T distort. Facts, FULL facts, just FACTS.
yo dude you dont even have to go that deep..check this.......I'm About To Make An Objective Statement..."Everyone Has Subjectivity"...argument Won - Uriel
Greatest comment ever lol