Chompsky

[Senior]

For anyone (ANYONE) that thinks they know what's going on in the World or wants to, reading (or in this case watching/listening) Chompsky is nearly essential.

So check out this link!

http://www.chomsky.info/audionvideo.htm

"I may be a jerk, an arsehole, a degenerate, but whether that is or is not true is irrelevant to my arguments and conclusions on failed U.S. foreign policies...my critics must attack my arguments...they can't and therefore they attack me..."

Chomsky

[Liqwid]

Hedgamony or survivel

~dalyn

[-ff-]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nim_Chimpsky

heh.



(ps, there's no 'p' in Chomsky)

[ebbomega]

I remember hearing about Nim Chimpsky in a Psych class.

(Personally I think animals can and do have language, they just don't _need_ to have one like ours... they seem to survive quite well without it. So what's more sophisticated? Language or an animal not dependent on it?)

[dapimpstress]

nom chompsky = good shit.

[diaphorrhoea]

Chomsky is great, but take everything he writes with a grain of salt. Remember that he has motives and biases too.

[Senior]

Originally Posted by diaphorrhoea

Chomsky is great, but take everything he writes with a grain of salt. Remember that he has motives and biases too.

We're not talking about some flake like John Grisham. Chomsky is regarded as one of the top intelectuals of the last 40 years. Try and find some counter critiques to his writing that don't, as mentioned above, do anything more than attack him personally. Do you honestly have any basis for saying this?

[diaphorrhoea]

Originally Posted by Senior

We're not talking about some flake like John Grisham. Chomsky is regarded as one of the top intelectuals of the last 40 years. Try and find some counter critiques to his writing that don't, as mentioned above, do anything more than attack him personally. Do you honestly have any basis for saying this?

My only basis is that nobody is infallible. Don't get me wrong, I think he's brilliant and I've enjoyed his work tremendously, but he's still human. I've seen a lot of people who accept what he says as the word of God or something, and it continues to bug me. That's all I'm saying :)

[-ff-]

Originally Posted by diaphorrhoea

My only basis is that nobody is infallible. Don't get me wrong, I think he's brilliant and I've enjoyed his work tremendously, but he's still human. I've seen a lot of people who accept what he says as the word of God or something, and it continues to bug me. That's all I'm saying :)

I think it was your 'take it with a grain of salt' that set him off. There is a serious difference between 'reading critically' (reading, thinking, checking) and 'taking with a grain of salt' (listening, but with a prior judgement that its probably half bullshit).

It should probably be pointed out that Chomsky never asks people to believe him outright. He constantly tells people to get out there and look up the facts independently.

[Senior]

Originally Posted by -ff-

I think it was your 'take it with a grain of salt' that set him off. There is a serious difference between 'reading critically' (reading, thinking, checking) and 'taking with a grain of salt' (listening, but with a prior judgement that its probably half bullshit).

It should probably be pointed out that Chomsky never asks people to believe him outright. He constantly tells people to get out there and look up the facts independently.

Exactly what I'm getting at.

[-ff-]

hey senior, this is totally off topic, but check this out http://www.fnk.ca/gallery/showphoto....sort=1&cat=500

Its a stencil I made a while back that I bet you'd get a kick out of.

[diaphorrhoea]

Originally Posted by -ff-

I think it was your 'take it with a grain of salt' that set him off. There is a serious difference between 'reading critically' (reading, thinking, checking) and 'taking with a grain of salt' (listening, but with a prior judgement that its probably half bullshit).

My bad then, I guess. For some reason the two mean the same thing to me.

[Senior]

Originally Posted by diaphorrhoea

My bad then, I guess. For some reason the two mean the same thing to me.

No worries, nothing personal at all. I just found the comment offensive. As an example I would take something that Anne Coulter, or to a lesser extent even Michael Morore said with a grain of salt. It's basically implying that it's an unreliable source of information.

Originally Posted by -ff-

hey senior, this is totally off topic, but check this out http://www.fnk.ca/gallery/showphoto....sort=1&cat=500

Its a stencil I made a while back that I bet you'd get a kick out of.

Nice one!

[decypher]

i enjoyed manufactured consent and i'm continue reading hegemony or survival soon

[dj_soo]

meh - i've still always preferred Focoult myself...

[-ff-]

^
Foucault.

And they're generally talking about completely different things, so there's no reason why you can't take them both as valid critics.


You might actually enjoy reading "Human Nature: Justice vs. Power", a debate between chomsky and foucault. You can find it in a book called Foucault and his interlocuters, edited by Arnold Davidson.

[-Dubs-]

for those of u who read shit about the world and philisophical*my bad spelling* stuff........ please read the world in a nutshell...... it is amazing.

[miss.myra]

haha...Chompsky.

Sorry, someone had to.

[Gusto]

ha, i was just thinking that. i thought maybe he did it on purpose to catch peoples attention. that'd be clever. that'd me my excuse.

[acidic_liquid]

*sigh* I've never heard of this guy until I had to do an article analysis on his Propaganda Model. It was semi interesting, actually. I'm pretty sure I'll be hearing a lot more from him.

[SEAN!]

Originally Posted by diaphorrhoea

Chomsky is great, but take everything he writes with a grain of salt. Remember that he has motives and biases too.

he's also a hardcore academic and linguistics professor, so he may not be completely in touch with hard reality or political science/economics.

either way his discussion on american foreign policy is good, i don't like much else that he writes tho.

[SEAN!]

Originally Posted by Senior

We're not talking about some flake like John Grisham. Chomsky is regarded as one of the top intelectuals of the last 40 years. Try and find some counter critiques to his writing that don't, as mentioned above, do anything more than attack him personally. Do you honestly have any basis for saying this?

dosnt mean he dosnt have his own political biases

[SEAN!]

Originally Posted by mofo-x

meh - i've still always preferred Focoult myself...

Foucault is completely different then chomsky..i'm not big on postmodern/critical sociological theory but his archealogy of knowledge is pretty good

[Senior]

Chompsky is what happens when I don't spell check.

As far as having a political bias goes of course he has one. I have a political bias and anyone with any interest in politics does as well. The point I'm making though is that doesn't in any way discredit what he has to say. If you disagree with his views than prove him wrong.

As for being out of touch with "hard reality or political science/economics" I would have to completely disagree. Being an academic would in no way make you predisposed to being out of touch with these realities.

I would invite someone to bring forward an actual criticism of his writing and not his character.

[dj_soo]

meh, i realize they are rather different subject matters, but I still enjoyed the debates between chomsky and foucault - I used to be big in in pomo crit theory for a while and foucault always stood out...