Noam Chomsky's "Critique" of Postmodernism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2022
- In this episode, I present--and criticize--Chomsky's views on French Intellectuals.
Links to Chomsky's interviews:
• Noam Chomsky: The Stra...
• Noam Chomsky - Postmod...
• Noam Chomsky on French...
• Noam Chomsky - Postmod...
If you want to support me, you can do that with these links:
Patreon: / theoryandphilosophy
paypal.me/theoryphilosophy
Twitter: @DavidGuignion
IG: @theory_and_philosophy
Podbean: theoretician.podbean.com/ - Розваги
There seem to be some gross misrepresentations of Chomsky's points in this video. I recommend using direct quotes or showing the actual clips. In those videos he qualifies his points far more than you make it seem. He never says women and gay people are no longer subjugated. He says there have been major improvements, yet more work is needed. He also doesn't take on the view that Northern industrialists are equally as bad as slave owners. He makes a point that historically wage labor was viewed in a similar light to slavery and that maybe those arguments have some merit due to the fact that workers were exposed to disgusting conditions. Hopefully, people will actually look at those videos.
Yeah this dude is just consistently wrong about everything. At least it's still fun to listen to the subject matter
It could be that they misunderstood Chomsky on this Part still most people agree that Noam Chomskys critique of Post Modernist thinking is philosophically flat and even talking about "postmodernity" as an integer kategory is really questionable as to say Derrida Baudrillard said the same Things or even spoke about the same is actually stupid. Chomskys understanding of Foucalt is really shallow, as he continuently repeats the exact assumptions that Foucalt "critisized" (its the wrong word i mean like "unreavel" idk english is not my first language) in the first place so he displays a radical non-understanding or misunderstanding of Foucalt. Naja anyways shouldnt have been such a long text just meant to say Yeah I guess that lovely Guy from the vid (which I found good) misunderstood Chomsky on some but Chomskys Critique of "postmodern" thought is shallow like just watch his debatte with Foucault its great
I watched the chomskys Videos in which he talked about Foucault and also found them to be stupid
@@noahkuntz3471 I mean, the big problem I find with Foucault in his debate with Chomsky is that Foucault believes in a revolution after which, as he explicitly says, there will no longer be good or bad because the ideas of good or bad are products of the current ideological hegemony. It's literal moral relativism, because he believes morality and the very ideas of good vs bad is a product of Western ideology or whatever.
@@viljamtheninja No. It’s amorality which is a serious philosophical position. You seem to have an axe to grind with relativism tho.
I am curious, because Chomsky references it directly, what is to be made of Sokal's hoax and "Fashionable Nonsense." Chomsky sees ignoring or obfuscating notions of scientific truth in favor of ascribing to an ideology and intellectual culture that rewards people for bombastic social critique that may indeed be rooted more in an ideological framework than truth as damaging to social progress. Having been through graduate school in literature, I have found this to be true with regard to some scholars. Don't get me wrong. Foucault's work is very valuable in its critique of social institutions and their hegemonic role, but some scholars can cloak themselves in Foucauldian or generally "postmodern" language in order to make points that are at times patently absurd.
Once, when I was at a conference on Woolf, I asked a presenter what she made of Woolf's explicit support of eugenics in her letters and other sources, especially with regard to people needing to be exterminated. She said she had to read those comments in light of Woolf's feminism, that she must have favored eugenics in an effort to have "healthier, stronger women." THIS kind of thing is what is being critiqued when we think about fashionable nonsense. As long as Woolf's work is seen as being on the side of the oppressed, she can apparently be defended because she is against the patriarchy.
Lastly, when you say Chomksy says "they are truisms," "they are incomprehensible," and "they are wrong," and that this is confusing, this point seems almost disingenuous. You're acting like he is treating the same statement with all of these labels. Some of the ideas he references, like Latour's claim that tuberculosis is a social construct, are wrong or needlessly bombastic (whether Latour meant it as a statement about the innateness of historical contingencies or as a genuine point is not clear to me). Some of the ideas, like that power and authority shape what people think of as truth, ARE INDEED truisms. Those same points are found in Durkheim and Wollstonecraft and even in Plato.
So when Slavoj Zizek watches Lacan on TV while wearing a T-shirt with Guevara's face, that is plain talk about everyday issues. The everyday problems part is correct. But even misunderstanding Lacan takes a lot of effort, and double so for Foucault. But unlike with Lacan, in Foucault's case, the inaccessibility is more the language than the difficulty of passing on the knowledge of a nearly ineffable discipline. In big part this is what Chomsky seems to have problems with: artificial inaccessibility.
I think you got some stuff about Chomsky wrong. No disagreement about his being wrong about postmodernism, but I've never seen him say anything like "humans are naturally getting better over time". The context of his comments that say things are better now than before, is in response to people asking how to do activism when it seems so ineffectual. His point is that activism is very hard and takes very long to work, but it does work.
He also didn't equate wage labor to chattel slavery. He just said the south had a point about the North's poor treatment of workers.
Thanks for the video. But I can't believe you've gone through doing this critique without even bothering to check out what Anarchism is. Most your arguments are simply ignorant of very basic aspects of Chomsky's thought as a whole so you just don't understand his critique and assume ignorance from any argument of his. And not really. He knows significantly more you, pal. Sorry. Not that I agree with his arguments entirely, tho. There's value to postmodern critical theory. But I agree with him about the Gramscian hegemony in academic social sciences (particularly in the US) and that much of it has become a garbage factory.
Social studies cater too much to certain aspects of people that are just terrible. Transdisciplinar work needs to be more of a thing in the humanities, fr
If I recall you briefly mentioned Schopenhauer as one of the influences of post-modern thought. Is this only throught Nietzsche or is there a direct reading of Schopenhauer in post-modern french philosophy too? I know briefly that there is a bit of Schopenhauer on Deleuze and Guatarri's work. That would help me a lot considering I'm working on Schopenhauer and need some homework on post-modern philosophy.
My fav man taking a jab at Chom-chom, my other fav man.
I totally agree with you here. I have a feeling Chomsky expected a more "praxis-oriented" philosophical engagement from the French philosophers he criticizes. That's probably one of the reason he refuses to engage seriously with their ideas, and brushes them away as "overly complicated gibberish".
Great video as usual 🤘
Dude I been watching your videos for like 2 weeks straight might have em memorized. Well played keep ‘em coming 🎥
Thanks for the thoughtful commentary. I'll just make two brief points. First, Chomsky doesn't say that French postmodernism is incomprehensible and consists merely of truisms dressed up in obscure language. What I believe he says is that it is EITHER one or the other of these two things, so in some instances it is incomprehensible and at other times it consists of truisms that are repackaged in obscurantist language (so not a contradiction as you suggest). Whether Chomsky's assertions re postmodernism are factual is another issue--my sense is that his statements about postmodernism are too broad--so, there is some truth to them, but in many instances French postmodern thought is both comprehensible and original/insightful.
Secondly, there has been significant progress w/ regard to racial and gender equality. In fact, by many metrics, women (in the US) are doing significantly better than men--60% of college graduates are women, while a mere 40% are men. Further, if one looks not merely at the top earners, who are predominantly men, but also takes into consideration those w/ the lowest incomes, the latter are also predominantly men. Men account for the overwhelming majority of suicides, drug overdoses, workplace injuries and deaths, and have shorter life spans than women, etc. So yes, things are vastly superior for women than they were 30 years ago, 100 years ago, and so on. But "wage slavery" still persists, and is a more severe problem than, say, gender inequality. Of course, "wage slavery" is less severe than in the 19th-century, and so there has been some progress--see for example, the end of child labor, the 40-hr work week, labor rights, etc.--but even some of this progress has been turned back (e.g., unions have been weakened over the past four decades, the min. wage has been stagnant at $7.25/hr. going on 13 years, economic inequality has increased, real wages have decreased for the working class over the past few decades, housing is increasingly unaffordable, etc. So the exploitation of the working class persists, and is quite egregious, despite the fact that there have been some occasional (but inadequate) rights extended to workers.
that is so accurate... no one is saying that all the postmod work is bullshit and be thrown into the dustbin, i mean ive learnt do much from foucalt, butler, jameson, baudrillard but after 50 years of postmod stuff we are bound to ask what has it achived materially?
most of the things in your second point were won by the old style modernists who emphasised on organising and using language that people can understand and fight for UNIVERSAL rigthts
@thebablu31 uhm actually my life has changed drastically as a gender non conforming person in the past 10 years thanks to transfeminist organizing protest for my right to exist and having access to rectified documents without having to castrate myself.. so I don't really know why you say that these post modernists didn't do shit for common people like me
Hi David, your work is truly inspiring, and I'm eager to learn more about your video podcasting process. Could you please share some insights on the following:
Could you elaborate on the equipment you use for creating your presentations? Do you primarily rely on a smartphone or use a standalone camera for filming?
I've noticed you don't seem to use an external microphone. Are you utilizing your smartphone's built-in microphone for audio recording?
I'm particularly interested in your video editing process. Could you shed some light on the software or tools you use for editing your videos? Any specific tips or techniques you find useful during the editing phase would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks for sharing your expertise!
You made a clear argument and i agree with a lot of what you say. I too like Foucault and his works have given me a lot of insight. The same is true for Chomsky. However i too found it strange that he was so against postmodernism. I think it has to do with the way they look at language although from my perspective there is no conflict. They both are right to a certain extent and in both cases there is a point where their ideas do not hold up. Thanks for sharing this it helped me to have a better understanding of the situation.
He's not really against it tbh, he says it's true, but it's trivial, and all the theorising of post-modernists doesn't change the realities. He's not alone in this by any means, Baudrillard for example agrees
The notion that French 'post-structuralists' (& structuralists) only left Marxism in the 1970's is laughable. Within the French left, the famous argument between Camus and Sartre had already driven major disagreements due to the prevailing attitudes to Algeria and political expediency. But the move away from Marxism isn't really Chomsky's criticism - it is parroted by Peterson from Stephen Hicks' totally political (and crassly simplified) account.
Chomsky's main criticism is against the linguistic analysis presented in French structuralism and post-structuralism, and its failure to move away from Saussure's very limited account of language and reference (esp. relevant in Derrida). Chomsky's main contention - which to my mind is pretty much irrefutable - is that language isn't merely a social or, ideational phenomena, but a biologically determined one. Derrida's reliance on the phenomenological basis for linguistic knowledge (out of Heidegger and Husserl), and Foucault's insistence that 'a language is necessarily fascistic' foreground power or, philosophical issues in place of the necessary biological or, material grounding for language. Chomsky argued, convincingly, that innateness as a biological necessity for linguistic acquisition was a commonplace in the empirical sciences and that the post-structuralist skepticism of meaning and the referent etc. (or discourse in general) was losing that fundamental basis.
In formal/academic linguistics, Derrida isn't really considered a useful thinker, Foucault not at all and Saussure, while helpful in the designation of various linguistic analytical terms, has only very limited applicability. This is an important issue to consider when the main focus of structuralist and post-structuralist thought was an interrogation of 'the sign' and its relation to the 'referent' (ie its real in the world) and how that structures discursive practices. To be somewhat bluntly rephrase Chomsky - if these guys are going to use a critique of language to formalize their arguments, surely they should understand a lot more of what 'linguistics' has taught about language!
Thank you so much for this! I came to this video sick to death of Foucault 🤣 and I really appreciate your nuanced discussion of the ideas that Foucault is trying to advance and your rebuttals of Chomsky's criticisms. I am a doctoral student studying language and discourse in education and I am no fan of Chomsky's linguistics, but I like him as a public intellectual. I do think Foucault's arguments are often misrepresented or misinterpreted, specifically with respect to agency and power (especially among academics who are self styled champions of social transformation). I have found this incredibly frustrating. I do not have the intellectual hubris of most that I encounter, to assume that my work, while framed to promote social transformation, is the most righteous path to this goal. In my experience, most who use Foucault's ideas present their work as "This is the genealogy of X structure or idea. Now I'm going to condemn the group of people who created or implemented it, and advocate for the removal of all traces of their existence and influence. Obviously, this IS the way the world works and this is what we should do. FIGHT ME." 😂 This shuts down academic discussion or reduces it to trivial and petty arguments. I don't think academics spend enough time trying to examine the philosophical ideas underpinning their arguments, perhaps we are poorly trained in that sense. I have found this severely lacking in my own doctoral education. There are a lot of unexplored assumptions about human nature, morality, and human value systems in these debates, which can make it seem at times like we are talking past each other. Of course this question is framed by my own world view and lack of formal training in philosophy, but is it possible to say that Western Civilization, while perhaps not meeting it's ideal, has improved? I don't think it's naive of Chomsky to say that there has been improvement. You mention current events that might threaten specific rights, but gloss a bit over the establishment of some protections as rights to begin with. These protections are characteristic of the West and are still absent from many societies around the world today. If social transformation is a dynamic process towards an ideal, can't both progress and threats to regression exist at the same time?
Hey David, any suggestions on where to start on Chomsky in terms of his geopolitical work?
I'd suggest starting w/ Chomsky's "Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky." Good overview of a range on topics w/ an emphasis on geopolitics and US foreign policy.
I would argue even more, Foucault and his historical analysis of power and institutions has been largely used by academics and activists here in Brazil to fight against structural and institutional racism. Same to gender inequalities. It's weird to think that all of Foucault's philosophy and largely postmodern philosophy is morally relativist, when in fact, it's continually used as a theoretical basis for fights against social and racial inequalities around the world, which are things that I believe even Chomsky would root for.
Aren't you failing to distinguish between the concept and what individuals actually do? Illustration. There are scientists who are religious. Does this prove that religion is scientific or only that the scientists have not applied the principles of science to their own beliefs? Likewise how would post-modernism support the fight against structural and institutional racism and gender inequality as an idea? As a relativistic belief it does not support any direction, it only deconstructs any ideas already in place. As such, its nihilistic and would support anarchy rather than any particular alternative structure. Isn't that the point of Chomsky's remarks? Individuals, claiming to be post-modernists, might adopt any particular political direction but the philosophy itself requires no activism or any direction.
I thought that I would see a video about Chomsky, when in fact I saw a video of a French intellectual apologist. Chomsky’s greater criticism is of social scientists engaging in sophistry. That the language in the literature is tends to use complex terms and concepts in ways that do not always make sense. The main idea behind Chomsky’s criticism is that social scientists are trying to gain the reputation of higher intelligence that is common among physics, engineers, chemists, and the like, but lacking the rigor to do so legitimately. The results from physics are entirely predictive whereas the output from social scientists is rarely repeatable. Thus the narratives from the so-called intellectuals, ie social scientists, can not be trusted. In America we have people like Jordan Peterson, Jonathon Haidt, Steven Pinker, and Dan Ariel, and the like. It seems they tend to say what they believe to be true and not what can be proven. Yet they are paraded around as if they were great thinkers. Thus the crisis of credibility of psychology and other social sciences.
Very interesting! I enjoyed your synthesizing of the broader points. I'm wondering if you might take on Habermas's critique of post-modernist thinking (Foucault, Derrida, et al. - he calls them anti-modernist) which does appear to hold water.
Edward Said interestingly critiqued postmodern/deconstructive/post-structural thought in a manner similar to Chomsky. His "secular criticism" saw the difficult language contained within French intellectual thought as being detached from the world and excluding most of the public from participation is such discourse.
Your content has been invaluable in the research of my undergrad thesis.
Love your work. Thanks!!
Outstanding presentation!
Have never studied philosophy. Recent interest derives from being taught art history by two uniquely erudite lecturers who contextualise art movements, and the creative practice of individual scholarly artists, within ever-evolving systems of thinking. One has to be quick on the uptake. My head works by pinpointing whether an argument is sufficiently substantial and articulate to hold up in a Court of Law.
For an activist within the Palestinian Liberation Struggle, it goes without saying that Prof Chomsky was venerated as a voice for the Cause by all concerned. Regrettably, it's hard to remain a fan when elsewhere, in some instances, he seems to drift along the surface, sort of blowing pretty bubbles for a captive audience in the vein of a guest speaker at a charitable event, graduation ceremony, etc.
Admittedly, I'm being as discourteous towards him as he's been towards other great thinkers but the entire purpose of scholarship is for it to extend beyond the ivory tower of academe and influence broader society for the greater good.
Sincerest thanks to David for this review and also to the contributors in the comments section. (I've subscribed)
Oh, finally someone talking about that, thanks
Can we get one on George bataille?
In my ~15 years since encountering Bataille's work, you are the first fellow YT commenter I've seen who spontaneously brought up his name.
Very fitting profile pic is what I'm trying to say here.
@@cda6590 Well, i am fairly young (12 years old). And Bataille is refreshing to read. His radical philosophy is not only authentic but validating. I was kind of tired of reading old greek men telling me to live/Die virtuously lol.
i’m 8 and I read Deleuze
I'm Zero and i read Nick Land
Another issue is Chomsky's well-known denunciation of Skinner's behaviorism which was really a screed against the notion of "reinforcement." MacCorquordale (1970) answered Chomsky but it was too late, Chomsky made his mark and established his linguistic paradigm. Bourdieu was dead set against the symbolic mode and presented his term 'habitus' as contrary to notions of the self and ego which were based on both internalization and an increasing autonomization of the thinker from the body. Bourdieu sought to establish the agency of the person in the body, as embodiment of social conditionings, of experience. Where Chomsky struggles to generalize his linguistic theory to International Relations, Bourdieu presupposes, like many French intellectuals, that collective anxiety is due to structures of objective chances where psychological anxiety is due to a deficit of objective reinforcement. Chomsky might however just conclude that the political class is deficient in language comprehension and use but this would throw the IR problems into deeper confusion over their causation. Similarly, Talcott Parsons, following Durkheim and Freud, presupposed that deviance was caused by affective deprivation but remedied by socialization and education. In these cases, the unstable living conditions - existence - were inscribed into their habitus; expectations of ideal norms failed and the people acted up or protested but the state cracked down! Where Chomsky, like Piaget, posits structures, mental and social, the French objected to structuralism and moved toward poststructuralism and postmodernism. Chomsky could not agree with Foucault who sought strategies, practices, 'rational calculation' of power beyond the symbolic mode but they dovetailed in their criticisms of imperialism and the institutionalization of normativity. Where the French present either phenomenology or economics as the basis of life, Chomsky posits politics and ethics, that is, failed politics and unethical institutions while expecting strong criticism from intellectuals.
Inasmuch as I appreciate your videos, to belittle Chomsky is a big no, no and te refute that the French intellectuals of this period were relativists is also flat out wrong. Deleuze, among others, claimed in no uncertain terms that there is no right or wrong. To Derrida the only exception to this relativism is supposedly in how we treat our fellow person, which is, as Chomsky rightly points out in his general remarks, exemplifies the inconsistent or cherry picking and wacky reasoning that characterizes these men. Even Foucault acknowledged that his “archeological histories” were full of errors when called out in his scholarship (or lack thereof) but defended that he was only interested in the larger points that he was trying to make. Also, the notion that language comes rather naturally to us, and that we are inclined to recognize universal moral laws, does not seem like “a leap,” as you put it. If anything, it seems that you are projecting by criticizing that Chomsky uses arguments selectively to support his view. He does so with great consistently precisely because he is sound and a seeks higher truths, unlike those who deny the very existence of layers of truth. To uphold Nietzsche, who self identified as “the anti-Christ” as a philosophical guide already speaks volumes as to what these intellectuals were about. Moreover, the understandable reason why Chomsky doesn’t quote to support his comments is for expediency in making his points as he provided personal reflection on thinkers we know all too well by now and who have been overindulged by our tradition. To insinuate that Chomsky is an intellectual slacker is a shameful attempt by someone who is not remotely his intellectual equal. Please, stay humble.
That shirt's not tight enough my guy!
Whats the story on that wall hanging?
He also stated that slaves owners had a point that still has not been refuted that they took better care of their slaves than capitalists did wage laborers since they were actual property.
You are missing Chomsky’s criticism almost entirely. Chomsky comes from the anarchist tradition that recognized the power principles Foucault was discussing. The radical enlightenment also emerges as another part of the broad agreement that all these thinkers maintain.
I’d pay a $1000 to watch you bury Jordan Peterson in a debate on French philosophy. Zizek v JP left me so thirsty
Oh man you are a sadist! He's gonna have another benzo breakdown.
This is a great topic. Glad to hear your take on it. I'm a huge fan of Baudrillard, but don't you think his work could easily be mistaken as "wacky theories" to the uninitiated?
Also, I believe one of Chomsky's main metrics for legitimacy has been the degree to which they protest in the tradition style of marching and barricading. I don't know whether he considers writing books, e.g. Foucault, as legitimate.
With respect to postmodernists using complex words, it's another question of initiation. In art and dialectics in general, many words act as jargon. Take the over-use of the word "space" in art for example. LaTour's "agent." Or Baudrillard's invocation of "simulacrum." Chomsky was more of a left-brain learner. Though his heart was in the right place, I believe he expects the presentation of postmodernism and other critical theory to track "accretive" bodies of knowledge, such as electrical engineering, which introduce simple concepts, then build on them. While studying theory, it always felt like a whirlpool to me.
I think Chomsky has a point here. Our world desperately needs to change, and yet so many philosophers' idea are so hard to put into practise, (if you can even understand them without a degree).
I'm someone who already agrees with so much postmodern philosophy, and I have the time to read. And it's still so damn hard to figure out what they're saying - I don't think philosophy majors realize how bad it is for outsiders.
How is this supposed to change any oppressive systems, which the authors clearly oppose?
In contrast, other writers (including Chomsky) can communicate complex ideas in plain words.
I know the common reaction "Just put in the effort and read more" - why is there never any criticism on the writers who couldn't write for a general audience in the first place, which would align with their actual goals?
@@LowestofheDead I totally agree. I was a grad student, now I'm a office dork. It's hard to keep up and hard to connect the philosophy all the way through to the real world. Part of it is that philosophy doesn't have answers, but perspectives to generate answers. I would kill to see a news channel that connects every story with its historical context and its philosophical embedded.
It has particular resonance now with social media, McLuhan's points and Baudrillard's points. If you ever want to chat about this stuff, let me know. Or if you see anyone who is attempting to make these connections, let me know!
@@DIYDSP That would be a godsend. Honestly the closest thing I can think of is Leftist UA-camrs like PhilosophyTube or Alice Cappelle. They may not be covering the news daily, but it's something.
Hope you find something, and cool talking to you bro!
I thought Chomsky was saying "insulated" as to say that French intellectuals lack any sort of pragmatism and their philosophies don't have any applicability in the real, modern day world--rather than saying that they weren't considering other non-French texts.
There is a Spanish female philosopha who might explain this quite better. Her name is Amelia Valcarcel, her sense of humor and critiques on postmodernism are simple outstanding
Such a good video, David; I have to say Chomsky disappointed me a bit by not realizing his commonalities with the French "scene" and,more jarring still, inventing specious differences.
Chomsky does not say polysyllabic words that are truisms that are wrong. He says the statements from postmodernists are a mixture of those things. That is quite different. Having worked in institutions where postmodern thinking exists for me Chomsky is correct. Arguing with people who claim to be guided by these philosophies is like taking an eel off a hook when fishing as a child.
Good luck with your UA-cam channel. #NerdUp.
I think there’s a hunger behind Chomsky’s critique that is very relatable even if his arguments are flawed.
Post modernism seems difficult to translate from theory to practice, and Chomsky seems very scared that post modernism might inadvertently induce a paralysis that can undermine global struggles for various causes that are usually viewed as good.
I get that post modernism is about the long LOOOOONG view and how no single narrative can enclose all of that history, but I wonder if we’re just better off with some of these incomplete narratives of “progress” and “rights”.
A postmodernist would argue that the distinction between theory and practice is artificial, theory is often a kind of practice
@@teresadiazgoncalves3288
Yes. Precisely Chomsky's point.
A postmodernist would argue & talk & blather away endlessly while doing nothing to improve the material welfare of average & poor people.
Agree with most of your criticisms, but Chomsky doesn’t equate wage labor and slavery. He merely notes (correctly) that both were detested by people like Abraham Lincoln
I can't help but feel like the difference in degree of self-conscious temporal situatedness in 'continental' vs 'analytic' philosophy is central to the difference arising in Chomsky vs Foucault. Kinda related to Rorty's point about the "philosophy's discovery of time". To be stupidly oversimplistic: Chomsky is Kantian and Foucault is Hegelian. For Chomsky, the universal as such is present. For Foucault any universal is to be understood as a concrete universal with a contingent history. Chomsky's mistakes and oversights seem to arise often at the point of the subject-object contradiction (same with JP). JP wrote a comment under a video by Georg Hans Moeller's UA-cam channel where he takes offense to his analysis of the concept of self and I think totally tells on himself in a particularly stark manner.
It makes sense that Chomsky would say when Foucault is right there that "nobody's really a moral relativist". He sees Foucault as contradicting himself insofar as Foucault does anything for reasons because reasons are timeless and universal. He thinks Foucault is cheating when he causally connects power with truths because Foucault is a person that clearly responds to reasons and employs them. Chomsky sees critique as necessarily emerging from a transcendental subject who can only act via and through universal timeless reasons. He can't say what these universals are because the moment he does they become concrete universals subject to the exact same critiques regarding their contingent and historical nature.
I love where you brought up Hegel. Chomsky's last resort is to do that turn because he thinks it'll make Foucault admit to playing the same game of engaging in universal Truths™.
Chomsky sees himself as a continuation of the Enlightenment tradition and mistakes Foucault not as continuous with that, but as opposed to it. I think Foucault is better understood as a radical social scientist working within that tradition. Foucault is just another point of sublation in the scientific enlightenment tradition. Scientists just tell us how things work. What we do about it is ultimately up to us and will be subject to the same mechanisms of critique. Chomsky puts a limit on science that excludes his point of identification. Hence his metaphysical priggishness.
And I loove where you brought up Hegel. It's like you say: Chomsky wants to have his universal cake and eat it too. He wants to say universality as such is present which is what causes him to make those strange claims. Hidden in there is a naturalistic fallacy. It's actually super fascinating to think about where these mistakes and oversights come from.
Chomsky the social scientist sees them as stating obvious truisms. Chomsky the transcendental subject either doesn't understand them (on his own admission) or sees them as moral relativists. Chomsky the pragmatist sees them as not real moral relativists. Chomsky is threatened by opposition of the tradition but since Foucault is continuous with engaging in the challenge of self-imposed tutelage. That contradiction is too close for his comfort and so he sees it as contradiction and not as dialectical opposition.
TL;DR: Chomsky's old and is stuck in the ahistoricism of 20th century analytic philosophy
11:26 I think a point is that Foucault's idea isn't to criticize the idea that these ideas "sprout up from nowhere", because noone believes that, it's to criticize the idea that they are eternal truths suddenly found by science; it's to point out that they are culturally contingent.
Thanks for clarifying things. I would just add that, I think one of the reasons, perhaps, Chomsky came to these conclusions is that the french intellectuals have this tendency to appear very disconnected from working class people; its, in all honesty, very elitist and inaccessible.
Why would anyone be connected to the working class which doesn't even exist anymore? Working class want more money and less work, but they are arguing inside the logic of the system and aren't interested in overthrowing it as a whole.
With time you will understand those things french philosophy is more intuitive than exact. But thats an upside if you ask me.
@@kostaborojevic498 There have been actual revolutions in real life where millions of working-class people overthrew their system. Whether or not they were the right type of revolution, they were capable of understanding their situation and changing it.
At around @6:45 you’re discussing how some Marx critical strains of thought existed (in France) before the 70s… how do you delineate individual thought from broader cultural trends/movements or is that even necessary? Still listening so maybe this is addressed, either way thank you for such great thought provoking content.
Noam never makes the leap from innate language to innate morals. His work did plenty to prove innate language, but innate morals is just a hunch: it would make sense that we would have them. But it's a totally different (and much more difficult, in some ways) field of study from linguistics and the study of the innate structure of language. *I* personally would argue that Daniel Quinn and many tribal peoples and nature writers are better at discerning our innate morals--though not in a very scientific way. Joseph Campbell's work could also be seen as helping found the field of inquiry into the innate morals people might feel (that's why tribal mythologies could also be useful: they tell the stories that humans seem to come hardwired with as part of our innate nature).
I always found the profound difference in aesthetic values between a full on American thinker like Chomsky and the french intellectuals to be the most important aspect of the rift. They just will never see things eye to eye. I appreciate both in a way.
How proficient would you say you are in the French language? Am I right in assuming that half of its grammar and syntactical rules are only put in place as traps to embarrass and humiliate the Anglo-speakers of the world?
The French's commitment to grammar was always a natural and necessary reaction to the dominance of English (fun though experiment: can you think of situations where English speakers have trapped/embarrassed/humiliated non-Anglophones?), with that said there are traditions in French theory which are very playful with language
I should also preface this by stating that I have a high a high regard for both Foucault and Chomsky, which is part of why I think this is so odd for him. I find what's shocking about Chomsky's take is that even as and English Lit major studying literary / critical theory you're tought to look at all these movements like postmodernism in an objective and detached way and to learn to use different methodologies when appropriate. Chomsky seems to be looking for some universal capital T Truth and not practicing the detached neutral objectivity that is taught to Undergrads when examining both the advantages and disadvantages of certain theories. That alone was kind of a red flag. He could have easily just been like "well that's one (French) school of thought that I don't really agree with but occasionally find useful and even use myself" but he didn't say that lol Chomsky himsef was like "I'll take down the French school by using their own methodology against them" which is too fucking ironic for words because on one hand it's like - you just did it man, you are currently using post-modern methodology and anyone that doesn't know what post-modernism is or what it means is cheering because you just used post-modernism against itself to critque ... post-modernism... which prooves there is something useful there to the methodology worth looking at. I'm almost certain that even post-modernist would have agreed with Chomsky's assesment of the powerstructures innate to universities and the inteligengia and all that. It's like he's so frustratingly close to not only getting it but like... almost being one himself? It's actually kind of bizzare to watch him miss so hard and resort to dismissing it as "impossible to understand" when he basically is right there himself.
It’s a kind of narcissistic wound as postmodernists (Deleuze and Guattari) criticized heavily Chomsky’s linguistic theories as being rigid and superficial…
20:57 is this from one source, one statement?
In regard to wacky theories, what are your thoughts on a) Lacan's use of mathematical expressions and b) Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" article in ‛Social Text’?
Can you please do one of the liberation theology (the one from Leonardo)
Thanks so much for making this video. I’ve always been so terribly frustrated with this side of Chomsky. His inability to understand Foucault’s central point probably comes from the part of his brain that also fails to comprehend the sheer vacuity of the notion of free will.
Explain the vacuity please
@@RobertCEakins ua-cam.com/video/Dqj32jxOC0Y/v-deo.html
@@RobertCEakins The existentialists said that we're born blank slates and possess the freedom to create ourselves. The structuralists showed that we exist in the context of our society, our cultural and sociopolitical structures set limits on the possible actions and thoughts we can take (e.g. Einstein couldn't have come up with a theory of relativity without the preceding paradigm of Physics). After 1968, the poststructuralists, Deleuze and Foucault to name a few, introduce temporality into the structures and show how they change over time and how they utilise power to control (or in the old days: discipline) individuals in a society.
Not to say that free will is a completely useless concept (lines of flight out of conforming structures do exist), but holding onto the concept of free will in a poststructuralist lens sort of prevents you from noticing how power limits free will.
@@okamisensei7270 Thank you!
Did you freely come to the conclusion that free will is sheer vacuity or did the paradigm of our social construction compel you to?
Thanks for pointing out and adding that adjective in front of Peterson name.
It's a noun
I’ve lived your channel. I did a PhD in Anthropology in the 80’s and we studied Foucault’s work. As a gay man, I also found him liberatory. Watching the consequences of post-modernism, I come down on the side of Chomsky. Because French Marxism was never mainstream, but we studied Althusser at the same time. Just because French Marxism was not well appreciated in the US does not mean it was useful, useful in France or other places. At 70 years old, I view much of my past as wasteful. I see
Foucault called himself a “terrorist.” We need to all work to improve out institutions. Foucault’s history serve his assumption and ends which are not helping anyone make this troubled world a bit better. By taking our eyes of what clearly is happening, with the environment, with wealth distribution, post modern academics have wasted a generation.
Yes! Foucault should know a lot about power! Ask the children he sexually abused and exploited in Tunisia how he used his power… Chomsky said he thought Foucault was amoral, what Chomsky didn’t know at the time was just how immoral Foucault really was… Today Foucault would, and must, be cancelled.
12:22 What is his definition of power and why does he describe it as something so amorphous?
It seems this concept is absolutist and universal.
Foucault (I assume that's who you mean by "he") actually describes several different kinds of power, some of which is ubiquitous (I'm not sure I'd say 'amorphous' since power emerges or performed in different forms) and some which isn't. You might start with his lectures Psychiatric Power.
@@nicholasduron9827
Having power or not having power is a false dichotomy.
I haven't finished the video yet, I am about ten minutes in. I have watched Chomsky at length and I don't recall him, ever, making the assertion that postmodernists are saying, that because of power structures, postmodernists believe in some defeatist mantra of there's no point in doing anything(paraphrasing). I think Chomsky's criticism is that it is constuctionist in nature and they think that only power matters and that postmodernism's only purpose is as a tool, which is of no good to anyone except for the intellectuals who use it, to increase their own power through the exact methodology it is an analysis of. Also, I would imagine that Foucault would be, generously, described as a moral relativist given as he did some things that were pretty damn morally relative, I mean the guy in all likelihood knowingly spread HIV and quite possibly did some other questionable stuff too. To be honest I think there's a strong possibility Foucault was a psychopath who largely created a mantra to further his own personal power, but that is my speculation, so take it with a pinch of salt, but it's probably worth some thought.
This video sums out why I've always been lukewarm about Chomsky. There are so many holes in his thinking where terms aren't defined and conclusions are not argued. Everyone is lauding his genius-- and I do respect his earnestness and intelligence and advocacy of leftist causes-- but I scratch my head sometimes wondering why they see substance and I see an outline.
Post modern philosophy; Chomsky's Achilles heel.
Re complicated wording of ”french intellectuals”: it has simply very much to Do with the french language itself and How french and philosophy is thought. French language delights in sounding complicated. It almost ”tastes” like a sophisticated meal. English is very very different.
Just had a mental flash of the Merovingian scene from Matrix Reloaded.
The 'wiping your a$$ with silk' one.
Thanks for this. Love Chomsky but always thought it was strange when he attacked postmodernism and behaviorism when nativism itself could not be tested.
He criticizes more the academics who find Postmodernism useful. And on his criticism he is right, see "Sokal Affair" for example. He says its trivial because of course power relationships influence science, for instance, it's an obvious fact. But the actual content of the science is rarely affected and can be tested and challenged, it is not subjective.
18:16 Conditions have vastly improved from the Haitian Revolution (1791-1804) to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).
All of Colonizing nations had eradicated slavery. This was for the first time in history (6 millenia), one third of the planet changed its position on slavery, thanks to enlightenment values.
20:30 When a measuring cup shows me how much is 2/3, is that a power dynamic. Seems like nonsense to me.
Love your videos but I think this is a bit of a overly literal interpretation of Chomsky‘s criticism. Forget the reasons for moral relativism - the moral relativism is there. The general effect (not the affect but the effect) of incessant critiques of power is undeniably moral relativism for this reason: problematizing everything relativizes everything. While Foucault himself is not a moral relativist, the effect of Foucault is (very generally) moral relativism. I’m not using moral relativism pejoratively nor would I really agree with anyone using it pejoratively.
Only listened once, but looking forward to revisiting!
@18:20 I believe this is a critical misrepresentation of Chomsky's view, that "He thinks that through time civilization is JUST improving". In the interview linked below where I think most of the criticisms originate he says at 18:10 "it's been a long battle but over time in fact last couple centuries there's been a very consistent change and the change is not without conflict but it's going in a particular direction and I think you can even understand the direction the direction is towards that more tolerance of variation and more opposition to coercion and control".
ua-cam.com/video/Xab8y5Na84A/v-deo.html
This solves the conflict raised about slavery and wage labor as well as modern female and homosexual subjugation. Chomsky can easily be consistent by saying, that while there has been significant change with regards to slavery, there is still conflict realizing "proper" morality of wage labor. He even says the wage labor morality was nearly realized in the 1800s until it was beaten down.
This quote also solves the criticism @17:30 "He never says what these value systems look like". He says they are at least in part tendencies towards "more tolerance of variation and more opposition to coercion and control". Chomsky does admit to Foucault in their debate he cannot provide exact detail but he does believe people can sketch out justice/morality and this is likely his starting place.
I also believe it's more charitable to recognize that Chomsky would in all likelihood agree minorities face prejudices/subjugations even in modern America given opportunity to clarify, but I can also see him being held to high standard with regards to his exact statements since he has been a public speaker/writer for decades.
Yea, you're so right they don't just consume French culture, theories and philosophies. Foucault heavily took inspiration from Nietzsche obviously; i would even say Nietzsch could actually be the Father of Postmodernism.
Please do an Episode on Slavjo Zizek!
i don’t think his point on wage labor = slavery is entirely accurate, but if what happens is the same (that is, terrible living conditions and subjugation to an owner or boss with very little rights) then i think it shouldn’t just be thrown out. i don’t think you are saying to disregard his point either, but i i think it is important to analyze wage labor as another form of an imbalance of power onto “lesser” people. there is a reason workers protested and we have somewhat decent rights (minimum wage, overtime, abolition of child labor). it was people starting to revolt against oppressive power structures
also i think it might be disingenuous to say “stalinist.” stalin only elaborated onto what lenin and marx said, he didn’t really add to the theory in a linear sense of progressing new ideas. that was more mao
otherwise, great video :) love the content
Chomsky's critique reminds me of the old accusation that Nietzsche was a nihilist, while he was just pointing out that the Christian moral system was a construct and humanity needed to be rebuilt from new grounds. I find it mysterious how a so well-regarded intellectual as Chomsky can say (in another interview) that "post-structuralism is unintelligible for him", while not addressing any of the topics discussed by the french intellectuals.
When Sartre published "La Nausée" and "L'être et le néant", he was accused of bringing back the liberal ideas from Enlightenment but with a different name. Nowadays, it's impossible to imagine post-structuralism without existentialism, even though the post-structuralists didn't agree with most of the Sartrean concepts.
It seems history moves in opposites
Still, there are some similarities between Chomsky's idea of the "innate" human ability to understand language and Lacan's idea that the unconscious is language, although he said once that Lacan was a "charlatan". Maybe, they are tagging this innate ability with different names, but in the end, they get pretty close.
Wait - Foucault in Iran? How do we hear more about that?! 👍
precisely what chomsky means... foucalt supported the islamic revolution (because wait moral relativism or whatever fancy language calls that) while being totally scathing of communist, anarchist and marxists.... ultimately it matters whose side you take
@@thebablu31 I would be interested to learn where in his writings Foucault attacks Marxists and, in particular, anarchists. Please share any references, thanks.
I am not a fan of Noam, but you have grossly misrepresented his views here. Its also worth noting that many people read Foucalt as a relativist because this supposed "desire to resist" does not appear in his work all. Where he does resist is believing 12 year olds can consent to sex, and neoliberalism is great. His reading of power only casually mentions capistism and somehow de-historises history as he goes along with it. Bauldrilard's critique of Marx makes no sense and plays a silly language game, Foucault's critique of Marx ignores actual history which is funny because his work centres on it. There are fair left-wing criticisms of pomo philosophy, take Chibber Vivek for example, and lumping Noam in with JBP is intellectually dishonest. One of Noam's criticisms of Pomo is that the thinkers pull intellectually dishonest moves to serve their own discourse rather than to advance a materially connected one, which is exactly what you do in this video.
Chomsky is forthright in his assessment of French intellectuals. Beneath their verbiage it becomes evident that their vantage point is conservative and reactionary. I mean evidence in the form of results. It came as no surprise therefore that their esoteric language appealed to the third world academic intellectuals and literati in media and film (generally recruited from the elite, well-off classes) who do their best in infusing life into the hated feudal past by portraying dispassionately about the "difference" and “cultural resistance” to consequently “empower” the latter. They have their much needed vindication on a platter to gladly say goodbyes to science, rationality and modernity whenever it suits them.
I think you're grossly over-simplifying Chomsky's point of view. This silly idea that he disapproves of Post-Structuralism because he doesn't understand it is just . . . well, silly. He understands it all too well, I think - AND its real world applications, which, I'm pretty confident, is what you're missing.
8:17 I do beg your pardon!
Initially I thought you were being unfair to Chomsky, and then I watched his stuff on pomo and couldn’t believe it.
It’s like he can’t think outside of the hegemony of the US, even when he critiques the US. I saw a comment under one of Chomsky’s videos that said something along the lines of “was directed here after a Peterson video. The difference is night and day.” I don’t know if this comment is supposed to be funny or sincere, and I don’t believe Chomsky and Peterson share many similarities, but both are certainly hell bent on a falling back on a universal truth.
I do hope your fans will actually bother to follow some of the links to your mischaracterizations, such as saying that HE thinks that slavery and wage slavery are the same. He tends to say that SLAVEHOLDERS argued that they were the same, and that they "had a point that still hasn't been answered," namely that they actually fed and clothed their slaves and would never let them starve in the streets the way a modern corporation would do. You just seem to be unable to listen. Noam also likes to talk about the Lowel factory girls who were part of the early anti-industrial movements to free us that have led to things like the antiwork subreddit today, and how they compared working to rent your body for 12 hours a day as being "not very different from slavery." Now you can go on misunderstanding him or you can accept that obviously it's common knowledge embedded in English today that "wage slaves" exist: we wouldn't have the phrase if everyone saw the comparison as absurd. And yes, he makes the argument that we have generally been moving toward a better treatment of each other according to some awakened innate sense--I dunno if I agree with that at all but that's what he's saying, is that some part of you *knows* when you're being shitty to others and "shouldn't". Again, I would not say that I completely agree with him there: yes and no. Humans probably do have innate moral ranges, but the cultural flexibility is immense.
T & P, do you really think Chomsky has a critique of PM? I've never heard him analyze a single postmodern text. The only things he's ever said have been dismissive. "So if they talk to one another in an incomprehensible language so what? In the first world it means nothing. But if the intelligentsia is disinclined to get involved in political activism in the third world it's harmful." Hardly a critique much less an analysis.
Well if you consider 500 years ago it was considered ok to impale a man in an open square , today capital punishment is banned in many countries , I dont think we can disagree that there is a pretty steady moral trajectory of human civilization. The very fact that we are considering LGBTQ rights shows that innately we want to live together and we want to be kind. The problem is if you accept this then a lot of feminist argument of men suppressing women as if there was some nefarious plan to suppress them kind of falls apart. The fact is regardless of how bad women's conditions were they were improved , yes took a lot of effort , BUT they were improved and with the help of same men who were supposed to maintain patriarchy. The assumption that change will happen overnight is outrageous. Also Women's rights movement picked up pace around the same time modern science progressed. A major factor in liberation of women how can one disregard that !
Kicked the sh’t out of that strawman!
Chomsky is absolutely right French intellectuals and post-modernism. You have embarrassed yourself.
😂
@@TheoryPhilosophy One thing you can learn from Chomsky is How To Argue. His premises are always Factual and never commits to Invalid Arguments. He never leaves his thesis unproved. Listen him more.
@@Anarchist0707the fact that you fetishized facts is factually absurd.
Does Chomsky even speak other languages? I always thought it was a weird flex for a linguist to be so smarmy in only one language, even his followers are unbearable. Anglophones need thunder brought to them and it will come from the non-homogenized French traditions in theory
Interestingly, one of the points De Saussure makes very early on in his Course in General Linguistics is that, if you want to be a good linguist, you should try to develop proficiency in and use multiple languages
Well I mean why would Chomsky learn anything beyond one language when grammar is Universal?
That's how it works. Right?
@@GregoryBSadler what is this, a crossover episode?!?
Love your and op's vids my dude!
Chomsky speaks at least four languages (English, Hebrew, French and German) that I know of.
Define power.
Funny because foucault never did.
If only Chomsky were actually a philosopher smh.
Why does the activities of French intellectuals even matter? Ideas should be assessed based on their own merits. Easiest criticism of post-modernism is the same criticism of any relativistic philosophy. Whereas individuals have their own experiences its the real world which is the point of intersection and truth and the basis of proof is based on universal experience. People have their own experiences and preferences, which is fine for subjective things like music, preferred colours etc but is inadequate for questions of the outside world or even mass political or economic developments. If you don't agree on a universal proof, facts or reason there is no point in debating anything because there is no means of resolution.
@1:38 You say people are "coerced" into "believing certain things about the virtue of military operations." How, exactly, are people coerced? Or, are you being postmodern with your use of that term?
Read Manufacturing Consent.
For a more contemporary example look to the American media during the build up to the Iraq invasion.
The perspective that wage labor was harsher than slavery was made by classical liberals and others (T Jefferson, Paine) Chomsky just mentioned it. You really have to do some more reading mate, respectfully
Time index 24.36. Do you notice that narrator uses a subjective basis for assessing the enlightenment? "based off our own history and own knowledge of the world". This is a circular argument. He is saying that the post-modernists are consistent with the enlightenment if you use a subjective criteria. Isn't the whole point of the enlightenment is to use reason which is universal and thereby has objective criteria. Now maybe a post-modernist would not distinguish between the objective and the subjective but isn't that the point?! Maybe the narrator, if he is a post-modernist, can't see that has he just made a circular assertion. It gets better at time index 26.00 he says the age of enlightens requires facts, an objective criteria. The narrator has some serious thinking to do. Is the enlightenment based on subjective or objective criteria? Is post-modernism based on subjective or objective criteria? Understand that and you will see the contradiction between the two.
Chomsky and Alfie Kohn talk well on human nature as well.
Camus, Merleau-Ponty and Aron (and others) had fallen out with Sartre over his continued support of the USSR before 1960. There has been a history of French intellectuals attacking soviet communism and having conversions way before the 1970s, and way before the great examples you’ve given. It’s sloppy thinking on Chomsky/Petersons part.
I'm trying dude, but I'm just falling asleep. I think that you, like your Masters, are really good at *thinking* you're saying a lot--because you're making a lot of utterances--but not actually conveying much specific information that is comprehensible and concrete in its meaning. In other words, you're just not teaching me much about postmodernism, and I fear almost doing it a disservice. The Wisecrack guys do better, maybe take a few tips from their treatment of, say, Foucault? You're just leaving me with the feeling that I'm just gonna have to wait to read and see for myself (haha: nonhypocritically) what nuggets of wisdom there are in that stuff by reading it myself. And as far as persuading me to have any greater suspicions of Chomsky? Unfortunately, I'm just not hearing the slightest comprehension in the first place.
That is to say, I know quite well Noam's position on postmodernism. I know it the way you seem to know some of the figures of postmodernism itself: you could confidently discourse on at least some aspects of it. So I would know if you had grasped what Noam was saying at all, because your summarizations would ring true. Noam says THIS, but really THAT. Then, even if I disagree with your conclusions, I can know that *you're* at least disagreeing with something real and not a phantom. I honestly submit to you the possibility that you like to read things for the *feelings* that they give you, not always necessarily for concrete understanding. I've long thought that one of the best defenses postmodernism could make of itself is that it's more like literature, or poetry. Certainly in your "hearing" of Chomsky's "critique" of postmodernism, you never seem to have heard him literally, the way I do. It's like a meeting of the minds. I'm sure there's something to postmodernism, but guys like Chomsky just aren't on that wavelength.
Because I can definitely tell you there's also something to his critique of it. But likewise you seem just not to be able to tune that in. You should order yourself a copy of Fasionable Nonsense by Sokal, probably the most serious and scientifically conducted critique of postmodernist thought, and see if you can appreciate their point. It's undeniable: they present the evidence of the clearcut mistakes right there. If you're not a religionist about it, it should merely raise your awareness of the limits of and deepen your interest in the topic of postmodern thought from the likes of the authors who's names you say so well. It's just a cute catelogue of demonstrably nonsensical thinking on their part. Everything else that guys like me and Chomsky say is ultimately, without the evidence, just a kind of literary interpretation.
Oh and, as I also still plan to one day, you might enjoy the transcribed and translated book of the debate between Noam and Foucault. I've seen it but, I know I'm not getting a fair rendition of what Foucault is saying. I've held the book in my hands but, apparently it just hasn't been time yet. I also look forward to reading Discipline and Punish someday. And I just stumbled on Bucky Fuller's opus about how to change the world and save ourselves in a Little Free Library here in Portland, and I immediately get the feeling that he is also going to be a frustratingly loose and fuzzy logician for me to work through (but I have *NO* doubt about the likely veracity of the wisdom and genius there). So: i get it----sometimes when you don't get something, it truly is just over your head, for now (maybe until we open our hearts :)
Destry please stop I'm laughing too hard
Yes.
He presented Chomsky as a sort of simpleton.
calling the equation of wage labor and slavery stalinist is hilarious because dtalinist regimes were built on wage labor
Postmodern thinkers be like: "The self does not exist, that's why I have to be talking about me all the time".
"He wants to have his cake and eat it too. In that he wants to demonstrate how civilization--"Western Civilization"--has improved, while also finding ways to criticize anyone *else* who criticizes it as having *not* improved." You have a good point here, probably the verbal dexterity highlight of your video. Backhanded, I know: sorry. Just not a big fan of your thinking style, which seems ideological and, frankly, kinda slow, to me. I only say that because you seem to have some Dunning Kruger effect going on, that I think needs correcting. But yeah: I'm doing it myself right now. I have plenty of critique of Chomsky--I get off on tearing him to shreds--but then turn around and act like only I'm allowed to do it, just like he does with critiquing the West. So you're right there. Gotta hand it to ya. Same with Jordan--I can tear him to pieces and teach what a Western supremacist and capitalist shill he is, but everyone else who criticizes him to me always does it for the "wrong" reasons.
Thx for the unhinged batch of some of the funniest comments I've ever read--they really helped me with the algorithm 😘
Putting quotes around “critique” is your critique 🙄 To Foucault’s credit, he at least admitted that, “in France, you gotta have ten percent incomprehensible, otherwise people won’t think it’s deep-they won’t think you’re a profound thinker.” You are just accusing Chomsky of not understanding your beloved Foucault’s “profundity” 🙄
I would LOVE to learn how Noam simply missed a huge field because he couldn't wrap his mind around a certain style or styles of thought. But I'm only three minutes in, and I gotta say, the pretentious pronunciations and dismissal of Jordan as a charlatan don't give me high hopes (in fact one of the most uncharacteristic mistakes Noam *has* made in recent years has been his own blanket dismissal of Jordan Peterson, who--love him or hate him--is definitely not a charlatan or idiot: shame on both of you for dismissing someone you haven't bothered listening to). Also, just jumping on here to comment, and the last most recent comment I see starts with "there seem to be some gross misrepresentations of Chomsky's points in this video," again not inspiring me to think that I'm going to get much out of the next 23 minutes of my life, which, if I weren't so bored and dogmatic about investigating before dismissing, I wouldn't bother wasting watching this. I promise that if you do indeed end up giving me anything good, I will be back here to apologize. I would *genuinely* love to be surprised...
😂
I agree with your analysis but I’m puzzled why you have no discussion of the French phenomenologists? Outside of Foucault, Why such a strong focus on the post structuralists? Sartre, Beauvoir, and Merleau-Ponty definitely fit the vague characterization of French intellectual life that Chomsky uses and folks like Merleau-Ponty were already criticizing Marxism before Baurdrillard or Foucault. Why narrow things to just the post structuralists?
interesting! He probably focused on pot modernists and post-structuralists because they are often the target of people like Peterson, Chomsky or analytic philosophers.
@@kaidenkondo5997 probably, but as are the phenomenologists.
@@tcmackgeorges12 true!
I think if you can't particularize, and can't cite the text you are criticizing for this or that offence, then you fail. And it is strange that it is Chomsky who is guilty. He is not as guilty as Peterson, but somehow also is.
❤
I’m no fan of Chomsky, but the sneering scare quotes for Chomsky’s “critique” are irritating and smug.
It’s like a high school basketball coach critiquing Michael Jordan for playing “basketball” incorrectly.
If Michael Jordan showed up to a basketball match and refused to touch the ball, it would validate the scare quotes. Chomsky’s “critique” of postmodernism is self-reportedly devoid of any actual analysis; academically analogous to refusing to touch the ball.
If you think the scare quotes are smug, you ought to listen to Chomsky himself discuss this subject.
Postmodernism is intellectuel poverty.
"Solzhenitsyn" ok
its literature, not historic book btw