Noam Chomsky on Post-Modernism
cscs.umich.edu
Noam Chomsky on Post-Modernism
1–10 of 30 posts
Re: Noam Chomsky on Post-Modernism
#2[deleted]
Re: Noam Chomsky on Post-Modernism
#3The post begins -> "This text has circulated quite a number of times on Usenet, and so far as I know is authentic. This version (less, of course, the HTML airs and graces) was posted by one jenm289@aol.com to rec.arts.books, 13 Nov 1995 03:21:23 -0500, message-id 486v63$9an@newsbf02.news.aol.com. Jenm289 wrote: "The following was written several months ago by Noam Chomsky in a discussion about po-mo and its contribution to activism et al. The discussion took place on LBBS, Z-Magazine's Left On-Line Bulletin Board (contact sysop@lbbs.org to join)."
After reading only a few lines of this article it struck me as inconsistent in tone from other speeches and writings of Chomsky. So I would first like to get Chomsky's response on whether he authored this. Considering how many interviews and public speeches Chomsky gives, I find it hard to imagine him having the time to debate his ideas on Internet bulletin boards. Unless he was experimenting with the format back in 1995.
Re: Noam Chomsky on Post-Modernism
#4The post begins -> "This text has circulated quite a number of times on Usenet, and so far as I know is authentic. This version (less, of course, the HTML airs and graces) was posted by one jenm289@aol.com to rec.arts.books, 13 Nov 1995 03:21:23 -0500, message-id 486v63$9an@newsbf02.news.aol.com. Jenm289 wrote: "The following was written several months ago by Noam Chomsky in a discussion about po-mo and its contribut…
Heh. I had exactly the same response: it didn't sound like Chomsky to me. I even commented to that effect, but then had second thoughts and deleted it. It wouldn't be unnatural to use a different voice in a casual email than in a published article. Also, some of the things in there do sound distinctively like Chomsky (e.g. the second last paragraph).
I searched around for more on Chomsky and postmodernism and came up with http://archive.zcommunications.org/chomchatarch.htm, which includes quotes from the OP. So it seems it's at least partially authentic.
As for whether he would have had time, that's easy. It's already impossible to explain how he has time to do what he does.
Edit: I also ran across a clip of Chomsky's discussion with Foucault on Dutch TV from the early 70s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kawGakdNoT0), which was fun to take a look at. Can you imagine anything more un-TV-like? The very length of their sentences is unthinkable - I was going to say "nowadays" but I bet it was unthinkable on TV even then.
Re: Noam Chomsky on Post-Modernism
#5The post begins -> "This text has circulated quite a number of times on Usenet, and so far as I know is authentic. This version (less, of course, the HTML airs and graces) was posted by one jenm289@aol.com to rec.arts.books, 13 Nov 1995 03:21:23 -0500, message-id 486v63$9an@newsbf02.news.aol.com. Jenm289 wrote: "The following was written several months ago by Noam Chomsky in a discussion about po-mo and its contribut…
Heh. I had exactly the same response: it didn't sound like Chomsky to me. I even commented to that effect, but then had second thoughts and deleted it. It wouldn't be unnatural to use a different voice in a casual email than in a published article. Also, some of the things in there do sound distinctively like Chomsky (e.g. the second last paragraph). I searched around for more on Chomsky and postmodernism and came up…
[deleted]
Re: Noam Chomsky on Post-Modernism
#6I wonder what has caused the sudden influx of articles excoriating post-modernism/structuralism on HN? It's fun to read, of course, but the utter bullshit of these cults is so patently obvious (to everyone, I'd hope), and yet I find it to be a useless exercise to spend much time exposing it.
I agree with Chomsky here: there are far more poisonous and important targets to address than this cult, which thankfully remains quite insular and self-contained and, ultimately, of virtually no consequence to the world at large.
Re: Noam Chomsky on Post-Modernism
#7Summary: "I don't get postmodernism, and I'm not capable of understanding it."
His attitude here reminds me of people who proudly say "I suck at math!"
The next time a Chomsky article shows up here, I really hope that it's in an area that he actually knows something about!
Re: Noam Chomsky on Post-Modernism
#8Summary: "I don't get postmodernism, and I'm not capable of understanding it." His attitude here reminds me of people who proudly say "I suck at math!" The next time a Chomsky article shows up here, I really hope that it's in an area that he actually knows something about!
I thought he said "I don't get postmodernism, either because there's nothing to get or because I'm not capable of getting it, and I have my doubts that it is the latter."
Re: Noam Chomsky on Post-Modernism
#9I wonder what has caused the sudden influx of articles excoriating post-modernism/structuralism on HN? It's fun to read, of course, but the utter bullshit of these cults is so patently obvious (to everyone, I'd hope), and yet I find it to be a useless exercise to spend much time exposing it. I agree with Chomsky here: there are far more poisonous and important targets to address than this cult, which thankfully remai…
I, too, am surprised (and disappointed) bu the sudden influx of articles attacking post-modernism. It should be clear enough that the authors of the articles (and a fair number of commentors) have not taken the time to actually read and understand the works they are attacking, and the whole business is an exercise in smug posturing and implied superiority.
Look: I've spent the better part of 30 years studying continental philosophy (and more specifically, the works of Derrida) and anyone who thinks that the field can be summarily dismissed by folks like Chomsky, Weinberg or Dawkins are sadly mistaken. Chomsky, Weinberg and Dawkins are all brilliant men in their own fields, but it takes some mighty big cojones, and a mighty parochial view of the world, if they think that this means that their judgments on matters outside their field are more important than any other amateur. And I'm sure they'd be the first to cry foul if some philosopher or other tried to dismiss their work on the basis of a few out-of-context quotes, without bothering to actually do the reading.
I'm not saying that the writers generally thought of as "post-modern" are above reproach; far from it. What I am saying is that if you want to attack them, for God's sakes read the texts.
Re: Noam Chomsky on Post-Modernism
#10Summary: "I don't get postmodernism, and I'm not capable of understanding it." His attitude here reminds me of people who proudly say "I suck at math!" The next time a Chomsky article shows up here, I really hope that it's in an area that he actually knows something about!
That's a wrong summary. He says:
1) "I can't read most academic po-mo papers (with exception of Foucault)"
2) "I also can't read some academic mathematics and physics paper"
3) "Physicists and mathematicians can readily explain their papers in terms that are understandable to me, no one seems to be able to do so for po-mo papers."
He then gives specific criticism of Foucault (whom he understood), and then makes a logical statement about po-mo:
1) Either po-mo is so incredibly advanced, it can't readily be explained by one academic to another academic (and while Chomsky is known in public for his political writings, his real contribution manifests itself every time you are using a parser, interpreter or compiler).
2) or.. po-mo is incomprehensible and can't be treated in a logically rigid manner, which means it would be pointless for Chomsky to speak more on the matter.
Both 1) and 2) are logically valid conclusions, but facts seem to align themselves closer to 2)