NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think of his writings, opinions, etc.?

What do you think of his writings, opinions, etc.?

His writings are blah. He's a linguist, not freaking God.

His linguistic stuff is genius. His political stuff. . .well, it's colored by his syndico-anarchism, and after reading both Marx and Bakunin, I can't really take anarchism all that seriously as a doctrine. Personally, I think that Chomsky has only helped strengthen corporate power in the modern world by eroding support in the state, which is to some extent what Marx predicted would happen if you attack the state instead of the economic base.

His writings are blah. He's a linguist, not freaking God.
I know he's not God, God is flying zebra with three heads and a fedora.

Can anyone please explain to me what exactly his linguistic theory was, and why it was considered better than Skinner?

I ask this all the time, but no-one seems to have an answer for me, they just want to talk about his political dribblings.

His writings are blah. He's a linguist, not freaking God.


And here I thought he was a mathmetition.

To be honest, his Deep Structure concepts have caused me nothing but trouble throughout syntax.. in fact, I'm just going with morphology and semantics because of him. So, I hate him.

Besides, his stuff doesn't fit any better then the other theories.

Can anyone please explain to me what exactly his linguistic theory was, and why it was considered better than Skinner?

I ask this all the time, but no-one seems to have an answer for me, they just want to talk about his political dribblings.

I haven't read more than a few pages of his stuff, and that was a few years ago. His very basic argument, however, was that if you look at how people develop and use a language, they all develop similarly and use similar cues to understand how language works. The only way Chomsky thought this could happen was if language was in some way ingrained in the human psyche. This is a direct refutation of Skinnerian behaviorism, because behaviorists thought that everything was taught (which, in turn, would have implied that people would have different development patterns and different linguistic cues).

I'm probably alone in my element, but I LOVE Chomsky. I've created threads about him miles back.

An amazing man. So amazing in his style:

What I don't agree with-- I respect.

Chomsky is very cool... I'd say he's an introspective, commy libertarian (doesn't admit the commie part, but has gotten very cool with the libertarian label.)
How can someone whose read him not like Chomsky?

We watched one of his films in the Phlilosophy Club at the college I attend. One of the professors thought it was brilliant. The rest told us we'd fail any of their classes if our arguments were as tenuous, spotty or opaque as any of Chomsky's.

I learned to stick to well-reasoned arguments and the notion of providing actual evidence to support my conclusions and did fin in subsequent classes. So I guess Chomsky helped me learn to.. uh.. not be like Chomsky. I'll take it. ;)

Chomsky just rambles on and on and on and on...

He has no new ideas, just criticism and no answers.

Chomsky just rambles on and on and on and on...

He has no new ideas, just criticism and no answers.

Yeah, but without Chomsky, how would conspiracy theories gain enough credibility so we can laugh for hours at them without having to pick on some poor sap? He's providing a valuable service, I say: a walking straw-man for our enjoyment.

Chomsky just rambles on and on and on and on...

He has no new ideas, just criticism and no answers.
Wrong. Everyone else got their "bitching license" from Chomsky concerning the "media".

It's all you hear about... Con or Liberal.

Thing is, the place where they meet up-- That's Chomsky's lair.

And the deco is uberkul.
:D

I'm probably alone in my element, but I LOVE Chomsky. I've created threads about him miles back.

An amazing man. So amazing in his style:

What I don't agree with-- I respect.

Chomsky is very cool... I'd say he's an introspective, commy libertarian (doesn't admit the commie part, but has gotten very cool with the libertarian label.)
How can someone whose read him not like Chomsky?

He's a syndico-anarchist . . . and I'm not all that fond of syndico-anarchism.

That being said, his linguistic stuff AFAIK wasn't all that spotty. His political stuff makes a lot of assumptions, however.

He's a syndico-anarchist . . . and I'm not all that fond of syndico-anarchism.

That being said, his linguistic stuff AFAIK wasn't all that spotty. His political stuff makes a lot of assumptions, however.
It's ANARCHO-syndicalism...

And reading Chomsky is one of those things I keep meaning to do...

It's ANARCHO-syndicalism...

And reading Chomsky is one of those things I keep meaning to do...

Wow, I just had a life of brian moment.

"Anarcho-sydicalists - splitters!"

Wow, I just had a life of brian moment.

"Anarcho-sydicalists - splitters!"
I always think of the Anarchosyndicalist commune from Holy Grail myself. :D

He's a syndico-anarchist . . . and I'm not all that fond of syndico-anarchism.

That being said, his linguistic stuff AFAIK wasn't all that spotty. His political stuff makes a lot of assumptions, however.
I hear ya. But that's why, as an example, I discourage anyone libertarian from calling themselves (around genpop), anarcho-anything. :rolleyes:

The Late Great Libertarian Macho Flash.

The greater Anarchic Flash.rolleyes:

Just a way to differentiate further, and splinter the group. But who cares in an individualist enviro?

chomsky is coming to give a talk at washington state university in a couple weeks.
http://libarts.wsu.edu/philo/chomsky/

which is pretty meaningless for the rest of you, as wazzu is way the fuck out in the middle of nowhere. but since it is through the philosophy dept, and i'm a grad student, it means i get to go to the extra special chomsky after-party.
yay me!

That's Chomsky's lair

...of doom!

As I understand it, a number of Chomsky's linguistic theories have been refuted, but his work was essential to the development OF those refutations; in other words, though his work proved to be wrong in a number of ways, like Sir Isaac Newton, he laid the foundation for further work.

As for his politics, meh. I don't care. That has nothing to do with me.

...of doom!
You're too smart! ;) Of course... it's the Socialist-streak lair. :)

i get to go to the extra special chomsky after-party.
yay me!

where i think i'll try to get him to sign my favorite book of his


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v16/wolfbrigade/chomskybook1.jpg

He's cool, but he has some problems. I think the reason he's so hated is because he so effectively attacks the system, though I'm not sure he goes far enough.

I like him. He backs himself up meticulously with material from the horse's mouth as it were. I love that people hate him...and self-censor themselves so much.

He's cool, but he has some problems. I think the reason he's so hated is because he so effectively attacks the system, though I'm not sure he goes far enough.

I don't hate him; I respect him. That being said, I criticize his policy because I think it backfires against him. By attacking the state, he's well-meaning, but all he's done is erode trust in the government. . .which has made people less inclined to support the government in, say, curbing the excesses of capitalism. He needs to focus more on the economic base, and change instead from talking about how corrupt the government is to talking about how we could use it to control capitalism.

That's the root of the problem I have with anarcho-syndicalism (thanks for the correction): it wastes energy on superstructure concerns.

He should do us all a favor and move to Cuba, and bring all U.S. leftists with him.

I'm probably alone in my element, but I LOVE Chomsky. I've created threads about him miles back.

An amazing man. So amazing in his style:

What I don't agree with-- I respect.

Chomsky is very cool... I'd say he's an introspective, commy libertarian (doesn't admit the commie part, but has gotten very cool with the libertarian label.)
How can someone whose read him not like Chomsky?
I agree! I don't agree with his communist politics, but he is a great writer on US foreign policy, and it is important that people know the problems therein.

He should do us all a favor and move to Cuba, and bring all U.S. leftists with him.
That's right, because the US is only big enough for people who think just like you. *refrains from rolling eyes*

Who?

I agree! I don't agree with his communist politics, but he is a great writer on US foreign policy, and it is important that people know the problems therein.

Which he lies extensively about. He says the U.S. supported Somoza "until the very end." Nothing could be further from the truth. If he considers publicly demanding Somoza's resignation, imposing an arms embargo, declaring all mutual defense treaties null and void, pressuring other nations not to support Nicaragua (an Israeli ship loaded with arms and ammunition which could have saved Nicaragua was forced to turn back after being pressured by the U.S.), doing everything conceivable to wreck Nicaragua's economy (forbidding Nicaraguan beef and coffeeexports to the U.S.), secretly meeting with the opposition, etc., "supporting until the very end" than he is either a braindead moron or an outright liar.

That's right, because the US is only big enough for people who think just like you. *refrains from rolling eyes*

I just wish all the pinkos would leave so we wouldn't have to listen to them bitch about the U.S. all the time. Let them subvert and pervert some other country.

I'm honestly starting to believe that the part of your brain that makes you want anarcho-syndicalism to happen is connected with the linguistic part of your brain. From all the people I discussed the concept with, the only ones receptive are the ones who know more than one language and are learning a third/fourth/fifth one.

Can this forum prove me wrong? :D

I just wish all the pinkos would leave so we wouldn't have to listen to them bitch about the U.S. all the time. Let them subvert and pervert some other country.

But you do love the fact that America is the home of free speech?

But you do love the fact that America is the home of free speech?

Yes, but I also hate hypocrisy. If they hate the U.S. so much, why don't they get the hell out, and make everybody happy?

I just wish all the pinkos would leave so we wouldn't have to listen to them bitch about the U.S. all the time. Let them subvert and pervert some other country.
Then don't listen. No one's forcing you to read Chomsky, or visit democracynow:).

Edit: lefties are perverts too? Can't you see why that would be attractive to some? mmmm...whips and chains for the left...missionary positions for the right...

Yes, but I also hate hypocrisy. If they hate the U.S. so much, why don't they get the hell out, and make everybody happy?
If you love freedom so much, why don't you hush and let them talk?

Hypocricy can go both ways it seems.

If you love freedom so much, why don't you hush and let them talk?

Hypocricy can go both ways it seems.

It gets annoying hearing them bitch all the time. The fact that they hate the country so much yet refuse to leave makes them both hypocrites and morons.

It gets annoying hearing them bitch all the time. The fact that they hate the country so much yet refuse to leave makes them both hypocrites and morons.
Hey, hearing ANYONE bitch gets annoying. Hearing people bitch about how 'the gays' are destroying marriage, how 'government interference in the market is evil', how 'abortion is evil and should be illegal' is ALL annoying. Being annoyed at bitching isn't reason enough to eject the bitchers from a country. Nor does calling them morons give any creedence to your position.

Did you ever think that many of those lefties are staying so they can try to improve the things they don't like about their country? Rather more constructive, isn't it? You hear the bitching...maybe you should go out and learn about the activism too.

Hey, hearing ANYONE bitch gets annoying. Hearing people bitch about how 'the gays' are destroying marriage, how 'government interference in the market is evil', how 'abortion is evil and should be illegal' is ALL annoying. Being annoyed at bitching isn't reason enough to eject the bitchers from a country. Nor does calling them morons give any creedence to your position.

Did you ever think that many of those lefties are staying so they can try to improve the things they don't like about their country? Rather more constructive, isn't it? You hear the bitching...maybe you should go out and learn about the activism too.

Meh, you do have a few good points. :(

Meh, you do have a few good points. :(
I love you too:).

I just wish all the pinkos would leave so we wouldn't have to listen to them bitch about the U.S. all the time. Let them subvert and pervert some other country.
Yes, but I also hate hypocrisy. If they hate the U.S. so much, why don't they get the hell out, and make everybody happy?
Yes! If they criticise the government and culture, they MUST be traitors and America-haters! They couldn't possibly be dissenting out of a desire to make their country a better place!

I agree! I don't agree with his communist politics, but he is a great writer on US foreign policy, and it is important that people know the problems therein.


He is a History-Fiction writer, meaning everything he has written is?

Yes! If they criticise the government and culture, they MUST be traitors and America-haters! They couldn't possibly be dissenting out of a desire to make their country a better place!


You can not make a Country better if you try to change everything that made it great to begin with.

Yes! If they criticise the government and culture, they MUST be traitors and America-haters! They couldn't possibly be dissenting out of a desire to make their country a better place!

There's a fine line between 'dissent' and 'subversion.'

Chomsky's rationalization of why North Korea is playing "nuclear chicken", is because in 1953, the US bombed irrigation dams.

It is too bad that Chomsky is incapable of understand simple economics. If N.Korea had the money to start(much less re-start!) a nuclear weapons program, I'm sure they had the money to repair irrigation dams!! But that would require some use of logic. :rolleyes:

I've always thought of Chomsky as a pompous, self-promoting ass. I really don't give his political theories much credit as being useful. Or correct. He over-extrapolates from events.

My opinion really is similar to that of my Poli-Sci 245 prof, when someone brought up Chomsky-esque concepts in class, the prof went:

"Oh Christ, not a Chomsky-ite"

And then he laid into Chomsky's failings.

There's a fine line between 'dissent' and 'subversion.'

Too bad you obviously can't see it.

You can not make a Country better if you try to change everything that made it great to begin with.
What makes a country "great" is subjective too.

What makes a country "great" is subjective too.
And is set by the victors! Namely: Me.


And I'm not gonna tell you!

And then he laid into Chomsky's failings.


And the professor was finished within the hour?? Or was it a 3 hr class?? :D

Too bad you obviously can't see it.

Au contraire.

Nothing with a bit of subversion IMO...

Au contraire.

Vous auriez pu me tromper.

And the professor was finished within the hour?? Or was it a 3 hr class?? :D
Two and a half, only have it twice a week.

I know he's not God, God is flying zebra with three heads and a fedora.

You mean the other two heads are bare? How can you take a god like that seriously?

Yes, but I also hate hypocrisy. If they hate the U.S. so much, why don't they get the hell out, and make everybody happy?

It's not a matter of hate, it's a matter of concern. It's why the loved ones of someone with a drug problem choose to stage an intervention rather than abandon them.

Although I do not agree with many of his ideas, I agree with his idea of the media. It is two-sided and one-track. I actually have an interesting e-mail from him in a brief correspondence.

"I don't know of any society that has even approximated to capitalism, and
can't imagine that business leaders would permit it. It is hopelessly
utopian. As for "socialism," depends very much what one means by it. I
have no idea what it means to say that freedom is idealist, though one
commonly hears that meaningless charge."

Chomsky's rationalization of why North Korea is playing "nuclear chicken", is because in 1953, the US bombed irrigation dams.

It is too bad that Chomsky is incapable of understand simple economics. If N.Korea had the money to start(much less re-start!) a nuclear weapons program, I'm sure they had the money to repair irrigation dams!! But that would require some use of logic. :rolleyes:


Logic ditates that since the US and N.Korea never officially ended the 1950-1953 Korean war (I.E. It's still a war, just under a long cease fire agreement), and the constant "We're going to invade you" threats from the US, you would think N.Korea might want to assure it's survival longer so that it can actually exist to build these dams.
Of course, you could say that they should care more about the dams regardless, because that's what any good nation will do. But, in that case, there are no good nations.

How can someone whose read him not like Chomsky?

Two words, Deep Structure.
Chomsky and his DS theories of Syntax just cause more problems to a Linguistics student like me.

Logic ditates that since the US and N.Korea never officially ended the 1950-1953 Korean war (I.E. It's still a war, just under a long cease fire agreement), and the constant "We're going to invade you" threats from the US, you would think N.Korea might want to assure it's survival longer so that it can actually exist to build these dams.
Of course, you could say that they should care more about the dams regardless, because that's what any good nation will do. But, in that case, there are no good nations.

Using the same logic, then S.Korea should be building nuclear weapons as well. And "officially" the Korean War was a UN action, SO that means the majority(at least those countries that participated) of the world is still "officially" at war with N.Korea.

Explains why during the '90s North Korea was sent thousands of tons of rice from Japan and S.Korea. So much for being at "war".

Me, I think his political analysis is brilliant and spot on. The first work I ever read of his was Manufacturing Consent (written w/ Ed Herman) and I found the conclusions he reached far too extreme and unlikely... Time passed and after I followed news coverage carefully for over a year I revisitted MC and found that it was dead on. No other explanation on why media toes the corporate line on environmental issues, labour issues, social issues, gender roles and institutional racism fits.

I think it's inaccurate to critisize him for his illustrations of state power being subservient to private power thereby undermining the power of the state to protect the populace. In a free and democratic society it is incumbant on people who have legitimate complaints to try to reform the government not to become apathetic. Merely becoming distrustful and apathetic serves to reinforce private power. The good news is that there are many examples of people in more oppressive, tyrannical states, have overcome tremendous odds to achieve a more just society..

What do you think of his writings, opinions, etc.?

informative