Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

@52 minute mark+

Chomsky says the West does not have a "free market", it is state corporatism, and that all rhetoric about a free market in the West is just that: propaganda/rhetoric.

@pat.

I'm not sure whether or not I'm surprised that Chomsky says this, given his anti-anarchocapitalist (free market) druthers in his anarchosyndicalism tendencies. At least he has the wherewithal and honesty here not to try and seize on the current system as an example of the "failure of the free market".

Unfortunately following this, he mentions Adam Smith and Ricardo but fails to mention Bastiat's rebuttals.

 

[Einherjar86]

I've heard Chomsky say similar things before; I thought I posted one video here at some point, maybe in a different thread. When asked something about capitalism potentially solving our problems, he compared the question to the famous one put to Gandhi about Western civilization, to which Gandhi replied: "It would be a wonderful idea."

Chomsky went on to say that it's possible capitalism may solve the problems we face, but we can't be sure since we don't live in a truly capitalist system.

Theorists who argue about the failure of the free market are working in a very different conceptual apparatus than Chomsky, and many of them disagree with him on several issues; you likely would never find Alain Badiou and Noam Chomsky buying each other drinks outside the École Normale Supérieure.

@Jimmy:

Really cool video; haven't watched the whole thing yet, but it's very good so far. It's crazy, after reading more Wittgenstein, to see how much he has influenced contemporary cognitive science and philosophy of language.

EDIT: here's a mildly entertaining write-up on "why the French hate Chomsky."

http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/06/14/why-the-french-hate-chomsky/

 

[Dak]

As for clarity, the emphasis on stylistic complexity in the elite French school system has led to the notion that whatever is clear is not “deep”. A certain obscurity is supposed to suggest profundity (Pierre Bourdieu made deliberate use of this prejudice by using long sentences for simple thoughts. He once told American philosopher John Searle that to be taken seriously in France, at least twenty percent of what one writes needs to be incomprehensible

In part because of these differences, there is a natural antagonism between Chomsky and his French contemporaries. This has become intertwined with the political controversies. First, in the case of Cambodia, Chomsky’s concern for getting the facts straight and avoiding exaggeration was grossly misinterpreted as an expression of sympathy or support for the Khmer rouge. This was a clash between someone for whom facts are the basis of opinion and others for whom opinion comes first, and facts are of minor significance.

Well that sort of sums up the whole article.

 

[Einherjar86]

Yes, but Bourdieu's statement should also be taken with a grain of salt, if not sarcastically. Complexity and incomprehensibility are not valued; it's simply the case that much of what has been written by French theorists appears impenetrable, likely because of the background from which they're working.

It all goes back to the history of language philosophy, in my opinion. Chomsky is a "deep grammarian," and he's been mostly dismissive of any work done in the field of Poststructuralist semiotics. Likewise, the Poststructuralists (many of whom are French) oppose "deep grammar" as a solution to the "problem" of language. For them, it establishes itself too confidently as a solution whilst ignoring other complexities of language.

They aren't historians, they're not interested in "facts." They're more interested in what they perceive as a larger semiotic logic that facts play a role in; a fact is never "just a fact" for a Poststructuralist.

 

[Dak]

Well I am not taking a side per se, just saying that section sums up the gist of the article.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

From what I've heard from Chomsky I'd say he has a little contempt for postmodernism.

 

[Dak]

Did he say "Paris is the center of the rot"? love it.

BTW, that whole interview is pretty good.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

Chomsky can suck my chomsky.

 

[Einherjar86]

From what I've heard from Chomsky I'd say he has a little contempt for postmodernism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzrHwDOlTt8

Great interview; here's another perspective on Latour, by the way:

During the science wars of the 1990s, Latour came under harsh criticism from some in the United States, including the philosopher John Searle, who accused him of being a relativist, and Alan Sokal. Like Derrida, Latour employs mischievous means to deadly serious ends. Nothing so upset American scientists like Sokal than Latour's insistence that Pharaoh Ramses could not have died of tuberculosis because tuberculosis had not yet been invented. To Latour's critics, this was reality-denying relativism.

But for Latour, who is today professor and Vice President of Research at Sciences Po, one of the most prestigious universities in Europe, what is unreal is to erase the historical contingency and subjectivity of science, and the social forces that shape it. There is no TB without its construction through scientific discourse and practice. The accusation that upsets Latour the most is that his writings are anti-science, or anti-scientist. In truth, Latour said, he loves science for what it actually is -- messy, political, impure, and subjective -- not for what it claims to be.

http://convozine.com/monster-theory/31585

 

[Dak]

Tuberculosis wasn't invented. It was however, identified/named (something discussed before, human tendencies to "name".

 

[Einherjar86]

If by "invented" you mean the actual disease being created by humans in a laboratory, then no (at least, almost certainly no...).

But as a category, a concept, a scientific diagnosis, it's most certainly an invention.

 

[Dak]

Right. Maybe I can give props to Latour for making a statement in an exaggerated form, since I do the same for similar effect, but that doesn't necessarily make him exactly right.

However, his ultimate point stands, which is that science is not perfect or apolitical, etc. Also that he didn't have TB, he had what we have named TB. There is a subtle but significant difference.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I really don't like how Chomsky and other analytics/philosophers make postmodernism synonyms with some sort of evil that’s out to destroy or tear up the American university system. There is a lot of myth that develops when it comes to the process of understanding postmodernism. These people are academics and careful readers with some unorthodox ideas about language, Being and the history of philosophy.

 

[Einherjar86]

Right. Maybe I can give props to Latour for making a statement in an exaggerated form, since I do the same for similar effect, but that doesn't necessarily make him exactly right.

However, his ultimate point stands, which is that science is not perfect or apolitical, etc. Also that he didn't have TB, he had what we have named TB. There is a subtle but significant difference.

Wow, I was expecting a very different response! I agree, and that's the point I was trying to make and (I think) Latour was trying to make.

It's similar to how Simone de Beauvoir, a French feminist from the 1950s, wrote that only ugly women can be "intellectual." She did not seriously mean that, but intended it more as a subversive challenge to perceived misogyny in a predominantly masculine hierarchical system. Likewise, Latour simply calls the "total objectivity" of science into question; he's not denying that such a reality exists necessarily, but merely that "science" successfully captures/represents it.

I really don't like how Chomsky and other analytics/philosophers make postmodernism synonyms with some sort of evil that’s out to destroy or tear up the American university system. There is a lot of myth that develops when it comes to the process of understanding postmodernism. These people are academics and careful readers with some unorthodox ideas about language, Being and the history of philosophy.

This is my position, and I generally sympathize with the postmodernists; although, I'm also very interested in the current trend to move beyond postmodernism. This trend includes philosophers such as Žižek, Badiou, Brassier, Meillassoux, etc. and literary movements like the current dark brutality of speculative/science fiction (e.g. China Miéville, Peter Watts, M. John Harrison, etc.). All in all, it's very radical and subversive stuff when it comes to "traditional" approaches, and most academic departments in the U.S. are still quite opposed to it.

 

[Dak]

Why were you surprised? Curious minds want to know

 

[Einherjar86]

I assumed you would take greater objection to the postmodern emphasis on cultural relativity (which is a very vulgar characterization, but sufficient for the time being); that was a mistake on my part. So... apologies.

 

[Dak]

Mainly because I consider the emphasis less serious that what it purports itself to be. While pointing out that naming something is only that is important, it is a shame that it has developed into more than what it has. Then again, maybe that's my intellectual privilege underestimating things.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

http://www.gapminder.org/

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Scientists Use 3-D Printer to Speed Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...-to-speed-human-embryonic-stem-cell-research/

 

[Dak]

Subject for thought: How the internet and the rapid advance of technology is creating a vast difference between those "in the know" and those not in the know.

I was thinking about this as I listened to that Chomsky interview and then as I read the blog linked above. At one time, one person could "everything". Now this person would need to have some level of status in society that allowed him time and access to the necessary information, but it was possible. As science and technology expanded it became impossible not only to know it all, but to even know of it all. Just prior to the advent/rapid expansion of the internet, this situation had reached critical mass.

Fast forward a decade to today. The internet is overflowing with information on every single subject. Yet how many people's experience of the internet is limited to Twitter, ESPN, and Angry Birds? While we are far from the post-human hypothetical of a "tech class" and an "un-enhanced human" class, how much is this becoming a non-implanted reality? 3d printing capability is all over "grown up" media, and people give me this glazed look or at worst almost a scared look when I bring it up. This is just one example in the bigger picture.

While people are readily integrating with smartphones and tablets and other new technology at a faster rate, in what way is this really altering their knowledge and interaction on an intellectual level? Are we just using these new tools to continue in the same narrow veins as before, while the select few put these tools to work to multiply their intellect and productivity?