Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Noam Chomsky on Post-Modernism

cscs.umich.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 30 posts

Re: Noam Chomsky on Post-Modernism

#11

Post by scott_s »

reyu wrote: post #3

The 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…

I read the whole thing, and I thought it had Chomsky's voice. I've read a few of his books, and listened to him speak (not in person).

Re: Noam Chomsky on Post-Modernism

#12

Post by apu »

michael_dorfman wrote: post #9
apu wrote: post #6

I 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 contine…

I just reread what I wrote and realize that I was rather ambiguous about my thoughts. I was completely agreeing with Chomsky et al. that post-modernism is complete bullshit.

To your point, if you read the linked article, you will note that Chomsky has indeed attempted to read the works of several post-modernists and found them to be totally devoid of meaning, wrong, imcomprehensible, and/or trite.

He shows absolutely no elitism or "smug posturing" or "implied superiority" in his critique -- on the contrary, he repeatedly stresses that he is perhaps not smart enough to understand these works, that he is perhaps missing the point. But if people as intelligent as Dawkins & Chomsky fail to understand these works, then it's highly unlikely they are capable of being understood by anyone.

Re: Noam Chomsky on Post-Modernism

#13

Post by endtime »

michael_dorfman wrote: post #9
apu wrote: post #6

I 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 contine…

Have you read the Dawkins and Chomsky articles? They clearly have read the texts, and spent a lot of time trying to understand them, before concluding that they are nonsense. Both also request that someone translate the allegedly profound concepts into comprehensible English, so that us commoners can appreciate the concepts in question - are you offering?

Re: Noam Chomsky on Post-Modernism

#15

Post by ThomPete »

endtime wrote: post #13
michael_dorfman wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 contine…

Have you read the Dawkins and Chomsky articles? They clearly have read the texts, and spent a lot of time trying to understand them, before concluding that they are nonsense. Both also request that someone translate the allegedly profound concepts into comprehensible English, so that us commoners can appreciate the concepts in question - are you offering?

Whatever they have they have unfortunately let their feeling run away with them.

Postmodernism is a critique frame of references and can't by definition be nonsense since they don't claim anything positive about the world.

Re: Noam Chomsky on Post-Modernism

#16

Post by ThomPete »

michael_dorfman wrote: post #9
apu wrote: post #6

I 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 contine…

exaxtly!

Re: Noam Chomsky on Post-Modernism

#17

Post by dmm »

ThomPete wrote: post #14

People who criticize Postmodernism, either don't understand it or do and is afraid of it.

>> Anybody who criticizes > is either stupid or afraid.

Even if it is true, do you really think that's a good argument?

Why don't you point out how this article shows Chomsky to be stupid or afraid.

Re: Noam Chomsky on Post-Modernism

#18

Post by ThomPete »

dmm wrote: post #17
ThomPete wrote: post #14

People who criticize Postmodernism, either don't understand it or do and is afraid of it.

>> Anybody who criticizes > is either stupid or afraid. Even if it is true, do you really think that's a good argument? Why don't you point out how this article shows Chomsky to be stupid or afraid.

First of don't strawman me. Don't write stuff I didn't write.

Second of all the attack on Post Modernism is what is wrong the entire thing. How can you attack Post Modernism for pointing out some obvious flaws in the way we approach frames of reference.

That's like blaming the compiler for giving you errors just because you would like what ever you write to be possible.

Re: Noam Chomsky on Post-Modernism

#19

Post by grandalf »

scott_s wrote: post #11
reyu wrote: post #3

The 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…

I read the whole thing, and I thought it had Chomsky's voice. I've read a few of his books, and listened to him speak (not in person).

I agree, it reads like he talks. Could it be a transcript?

Re: Noam Chomsky on Post-Modernism

#20

Post by endtime »

ThomPete wrote: post #15
endtime wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you read the Dawkins and Chomsky articles? They clearly have read the texts, and spent a lot of time trying to understand them, before concluding that they are nonsense. Both also request that someone translate the allegedly profound concepts into comprehensible English, so that us commoners can appreciate the concepts in question - are you offering?

Whatever they have they have unfortunately let their feeling run away with them. Postmodernism is a critique frame of references and can't by definition be nonsense since they don't claim anything positive about the world.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Is your comment postmodernist itself?
Post reply on HN