Well, Chomsky actually said 'French Intellectuals' 'writing about science induced 'cringe'. It's lazy to use the 'Post-Modern' or, 'Post-Modernism' as a synonym for Structuralism, or Post-Structuralism but here we are... All over U-Toob it's the same lazy.
its an attempted master class trying to abstract their philosophy after the period, well it can get that, or remaking a genreration before yours... you could almost call can't and hegel post modernists,, they just do it as an existentialism then abstract the content onto paper through philosophy... also all the american post modern philosophy in plain language that doesn't do the subject its authenticity. It's always on a target thats delayed or isolated somehow, reversed as a metaphysic in reality. Remember these philosophies existed for years before they were actaully abstracted. Japanese sumarai phenomology is uncanny similar to husserlian phenomonology...... Kant's town was established in 1200,... he wrote the treatise in the 18th century.... heidegger is a literal post modern remake of hegelian dialectic synthesis between concepts he made up.. its post modern as well
Chomsky's not wrong, but his critique of post-modernism is incredibly shallow. What he's speaking of is just one branch of post-modern ideology, and in one specific context. Post-modernism is an epistemological foundation that exists in what I would argue to be more ideologies that not, including capitalism, ethno fah shizm (I have to do this because of automated sensorship), intersectional feminism (and other socjus ideology), voodoo, most precursors to pre-modern religion (superstitions and mysticisms), new age religion, and much, much more. Anytime someone says "x is subjective" they're going down a post-modern rabbit hole and rejecting objective reality, and the problem with this is that power struggle becomes guaranteed because when there is no shared, external and universal truth, one can only use force to solve problems. This is incredibly dangerous, as the very same reality detachment that allows one to say something like "x is a social construct" can also be used to dehumanize others while rejecting all evidence to the contrary, usually by proclaiming the out group's experience and mind to be somehow incompatible with the ingroup. This is for instance seen in the "Jewish Question," wherein the out group is presupposed to be incapable of the same reasoning, experience or negotiation as the in group, and an extreme "solution" is thus justified.
This might be the dumbest thing I read on the internet today. Congrats on not understanding something yet commenting on it anyway. Very Trumpish of you.
Elements of postmodernism were already alive and thriving in the early 20th century. In his 1907 essay 'The Study of Mathematics', Bertrand Russell wrote : 'Too often it is said that there is no absolute truth, but only opinion and private judgment ; that each of us is conditioned, in his view of the world, by his own peculiarities, his own taste and bias ; and that there is no external kingdom of truth to which, by patience and discipline, we may at last obtain admittance, but only truth for me, for you, for every separate person. By this habit of mind one of the chief ends of human effort is denied, and the supreme virtue of candour, of fearless acknowledgment of what is, disappears from our moral vision.'
@@JohannesDonnerstich 1914-B.R: Our Knowledge of the External World as a Field for Scientific Method in Philosophy It’s Analytical Philosophy vs Continental Philosophy, Chomsky vs Foucault.
@@JohannesDonnerstich no guy in particular. You can find the rather short article. Mathematics , with its beauty, elegance and truths, is the answer to scepticism and cynicism of those who doubt there’s truth. Great period for Science and Philosophy...
Good old Bertrand. Worth his weight in gold. At the age of 90, he was literally badgering JFK and Khrushchev over their insanely dangerous behavior during the Cuban Missile Crisis.This would certainly constitute 'activism' from an intellectual. Strange as it may sound, Russell seems to have believed that a nuclear war leading to the annihilation of much of the planet was an objective truth, true for all, rather than a social construct that was true only for those seduced by the peculiar grand narrative known as science. file:///Users/macpro/Downloads/jadmin,+fulltext-1.pdf
Postmodernism isn't saying everything is a game. It's saying that when alot of people accept an ideology it's oppressive for people who don't or can't conform to it. Now if a Christian conservative hangs out with a group of wokies they will experience oppression. If a wokie hangs out with a group of Christian conservatives ditto. Both ideologies are full of half truths so invoking either(as an absolute)should be met with a nice strong "go fuck yourself" both sides are fragile and are just mirroring the fact that victim-oppressor are the same thing.
There is no morality. That is Chomsky's point. What do you think was Adolf Hitler's big realization? It's that we have globally adopted a "Jewish" morality - It Is by no means universal or universally eternal. The idea that the least shall become the greatest, Christianity, the idea that the poor and the weaj should be looked after by the strong and the rich - none of those are contingent. But that is exactly the point of postmodernism. They don't just deconstruct. What they insist on is that there is no such thing as objective morality, which is all the more reason to preserve the one we have. Postmodernism is a critique of scientism and of materialism.
I'm sure this is obvious to most. A great deal of Chomsky's career involved the critique of certain particularly nasty and unrestrained power structures. On the other hand, I would disagree and say that everything is in fact "some game." But I'd also say "play stupid games, win stupid prizes." We live in a hyper capitalist society. Nearly everyone is driven by a competitive mentality, and cooperation as a competitive strategy against the hardships of nature is severely undervalued. Yes, I'm going into memetics here. It's a must. Unfortunately, this means your average person is in a situation where they need to keep game theory on the forefront of their mind, just to avoid being completely trampled by society. That also puts them precariously close to being the person doing the trampling. Post-modernists love to critique power dynamics, but they ironically fail to see their own power, or recognize that what society severely needs right now is for people to learn how to restrain their aggression, and stay in their own lane. Post-modernist activists claim to oppose capitalism, yet are some of the most hyper competitive and predatory people on the planet because they simply fail to recognize the common ground between themselves and others, and the fact they are often best served by simply agreeing to a state of non-aggression with those around them. This is, of course, a product of their rejection of objective reality. They simply can't recognize that the vast majority of humans aren't particularly different than them, nor are they in a particularly different boat than they are. The analogs that exist between all between different states of human existence simply allude them; They cannot, for instance, see that the decedent of a "white" Irish serf is often not in a particularly different situation than that of a "black" slave. And so they foolishly and pointlessly wage war with those they should be cooperating with.
I am from Brasil and I very much identify with what Chomsky says about the disconnection among the intelligensia and popular movements. I often even find latin professors deffending positions so simmilar to the US department line and reproductions of imperial myths, really terrible
Repiten las soluciones que les son enviadas por los europeos y estadounidenses, cosas pensadas en inglés para la gente de habla inglesa y para su contexto propio. A este paso, los avances de los saberes nuestros se va para la mierda y con ello nuestro propio auto-entendimiento y lugar en el mundo
Not to mention the post-modern ideas about crime and violence, which have swept the imagination of our legislators and judges, and over the last thirty years turned Brazil into the most violent country in the world. It is important to point out that throughout these thirty years living conditions in Brazil IMPROVED; that is to say, if the problem were that too many people are poor, Brazil would be much more violent thirty years ago, not less. (I'm Brazilian as well, hi. 👋)
Looking at the replies, I'd like to point out I judge writers in how they write, not how they interview. Chomsky's writing is pretty clear and to the point, which appeals to my aesthetic and reading style. Foucault's writing is profundity manifest. Foucault's work on institutions such as penitentiaries is valuable nonetheless and should not be ignored. The biggest problem is bringing a tribal and/or consumerist approach to reading political philosophy/theory. Each theory, each perspective, is a data point for your own analysis, no single writer has the full picture. I highly recommend reading Zygmunt Bauman's work, (Liquid Modernity and Postmodernity and its Discontents) were great frameworks for how to approach previous theoretical frameworks.
This intrigues me too. How much of an effect has it had on the general public? I think a lot of folk, both of a socially liberal persuasion and those on the right (but not conservatives) believe in the particulars rather than the universal, are distrustful of grand ideas and sceptical about whether there's an objective truth etc
LOL. This is not even remotely true. It's not even possible to be true - such a thing would require a closed society, not the freedom & access to info we have. The pursuit of context today is way more open. Historical forces, dramatic events, cultural barriers, technological changes, etc. the stuff Ben Shapiro says ignore. Sometimes the bizarre p-mod conclusion is real, but often it's a *idea* distinction, like understanding 3-D in a 2-D experience. Are any ideas "real"? That kind of thing. The dumb stuff never gets far anyways. Somebody has to go too far with their thoughts to show where that is anyways. But then, the author here also has too narrow view of Post-Modernism, treating it like Marx and forcing it into an exact form it never had. And you posted this on TH-cam, filled with so much commentary that it contradicts the claim.
@@castelodeossos3947 Woke again! Everything is ‘woke’...if you want it to be. Yet again, without a definition that can’t be presented in anything less than a chapter. Btw a chapter is not a definition, it’s a dissertation.
This is not a critique Postmodernism as much as it is a critique of Posmodermist scholars and intellectuals (which is a different critique and could be applied across various ideological positions).
I think you're onto something here. The disreputable tactics for which the postmodernists are criticized can be found wherever you look, from the hallowed halls of the theoretical physicists to the women's sewing circle. Nonetheless, French poststructuralists do stand out in terms of the virulence and shamelessness of their sophistry, perhaps none more so than Jacques Derrida. Paradoxically, this is where I find the enduring value in Derrida's contribution. There was brilliance in his capacity to take the most reprehensible behaviour of the intelligentsia and elevate it to unparallelled heights (and despite the grave intensity of his persona, I still can't decide to what extent he was taking the piss). This forces us to recognise the destructive inanity of the games he played (or at least it ought to) and better enables us to recognise them when subtly employed elsewhere. It is proof of his genius as a wordsmith that he was so successful in getting himself taken seriously, and I can't help but admire anyone so consistently able to crack me up.
Is he criticizing "postmodernism" or a certain group or type of academic? It sounds more like that than as you are portraying it. He doesn't talk about "postmodernism" in terms of textual criticism, but more about academic egos and those who absent themselves from social activism. This was not even remotely a "complete denunciation of the movement" as you conclude.
"He doesn't talk about 'postmodernism' in terms of textual criticism" -- who is supplying the postmodernist text & textual criticism if not those humans in the postmodernist movement?
@@loudenlaffnite246 It is Republicans who don't have the slightest clue what they are talking about as they are totally uneducated on the topics, the issues and the authors. And that is obvious to anyone who IS educated in those areas and familiar with those authors.
@@loudenlaffnite246 if you think this is an actual criticism of what they are saying, then i'm afraid to admit it is ad hominem, as this really does not say anything at all except that some of them play language games
This may be a misreading of Chomsky by taking what he said too far. It could be that his critique was more limited to certain actors within the post modern movement that have had a negative effect, in his opinion, in shaping the movement overall. My analogy would be to certain teams acting in such a way as to change an entire sports league in some fundamental way. It would be taking that example too far to say the entire sport should be invalidated in some way or another. I'm not sure Noam was saying we should not analyze power structures and their real world applications, just the these twats have mucked it up by acting like lawyers instead of educators
Yes I was thinking the same thing. Chomsky himself challenges the same power structures, the issue is that the postmodernists in question are just fancy talking con artists.
Good point, since he himself examines power structures. His point is not that there are no power structures, but that it is one-dimensional and contrived to attribute all the ills of the world merely to the existence of hierarchies (and to add some spurious ones too), and to contrive a whole discipline/language to 'proving' that it is so. As he says somewhere, if something cannot be explained with simple language, then there's some phoniness going on somewhere.
I'm not sure that the French postmodernists were all that influential. Could it be that we would have fallen into such a level of twattery anyway and with hindsight we can now blame them? We will never know of course but I have a feeling that once we have woken up to what we have done to our civilisation, and start rectifying the damage (if we ever do), it wont be the postmodernist that the new movers and shakers will be using as a reference, but the likes of James Burnham, Thomas Sowell and the Italian elite theorists.
Chomsky has never been one to dress himself up in fads, be they of ideas or of language. He has consistently been a serious thinker to the core, which is why I have long valued, even on those occasions I disagree with him, what he has had to say.
Chomsky has made many of us think, that doesn't mean he's infallible. The footage of Chomsky looks pretty old and the video is another attempt, by an independent agent to feed the appetite for anti post modernism as we collectively tumble into AI culture. This backlash, this appetite for anti post modernism, is nothing less sentimental nostalgia for the confused . ( Jordan Peterson, comes to mind) We certainly aren't living in Modernity any more Dorthy.
@@mippim8765 He's a brilliant intellectual who's both an emeritus professor, lecturer in linguistics, most cited scientific article author, as well as writer who is politically active and has written several books on modern society and American and international politics. Most of his money comes from royalties, of which he deserves every cent and then some. It's possible to become a millionaire off of one's own work.
He isn't though. Most of what he says about them could be said about him as well--he is a sort of star in academia. He uses his clout to sell books. Etc. Etc. Usually when I see Chomsky talking about postmodernism he's pretty quick to admit that it is unintelligible to him and he doesn't understand what they're talking about. Which isn't really a serious critique, there are people on youtube that do a better job discussing and critiquing postmodern thought than he does.
@@JEQvideos There's a great video called Animating Poststructuralism, which explains the divide between people like Chomsky (structural linguists) and people like Derrida (poststructuralists / postmodernists). If things don't make sense to Chomsky, I put it down to this fundamental disagreement on the nature of language and communication itself.
@@JEQvideos J. Peterson being one who bridles at any mention of postmodernism, or adherents such as Lyotard, Foucault or Derrida. His arguments seem quite well thought out and compelling (granted, I'm without a strong background in philosophy).
I honestly thought he would have stronger arguments against post modernism, other than an aggressive relativization without ideas that can stand on their own instead of just being against something.
hey, honestly maybe that's a good thing. the movment seems to lack applying the standards to itself and that's how we get so much problems. If it were any other ideology it would be just as bad. you can't even question postmodernism with out being denounced as a racist status quo upholder. just as the church used to denounce anyone criticizing the sale of indulgences. it very much is the sale of indulgences.
I forced my way through Of Grammatology and at the end of that total waste of my time, i didn’t feel I was stupid and hadn’t understood a work of great profundity, which is clearly the intention, rather, this man is an utter charlatan. If you want to spend your time on “difficult” books and aren’t a scientist read Joyce and Beckett incredibly rewarding, which I know many of you will have done already.
Yeah man, demonstrating that a world view makes no sense even by the standards of its own internal logic is totally the same thing as agreeing with or demonstrating the validity of its internal logic. You must have come top of your philosophy class
But everything in this video is simply a critique of postmodernists rather than postmodernism as an idea? I don’t understand how this constitutes criticism on postmodernism at all.
I had a similar thought. Just because you get caught up in power structures, doesn’t mean you’re wrong about them and their corrupting influence. In fact, everything that is explained in this video confirms post-modernists’ critiques about power. It’s just that seeing a problem and being able to fix it are two different things. At the end of the day the unbalanced distribution of power in society might not be “fixable.” It might be a necessary part of the way human beings organize themselves. This is what is so strange about us as animals on this earth. All social animals have hierarchies and I’m sure there are lots of animals in the world who don’t like their place in that hierarchy. What’s weird about us is that we can communicate about that experience in ways that can impact the actions of people in power. Language is an incredible disruptor of power. Maybe it’s not helpful to try to dismantle and spread power out completely. Maybe it’s more important to have good people in positions of power. Like a good boss, or any other good leader, good people in power can do incredible things. Still, the post-modern power structure isn’t one I’d particularly like to be a part of. At a certain point, your ideas take on a life of their own and these aren’t ideas worth getting caught up in. :)
@@Warispeace-eq8yy Can you name a post modernist scientist? can you name a post-modernist mathematician? Can you name a post-modernist architect or engineer? Can you name a Post Modernist philosophy that doesn't deny logic and objective analysis? Can you guess why there is so much fraud and plagiarism by university post grads in the last 20 years? Oh, you're just saying, "these folks said it and wrote it down, and taught it, s they nurtured it and and 'furthered' it?" Circular reasoning or Assumed Conclusion. Both are fallacious reasoning and invalid logically. Do you understand?
@@gregrice1354 Oh yeah, you think so? So what are you gonna do about it? You think you put the quietus on me or something? You and what army.... My point being, and I think I might be making a postmodernist point even though I don't really know anything about postmodernism, is I don't care what you say, make me agree with you. If you can't, you better shut up. Power's the name of the game, baby. I don't care about whatever your logical drivel says. Might is right. And isn't that Foucault's big thing, who has real power, and how is it wielded? And if so, what's the problem, is that some illegitimate line of intellectual inquiry? I wouldn't think so. Once again, I don't know anything about the dude, but I don't think you can blame him and his ilk for the collapse of contemporary academia, that was always going to happen on account of inexorable socioeconomic forces, and 60s/70s French over-intellectualism didn't have nothing to do with it. That's just our system finally devouring itself.....
Total respect for Chomsky, his thinking, his experience, his observations, and also all respect to this attempt to critique something important, but we need actually engagement with a broad sample of what those who claim to be postmodernists actually say, and their couterarguments to criticism. This makes broad claims and generalisations about postmodernist thought and thinkers, many of which many of them themselves would challenge, and many of which are not what is often actually being said in the works critics draw these conclusions from. Many of the observations about the culture around it, of the status, power, financial reward, attention, etc., etc., is probably all true, but is a phenomenon surrounding it, and not the thing in itself. Many of the examples given of seemingly silly conclusions drawn or claims made by postmodernists are perhaps also true, but a mere list of such examples, not exploring where they might not exist at all, or where they might be looked at in proper context and seen to be not saying at all what people claim they are saying. There's a bunch of crap in there for sure, but that does not establish the whole venture as so flawed. It's like when the UK's Daily Mail finds immigrants defrauding the benefits system and presents that and all the realities around it that meant those immigrants could do that as a broad reality that means immigrants are a nuisance, the benefits system money merely thrown at the lazy, and the governmental systems that exist merely dumb, politically correct and wasteful. A broad look at the whole reality these examples sit in shows a very different reality in which these rare problems, dysfunctions, exploitations, and misunderstandings are inevitable hiccups in a system on the whole that makes a lot of sense. This cherry-picked bunch of criticisms and examples doesn't give a true critique of post modernism. Near the beginning a list of characteristics and central themes of postmodernism is given. These are generally taken by critics to mean that they think all proposed truths are as valid as each other, or that there is no objective reality, and that everything is a social construct, and that where the truth lies is merely a question of where the power lies, but none of these things are actually claimed by any of those listed scepticisms, which are merely a highlighting of how people variously relate their truths to their own situation and experience, and that the closed patterns of understanding we can get caught up in need to be questioned so as to in fact try at least to get closer to objective reality. I'm not saying you're wrong in any of this, just that it seems to merely be listing narrow criticisms of narrow aspects in narrow contexts, seen as shallowly at it is narrow, and therefore not to be really either clearly demonstrating real rot at the real fundament of postmodernism, nor even to be showing the more robust arguments Chomsky has. My basic response to this fashionable attacking of postmodernism in recent years is that both positive claims about it and negative ones seem to be simplistic, lacking context, and caricaturing it, and not reading it deeply or in proper context, and so it's a waste of time, and encourages me merely to go and actually read a lot more postmodernism. I feel quite sure that I'd find a lot of worth in it, even if all the negative things connected to it that are listed here are absolutely true, because it's so narrow a view, and so much cherry picking and merely listing negative critiques of it, or negative phenomena attached to it, and also often ver y rushed conclusions drawn about it that don't actully refer to the fullness of the ideas that it discusses, suggests, explains, makes claim to, etc., etc. It might seem clever that Chomsky turns their own arguments against them, and he probably is particularly doing this with those who wouldn't recognise that they're not applying the same standards to themselves, but that does not actually establish that the vast majority of them indeed would, and do apply the same standards to themselves. Just like the motivation of status, celebrity and material reward driving the activity of people criticised does not demonstrate that that drives them all, nor, even if it did prove that was true of all of them, prove that the original ideas were flawed in themselves. There is no actual dismantling of post-modernism here at all, just examples of where it does, or might, have negative outgrowings, and where it might be negatively exploited, and we don't know how often or rarely, because that context isn't given either. The closest to an actual discussion given to it is at the beginning, where all it is is a list of areas in which postmodernism questions with how much faith and confidence we should take claims that may have more of a subjective, biased or entrenched, habitual or systemised viewpoint than initially seems to be the case. That is actually the opposite of a denial of objective truth, yet....
Couldn’t agree more, Chomsky doesn’t actually engage with any of the claims or the discourse, he just waves it aside with a banal characterisation of it all as some celebrity-academic movement. For a man so erudite one would assume he could see past his own bias to critique beyond his shallow impressions, but we all have our biases I suppose, with our own blindnesses
"My basic response to this fashionable attacking of postmodernism in recent years is that. . . .[you're] not reading it deeply" -- ah, the old yOu'Re-nOt-DeEp-EnOuGh ditty. And that's pretty choice: a Postmodernism-apologist claiming to be a victim of "fashionable" attack; outside of Critical Theory, what recent movement has gained more traction due to "fashion" than Postmodernism?
It's tough watching the great Chomsky resort to name calling and mudslinging against continental philosophy from the analytical side of the philosophical spectrum rather than providing a substantive critique of postmodernism, which like all forms of thought is rife with both flaws and virtues. It's interesting that whoever edited this video attempts to suggest that "critique of power relations" and "distrust of grand narratives" is a bad thing? Or that its somehow not accurate that "dominant power structures shape peoples identities and worldviews"?
I think people that are against post-modernism have difficulty arguing against it in a theoretical level and fall back into criticizing some of it's thinkers lives and their way of writing. Most critics never try to prove that post-modernism is wrong, they all do "post-modernism bad". And in my view there's a lot of things to criticise about obscurantism, the way some post-modernist ideas are used, the establishment of french academia and the lives of some thinkers, but to me its conclusions are just the logical progression of western thought, if you look at philosophy's history it always pointed in that direction
@@vernacularpunc What we can call "metamordern" is only the creation of art and culture influenced by post-modern thought. All philosophers create their work by replying to the ideas of the past, and in a way this process creates the future.
Is Chomsky's critique not a critique of the Postmodernist thinkers themselves rather than the movement and its ideas as a whole? I think the critique is sound but what about people who agree with some of its core tenets who don't necessarily participate in that academic sphere and therefore system of power?
The problem is the movement and its ideas generate the conditions in which this system of power appears. If a system fails to hold propositions accountable to a standard of truth then those who wish to manipulate language for their own power will eventually gravitate to those systems. This is partly why Plato's philosopher kings don't want to rule, but more importantly it's why Plato is an enemy of the sophists, and his theory of truth as the form of the good is what undermines the power games of sophists like Thrasymachus, who states in the republic that "Justice is whatever is to the advantage of the stronger". Plato goes on to influence western religion and consequently the tradition of modernism, which is exactly what the postmodernists attack. But when you get rid of the true, the good, and the beautiful, all that is left is filth.
“They muddy the water to make it seem deep!” Zen. Chomsky is correct in saying PM is a self-referential maze of ever decreasing circles. But not all of PM is unhelpful, we should not throw the baby out with the bath water. Foucault’s work on the notions of the Clinic and the Panopticon are genuinely useful and in many ways dovetail into Kuhn’s work on the Nature of Scientific Revolutions and paradigms. I consider that Chomsky is also correct in saying that academics need to exit their ivory towers and conference circuit gravy train and more readily and robustly apply their work directly with the aim of building more intelligent, resilient, utilitarian and open political systems. He himself is, and has been for several decades now, a prime example of walking that talk. More power to him and his calm, empirical, persistent and progressive approach. Namaste.
Postmodernism is supposed to a critique, the original goal of which is to bring clarity to meaning through contextualization. It is simply an extension of the overly polemical characteristic of western academia. And Professor Chomsky’s critique of postmodernism will be welcomed by true postmodernists
Idk what postmodernism is about, but I agree with what you're saying. The unfortunate reality is that we can't agree on What Is. Of course there is a singular absolute Truth, a Final Sum of all the infinite variables in reality, but how can any one of us Know it? How could a million, or a billion even? Our minds are not set up to pursue the truths of reality, but to feel comfortable within the chaos that is mostly impossible for us to comprehend. Going forward we must shirk our pride lest we destroy ourselves with war.
No not at all, modernism, the enlightenment and science rejected the idea of absolute truth and truth based on authority since its inception. Thats why there is tradition of criticism. It has to be because science realized it is fallible because all humans are. Postmodernists pointing out the fallibalism and power interests is pointless because its obvious and known, and postmodernism has failed to come up with a better solution than having a tradition of criticism. So at its core postmodernism adds nothing constructive to knowledge production. Its a pseudo intellectual excuse for rejecting science you dont like.
Given 'Justice' is a human conception that's culturally normed it seems a bizarre statement that there is a capital T Truth about justice. You may as well say there's a truth about how hot to set the temperature of a shower, never mind about the context of the person using it or the environment it's being used in. It would be great if we could agree on justice, that doesn't mean we'd be right but it would at least be useful to building a happier society but I'm not going to hold my breath
I don't know whether or not my personal experience is representative of the general state of South America, but I don't see it around here that Postmodernism has been insulating professors from popular struggle. Many professors are away from it, sure, but of those who are active in social and political movements, most can't shut their mouths about Foucault and Deleuze. I'd like to see examples of what Chomsky says, because I see many examples of the opposite every day.
Chomsky has always been very rigid and shallow in his thinking about Postmodernism. This is weak, and has more to do with the problems with French academic rock-star culture than postmodern philosophy.
Chomsky is on the money. Tho postmodernists may have made an occasional interesting point for the most part they generated masturbatory gibberish that did or does nothing to improve society and thereby serves the interests of the prevailing Plutocracy by failing to challenge its Status Quo.
Hang on, this video sounds like a low-rent undergraduate essay. The characterisation of 'postmodernism' here is a strawman, and not one universally recognised. It doesn't correspond to any of the contentions of any of the purported theorists, or the various iterations of the term in architectural or artistic movements. Postmodernity if it anything like you describe, was a counter-movement in the arts. Many detractors point to French academics like Jean Francois Lyotard as proponents of a misplaced epistemological view like the one forwarded in this video. However, what they were actually up to was describing the direction of travel in society, not making a set of epistemological claims. Be that Foucault, Baudrillard, DeBord, Bachelard, Derrida, et al. I think the 'post-truth' social-media politics and 'cultures wars' of today vindicates much of what some of them wrote. Critiques like Habermas' and Chomsky's are the weakest part of their work, and did not issue from any serious engagement with the work of those claimed to 'represent' a movement in 20th century European academic (particularly French) circles, which did not in fact exist.
I miss a lot from the first ideas of the Frankfurter Schule, Hegel, Nietzsche, early feminism, Herbert Marcuse, Angela Davies, Critical Theory and so forth, progressed in its different forms today. I should say, the influence is important in especially the social sciences, and it changed the society, if we like it or not.
Power isn't the problem. The problem how power is used. If it is used for good or evil. Since the postmodernists reject moral objectivism, they have no right to decry tyrannical use of power. If they accept moral objectivism then they should promote the judicious and prudent use of power. Not simply redistribute power to oppressed groups.
It a popularity contest in the end, isn't it? Except that Chomsky has already won by virtue of surviving all the other dudes. Literally, the last word on the topic...this clip is just a cheap dig without any engagement on the debates.
Wait, a structuralist analysis of postmodernism? Oh the irony. Even the haters have to admit that Foucault has aged well. What's interesting is the intention behind Chomsky's attacks.
Yes, his intention and his emotional intensity,-- why does he express so much rancor not only toward the "effects" of postmodernism but the early big-name thinkers themselves? as if they intended and planned out all of these effects... (They didn't.)
In 1983 while working at a Steel mill in Cleveland my Coworker told me that "Opinions are like a$$holes everybody has one, even if you're using a colostomy bag" George "The Forge" Udovich 1931-2009 RIP
My discipline (Anthropology) really struggles with this. Focault, Saussure, and the like are very popular amongst the people who study Sociocultural Anthropology. I work on the Biological and evolutionary side of things, but it’s wild because we might as well be entirely separate fields. I love the behavioral sciences, so it kills me to see how much of Postmodern thought pervades amongst anthropologists because I’ve heard so many insane takes like “Conspiracy Theorists are a marginalized group” or “Obesity is not a reliable marker of health”.
This clip does next to nothing to describe what post modermism is and how it functions, or how a bunch of people no one can understand gained the power suggested here... WHAT authority do these academics have in "3rd world countries" that at all impacts the daily lives of the people that live there? How is that authority used? I mean....just a snippet perhaps for those who don't already know (or believe) what this clip is talking about....
Keep reading the text and you might understand. What book in specific are you having trouble with? You need more philosophical grounding to read some of these texts.
there seem to be a lot of people here that vehemently anti-postmodernism/anti-poststructuralism. i would encourage you guys to read at least a bit of baudrillard and foucault to, at least, get an idea of what they're saying. chomsky, like a lot of american/analytic philosophers, has a dislike of continental philosophy. that being said, there are a lot of clever ideas in that area of philosophy, so it's at least worth reading some to get to know what you disagree with a bit more.
There are a lot of people here who haven't even come close to reading Derrida as a starter. "Postmodernism" is a right-wing dog whistle to them. This video was of Chomsky criticizing certain types of academics who go for fame, celebrity, rather than social justice activism. There was no criticism of "postmodernism" at all.
If the premise is wrong from the get-go (humans can neither come to know the meta-narrative if its there, or there's no meta-narrative to be known, doesn't matter which one sides with) then everything else that follows is a waste of time. The Divine exists, and is knowable by human beings. It's no surprise this movement is "of the Left" since the Left is oblivious to the existence of the Divine. Needless to point out, the Divine is the "meta narrative" (spiritual force) behind all goings on in material existence.
It is revealing that not a single person commenting, and appearing to lend some support to the idea that Post Modernism has any valid claim nor simple summaries nor an analogy as to what constitutes this "Post Modernism" as a school of thought, distinct from historic categories of reasoning, analysis, or philosophy. It's hogwash. Society and apparently our gullible, non-critical thinking collegians, have been duped. We will all suffer from the frustrations and stress that students who invested time in Post Modernism to any serious degree, have wasted their learning and studying time - and can't even summarize what makes Post Modernism distinct from a block of cheese. Or a wheel of cheese, if you prefer! Days and Nights are structured by our human life on this planet Earth, moving around our Sun. How uncomfortable your lives must be to be faced with facts and responsibilities and eventually, hopefully, reason.
@@marichristian1072 Perhaps also in a mathematics journal, but for sure was published in Lingua Franca, the leading journal of postmodernists. Sokal wanted to prove that the language of postmodernism is gobbledygook while the language of science is mathematics, so postmodernists should not meddle in the province of science. Lingua Franca dedicated an issue to postmodernism in science.
Some of them, sometimes, to varying degrees. It's not really that different from what people with academic ambitions have always done, trying to get good grades, a job, a professorship, tenure, also some people like attention, and that's true in many walks of life.
I just get the instinct that most commentary on postmodernism doesn’t get to the heart of the ideas but it is a commentary on the groups that are a side effect of post modernist view.
The parallels between postmodernism and invented "religions" like Mormonism and Scientology are remarkable. The fable of "The Emperor's New Clothes" predicted all of this.
There is another fun aspect to your comment; you're implying that only some religions were invented. I know you can't answer, because you're a postmodernist too, so: just for fun, how do you distinguish between invented religions and non-invented ones? Just curious, this is not a test of your IQ.
UK here - did Orwell say 'smarter'? If he did, he'd be very unusual in the Britain of the 1930s and 1940s (and he'd be departing from his usual style).
I do not wish to be the naysayer here but Chomsky is lumping together thinkers with quite different points of view: Derrida, Foucault, Baudrillard and Lyotard. By doing so he does his own argument a disservice. One good thing about the French and about Continental philosophy is general is that they are out there doing philosophy (Alain Badiou is an excellent example) whereas elsewhere thinkers who call themselves philosophers are publishing books about long-dead philosophers or, as is the case with the analytic school, are engaging in mental activity which has very little to do with the people's lived experience.
I'm so very appreciative of your post!!! Chomsky harkens back to my own college days when I thought he was an intellectual dunce, promoting ideas that conflicted with the reality of the human condition. And - in the 70s, after all the "required readings" - I dismissed him as unworthy of further attention. Just now, I had to smile and laugh as I listened here. You have motivated me to open the door to his more recent ideas & writings. Thanks!
Yes Chomsky's take on how the unvaccinated should be removed from society was spot on. Indeed if i had my way i would have lined them all up against the wall lol. Of course i jest. No i'm in the Sowell a real intellectual camp who has no time for Chomsky who should stuck to linguistics.
Did ChatGPT write this? This was a stream of grammatically correct yet dead end assertions, cobbled together with audio and video clips removed from their context, to essentially say, "Postmodernism is bad umm kay?" By showing us pictures, are we expected to merely dismiss and sweep aside, Foucault, Derrida, and Lacan? If I were to classify a postmodernist, it would be in the practice of epistemic dis-integration, for the sake of being "edgy". This video was a narrative of epistemic dead-ends - ironically very similar to postmodernism - the very thing in which it seeks to disparage.(!)
Chomsky is the old guard. Postmodernists are more common than this video makes them out to be. Kurt Vongergut, Jean-Paul Sarte, John Fowles to name a few. Their ideas are represented in more works than you may think! Catch-22, American Psycho, Naked Lunch. This video paints Postmodernism as an absurdist abstraction. That is a lay interpretation. Postmodernism explores reality as a place much more complicated than we can perceive, and sees the human as overly confident in its abilities to perceive ideas both local and theoretical. To the brief “scientific” point touched on but not explained in this video, neuroscience and physics have concluded as much is true: we vastly oversimplify our reality. We are simply limited in our capacity to understand reality. We see tuberculosis, to borrow his example, as a singular thing. In reality it is millions of organisms, interacting with billions more, waging a massive war in an organism which is independent of, but also dependent on, the organ where TB wages it’s war. As a result, TB has different outcomes for different people and the course of it depends on thousands of factors (including those as distant as where you lived as a child and the climate where you live now, for example). Another example: consider a car. Cars are viewed as independent objects, despite their being very complicated, we feel we “know” them. Of a car’s many parts, none can operate on their own as a car is intended. In this way, a car is fundamentally different from its parts. Conversely, none of its parts could be mistaken as a car on their own. Nor could a car with its parts strewn about in the back seat operate as a car. The idea and the function of the car relies on each part, their position in space and the forces acting on them. Therefore, knowing about a car is the same as knowing about its parts and how they fit together. The view of the car as this standalone object is therefore an oversimplification. This is Postmodernism, a nuanced but comprehensive view of an object, concept or structure. “Why not take it further?” a Postmodernist might ask the mechanic, “why not learn about chemistry and corrosion and physics and wear?” In this way, Postmodernism is absurd because it never ceases to seek more information. Is this not what we should want for ourselves too? Postmodernism asks us to investigate everything to see its formal causes, and it teaches us how to do so. In learning about Postmodernism, you also learn about yourself and your life as subjects of your study. It is a fantastic and enriching experience. I am not saying they got everything right and that they’re not pretentious, but they are valuable. To learn more, consider reading on Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan, Jean-Paul Sarte, Simone de Beauvoir. It’s taxing at first, but more rewarding than Chomsky would have you believe.
@peternyc It tries to use both Modernism and Postmodernism, strike a balance, find a middle ground. My understanding of it is new and limited, but it "is a thing." Time to do more research. From about 180 miles to the north, I ❤️ NYC. Lived there briefly as a child and it made a huge impression on me.
@@JCPJCPJCP Thanks, LoneDuck. I need to look into it more myself. NYC was a cool place before the 80's. It's a hub of capitalism, like all major cities, but you see a huge variety of ethnicities, social classes, identities, and so forth all squished into the same spaces. For that, NYC is special.
The value of postmodernism is mistaken to be a philosophy of substance that has a structure. I see postmodernism's value as a methodology that can be but isn't always useful. The West, especially the US, has been intellectually vapid since the 1960's. The victory of neoliberalism over the socialist urge has been so deep and widespread, that the only thing able to grow has been the narrow utility of postmodern thinking. Postmodernism is a tool, like a hammer. Who in their right mind confuses a building for a hammer? The answer is a bourgeoisie that wants meaning in their lives when there clearly is none. The role of postmodernism in the West is to cloak the emptiness of its shallow members. Fool's gold.
As a physicist, I have assumed that no one who understood anything about physics could not be a postmodernist. Nature does not care what we believer or want, and I find that very charming.
There are two basic steps to the postmodern pantheon, 1) no view, interpretation, equation, model, paradigm, etc., is the final, exclusive, complete truth - which I agree with, there is always room for improvement, new discoveries to be made, new information may come to light, new dimensions to be explored, new functional tools to be created, etc., and 2) therefore anything goes, which is patently absurd, some things work - others don't, some things work better - other things not so well, some things are life-affirming, life-promoting, life-enhancing - other things are life-denying, life-harming, life-ending. It all depends what your end goal is - promote vulnerable life in a hostile universe or create as much chaos, confusion, conflict as possible in order to wipe out the old guard and usher in the new Marxist utopia. The Marxists have repeatedly failed on every font - economic, cultural, creative - and have thus resorted to slight-of-hand methods like postmodernism. It's a power-play to undermine the "opposition - transcendental religion, the stable family, the sovereign individual, the LOGOS, rational thought, i.e., the "superstructure". It won't work and anybody who buys into postmodernism will soon fade away. Mother Nature won't be fooled. Physics won't be cajoled. Psychology will not be put on its head. Love will not be denied. God will not be trifled with. Life finds a way. Postmodernism will be rejected and ejected by the eternally active and dynamic immune system. The life force. In short, postmodernism is dysfunctional.
If, according to postmodernists, everything "is a language/social construct", you can use the classical argument, a kick in the ass, then ask them in which way it is just "a social construct".
@@TorMax9 Marxists didn’t use post-modernism as a “slight of hand” post modernists were explicity anti marxist and the two groups hated & critiqued each other intensely This is basic historical knowledge wtf r u talking about?
Fantastic compilation and review of his view, thank you! For anyone interested, the Michael Albert interview (the bald guy in his kitchen in many of the clips) is fantastic, I believe still easily watchable here.
What bothers me is that you went to a school where "postmodernism" as such was a position to defend. Just to be sure, what exact authors, books, theories etc were you skeptical of?
I agree with the above comment. I’d be interested to read precisely what you think “postmodernism” is, which authors/theories you take issue with and most importantly, why.
I have spent a great deal of time on Derrida and do think that he can be understood and that his ideas and reasoning are in fact quite profound. It is also to be noted that his concepts draw heavily on his philosophy predecessors such as Husserl, Heidegger, Saussure, Hegel - to mention but a few. Even those subjected to his readings eg Rousseau, Levi-Strauss contribute to his philosophy. I do not pretend to know much about his contempories - but to dismiss him as simply too difficult or obscure is also bad philosophy. There are parts of his work which are vogue seeking or sensationalist, but not what I would call the core.
I discovered Derrida, I forget by what happy accident, while studying Chomskyan linguistics (decades ago). It was such a relief to find someone with really interesting things to say about (among other things) language, when Chomsky had almost stultified me into thinking it was the most boring thing in the world. Chomsky's mind runs on very rigid rails. And Chomskyan semantics was unbelievably, laughably primitive - which they gradually, but entirely unsuccessfully, addressed by making it incomprehensibly formal, yet still incapable of getting much beyond 'analysis' of the meaning of 'bachelor'. I mean, I agree with you (even if I did just try to read "'Genesis and structure' and phenomenology" and got completely lost in the second half.)
Majority of Deleuze's books are analyses and explanations of other philosophers' concepts, like Spinoza, Kant, Leibniz, Bergson and Nietzsche. Pretty important and fundamental stuff.
Really great video for outing Chomsky of not understanding “postmodernism” (whatever that is) or any post-structuralist philosopher. The real problem here is academia, which some of the more prominent writers have indeed circumvented. Chomsky’s opinions everywhere outside strict linguistics are idiotic.
"There is very important book by Jean Bricmont and Alan Sokal, I forget what it's called, Dangerous Solutions or something. Where they simply go through, (they happen to concentrate on Paris which is the centre of the rot but it's all over), and they go through the most respected French intellectuals and run through what they say about science, and you know it's so embarrassing, that you kind of cringe when you read it."
I don't understand why you don't let Chomsky speak for himself. His critiques of PM are perfectly clear and understandable, and -- no offense -- but much better than your inadequate explanations.
If you didn't intend offense you ought have struck "inadequate." If your own criticism was adequate, you would have explained how the video was flawed.
Criticisms of postmodernism as a "school" and the behaviors/attitudes/opinions of its adherents are all good and well, but the core tenets of the philosophy aren't broached. I find them to be pretty uncontroversial. This summary was done by Google's AI Bard, I leave it here as an exercise for the viewers to consider: "Postmodernism is an intellectual movement that arose in the mid-20th century as a reaction to the perceived failures of modernism. Postmodernists argue that modernism was based on the assumption that there is a single, objective truth that can be discovered through reason and science. They argue that this is a naive and dangerous assumption, as it leads to the oppression of those who do not conform to the dominant ideology. Postmodernists also argue that modernism is based on the assumption that there is a single, linear history that can be understood through the study of great men and events. They argue that this is a simplistic and misleading view of history, as it ignores the complex and often contradictory forces that shape the world we live in. Postmodernists advocate for a more pluralistic and open-minded view of the world. They argue that there are many different truths and histories, and that we should not be afraid to question the assumptions of modernism. Postmodernism has had a major impact on a wide range of fields, including philosophy, art, literature, architecture, and criticism. It has also been influential in the development of social movements such as feminism and postcolonialism."
It sounds very benign on the surface, but actually it's ideological extents and conclusions go much further and have had a much more negative affect on culture than is expressed here
@@FraterOculus Despite some less than productive ideas, it has also had an extremely positive affect on culture and negated a lot of the pitfalls of modernism that also aren't covered here. Almost like it's a complicated & nuanced field of thought, rather than a scary boogeyman to demonise.
Chomsky accuses postmodernism of the same things that are true too himself aswell. If his argument is that intellectuals and professors, through postmodernism, become wealthy and powerful, contradicting their own ideology, then that is also applicable to Chomsky himself. He himself benifts from the world and society he is critizing, living in just a theoratical world, instead of the practical. One might argue that it is the world, society, and the current systems that make them as powerful and wealthy as they are- the very same world, system, and society they are deconstructing and critizing.
Yet, and despite abundant critiques indeed, over decades, of French "philosophy", Chomsky is at the very forefront of that "Post-Modern" thinking. He only ever think of international political problems in terms of morality. He never, EVER considers the "raison d'État", the principles that forces any government to defend its interests and the militaro-strategic situation encountered by States. Only the morality of interventions. International politic is NOT moral. And it's exactly the problem we encounter today in Western societies: we put morality, not democracy, not legality, not feasibility, not practicality, not the economy, but morality and morality only at the forefront of any question or problematic. Chomsky is very much a proponent of Post-Modern thinking. He is one of its fathers.
How to develop an excellent critique of a philosophical movement. 1) Become an elite professor. 2) Ignore the work of others for 50 years in neighboring fields. 3) Dismiss the work. 4) Watch as admiring acolytes repeat the dismissal.
It's called 'Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science' by the physicists Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont. You can also look up the 'Sokal Affair' for more context
When you consider Nietzsche's observation that philosophers are simply trying to rationalize their vices and then look for 5 minutes into the "proclivities" of "Saint" Foucault, it'll all start making sense.
The thing about Chomsky is I really want to know what he is saying but he sends me to sleep every time with his hypnotic drone. Denneth fools me by looking kind and invested and making little dad jokes but before you know it - you’re off … he is like an angler fish god of sleep, that way, but Chomsky shows you the nature of his sleep magic right away, and then still makes it work by fixating you with the steady, slightly slurred typewriter rythm of his voice and then softly but surely exhausting your mental faculties.
As far as i have understood choamsky ... He is very pragmatic...... He dismisses anything which is obscure and doesn't help common people directly or indirectly..... That's why he is very much against post modernism and i am trying to understand Foucault and derrida and it's very complex ....... What the hell can a common person gain from it except abstract concepts
Youre trying to look at it pragmatically. Why does it have to illicit some sort of gain? The common man already rejects most philosophy for this reason. That's not a problem with philosophy; it's a problem with the common man expecting gain and absolute clarity. And my dear child, if you truly are curious, you better stay curious about it, just wait until you truly grasp it and realize it's not in the abstract at all, nor the practical understanding it could help you gain...
@@danx1216 nopz it is complex most people don't understand these things .... And common people should gain something from everything... They are already at crisis because of rigorous capitalism.... and if they don't find anything useful in the post-modern concept to gain a common ground and overthrow regimes that are constantly trying to either use them and discard them.... Then what's the point of this philosophy.... You can point out all the contradict i have no problem with it i think it's a good thing and socrates and hegel did the same thing.... But there is something which could be understood from socrates about society and modern political methods and concept ..... That's not how it is with post-modernism ... And in fact all the post-modernist philosophers have very different ideas
@@subcitizen2012 yeah if common people under the pressure of political and capitalist regime can gain some insight from anything ... Then it is illicit ... Okay
This is an underrated critique, if you simply deconstruct deconstructionism it created the very thing it says it's fighting. It's just power relations with them using the simulation of critical thought to opress critical thought of them and language minpulation to acquire power.
I’m not going to defend postmodernism as a “movement,” because I don’t think it is a unified movement, that is a lie spread by anti-postmodernists. Postmodernism began as a term to describe architecture that declared itself post-modern architecture. All the shit attributed to post modernism is as much a part of the period within which postmodernism emerges as it is some deliberate scheme of mass postmodernists. Blaming post modernism for the period it emerges is like blaming modernism for WWI.
Cool video, but I got the feeling that he’s going more after the thinkers and not their ideas. Is he objecting to the idea of grand narratives being false? Is he objecting to the idea of synthetic knowledge being true? At most all I got was that post modernists don’t make predictions and that’s true, but they’re not claiming to make predictions. They’re just doing philosophy which isn’t about predicting specific things about the future, unless you consider setting limits on what can conceptually be done to be a form of prediction.
As a materialist, in the philosophical sense, postmodernism and related approaches just seem to reopen 19th century debates on idealism. There is an excessive focus on ideas, norms etc
@@BigLeagueChew11 It's confirmation bias when smart people agree with you? Is it safe to assume nobody smart agrees with you, then? If they do, I guess you also suffer from confirmation bias?
I love Chomsky, and I’ve also felt quite enriched by folks like Derrida, Foucault, Rorty, etc. I wish this included specific examples of what he has in mind. Without that, most of his assertions sound fairly similar to many conservative criticisms, and standard mainstream criticisms of post-structural philosophy (many of which end up sounding like they are somewhat missing the point). Please don’t get me wrong, my worldview, values, and opinions are such that I’m primed to more readily accept assertions made by Chompsky than question them. I just wish he was more specific - without that this series of clips isn’t something that’s going to be compelling to folks sympathetic to what he’s critiquing. UPDATE: This is the best take on Chomsky's views about postmodern philosophy I've seen (one that seems sympathetic with his take). It's also worth noting that the author of this post also correctly pointed out that it seems like Chomsky is critiquing a specific subset of the broader, and more properly named "Continental Philosophy" when he uses his label "postmodern philosophy" (which is more of a pop-culture reference than a meaningful label an academic philosopher - "postmodern" or not - would use): medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/chomsky-on-the-pretentiousness-and-political-impotence-of-postmodern-philosophy-2da0b8a6f62b
Chomsky, not unlike the majority, assumes he knows what 'science' is, but he is mistaken. That is aside from the fact that 'linguistics' itself sits awkwardly even inside that assumption.
Well presented but I fear that there is a lot to lose if we don't pay attention to some of the interesting and provocative insights offered in the postmodernist movement.
Like what, like the sky is blue (and just imagine how many lengthy discussions or even seminars it would take before they would acknowledge even a slight possibility that such a radical insight could be instantiated into their oh so esoteric world view)?
Chomsky’s critique isn’t profound. He knows a great deal about political conditions, but is …under-informed, and perhaps incapable of reading merit in postmodern texts. The contributions of Derrida, Deleuze and Sloterdijk, and Foucault… are too profound to be overlooked. I greatly admir Chomsky, and that is why I would respond with directness, Chomsky is an incomplete -and very insistently …ignorant form or argument. Its not a matter of academic conferences and superficial game play. Shallow will to power. Chomsky writes and thinks about linguistics from a completely western and empirical manner. While I admire his political acuity, sheer dismissal of continental thought is a highly intolerant ideological position to take.
Chomsky never once could demonstrate he actually understood what post-modernism is, much less give us a succinct critique of it. He only seemed annoyed with specific people involved with the movement in the 60's and 70's, which is fair enough I guess, but hes attacking the character of the people behind the social movement, and never really the substance of any real philosophical writing. You can criticize the well known people in the movement, you can critique the accessibility of the writings, but that is no replacement for a critique of the substance behind the writings. Post modernism isn't one thing or philosopher. It's an undercurrent that runs alongside modernism and entails various philosophical critiques and descriptions of modernity. This video (and Chomsky) is randomly cherry picking shit about power relations, but that was primarily Foucault. There are probably a hundred different schools of thought within "postmodernism", from just as many different philosophers. Hell, much of Zizek's work is trying to critique and deal with post-modernists, specifically Deleuze. He is a Uber modernist and humanist, but even he recognizes that post-modernist critiques deserve more respect than what Chomsky's lazy anti-intellectual ass gives it.
If I write a load of gibberish and you say it's gibberish, I can just say you don't understand it. Got it. And Zizek is one of the biggest clowns of the lot.
I know this just a short video, but it would be cool to get some examples of what you are saying. Also I tried to find the claim that postmodernists said 12 and 13 year olds should be able to choose sex partners and didn't find anything. Having references would be a good idea.
It was an idea put forth by, among others, JPSartre and SdeBeauvoir. They even made a kind of manifesto. Found something about it once on the Net, with many outraged/self-righteous comments but not sufficiently interested to recall where/what.
There is a lot of cherrypicking and unsubstantiated evidence here. Chomsky's critique of US hegemony mediation and the power structures examined by post modernists only differ in their degree of abstraction. I would think Chomsky would agree with Foucault's assertion that modern society is based upon a war production model, as he outlined in Civilization Must Be Defended. It is the other side of the coin of Chomsky's description of the Military-Industrial Complex. Post modernists have their successes and failures, like any other intellectual movement. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a common neoconservative trope.
@@castelodeossos3947 That's interesting, but they aren't really considered post-modernists. But really my point is the video shouldn't make these things so obscure, if he makes a direct reference to something, say who said it and where.
Exactly! As if some hypothesized, yet unverifiable hidden structure embedded within the human mind that allows them to understand some language is not a crazy idea that someone can hide behind and pretend to know things.
@@urosjovanovic808 that's not what i said...just because it might be based upon some genetic commonality does not mean it is structured as chomsky suggests... but ok, erect your straw man and enjoy yourself. :) ...and who is to say that animals do not have languages? certainly they may not be like human languages, but it sure does appear that they are able to generate sounds to communicate. perhaps yet another wild assumption on your part, fueled by some sort of random neuron firing?
I'm in 4th year for Socio-Cultural Anthropology and I get this. Next year I will be out on the street, explaining to my homeless friends how Strauss considers incest to be the basis of all culture, and how phonemes resemble kinship cladograms. *hey guys where you going?*
Society's been changing at an amazing pace. I live in Brazil, I was born in the 70's and just cannot deny there's a huge gap between my generation and youngsters. Relationships will never be the same. The impact of new technologies is yet to be grasped. Chomsky may not like the term, ok, but he probably agrees we are stepping into a whole different age.
Dear Bruno, coincidently I also live in Brazil, and have a slightly different take on this. To start with, it doesn't seem to me that relevant the technology gap amongst generations. Having born in the early sixties, I came to distrust all the emphasis on radical changes in the human condition from one decade to another, from one year to another, from five minutes ago to now. It simply doesn't ring true to me. Humans are humans throughout, I think, since ancient times. Very little seems to me to have truly changed since Plato's writings, for instance. In this regard, several aspects of this video appear to me to be so valid, such as the assumed imposture of these rock-stars academic imposing nonsensical views on the entire academic field (and to, as the video also claims, the "well-meaning masses", and to journalism, as a category). This is precisely what I myself experience down here and elsewhere in the world. Postomodernism, according to my impressions, is indeed this extremely powerfull, irrational and ill-meaning strategy to secure power by means of attacking reality, as if reality were a fiction. Fiction, on my modest opinion, is the view that reality is a fiction, a mere narrative and a social construct. Socially constructed is the view that reality is socially constructed, applying the spell reflexively against its own agents. However, I very much respect those who see it somewhat differently, and truly care for their thoughts as well. Very best regards from Niterói and São Paulo! Peace to all, that nothing is better than peace! Cláudio
@@luisclaudioportugaldonasci7250 Eu acho que você está equivocado se você acha que não houve nenhuma mudança significativa na forma que estruturamos a realidade no contexto atual. Você já participou de alguma comunidade online como a Twitch? Já jogou algum jogo competitivo online? Já participou ativamente de alguma comunidade como Reddit, Twitter, TikTok, Instagram? Você já viu o impacto que todas essas esferas sociais causam na nossa sociedade? Nossas relações não são mais as mesmas dos antigos escritos de Platão, vivemos em uma sociedade dopamínica que não pode mais ser resumida em realidades objetivas. Se você tentar buscar entender mais como funcionam comunidades em Telegram, Discord, Twitch, TH-cam e em vídeos, irá entender o porquê podemos discordar de Noam Chomsky. Acho que esse "tradicionalismo filosófico" seu vem da sua própria idade e do seu próprio contexto, pois logicamente, creio eu, é mais difícil alguém da geração do Noam Chomsky entender ou querer compreender o período extremamente existencialista e niilista que vivemos.
Always healthy to see people arguing in the old fashioned (?) way. Clearly, we are not competing. I see two different points of view, both contain well supported arguments. I quit all those "Facebooks" long ago. Only kept TH-cam. And I'm very picky. Intelectuals, especially linked to academics indeed distort reality in a way that seems dishonest, just repeating the struggle for possessing "reason" - Power. Colleges in Brasil are an easy target for right wingers because if on one hand they have adopted a "correct" agenda (especially on literature, history, sociology), on the other hand the speech is just... artificial. You're told a tale in classroom that is unreal. In the street society remains brutally hipocrite. Guys, I'm not as smart as you, but I insist. Be suspicious. The age of Doubt
@@kairosj Querido Kairos, de nome tão inspirado, não sei se concordo com seu ponto de vista, que muito respeito, entretanto. Na verdade, há uma série de referências, em sua mensagem, a minha própria pessoa. Tais alusões e pressuposições me parecem estranhas e impertinentes à boa dialética crítica. Sugiro evitarmos levar argumentos para o lado pessoal, em nome de aumentarmos a chance de avançarmos nossas compreensões de mundo. Observo, por exemplo, que seu ponto de vista de que minha visão sobre a realidade possa estar influenciada por minha idade (não tão elevada, assim, a propósito) e por minha meramente presumida não participação nas tais redes sociais (o que não se tem como afirmar, sem isto haver sido evidenciado) como constatação de minha alegada inaptidão para compreender o conjecturado estado de transformação das coisas me parece, com todo respeito, impróprio. Essa forma de argumentação poderia ser espelhada de volta para sua alegada própria condição (supostamente mais antenada com tais novos costumes), como base para sugerir, de igual maneira e nos mesmos termos, ainda que simétricos, também sua incapacidade para formular tal juízo de transformação. Mas, em qualquer dos casos, não me parece adequado qualquer desses argumentos que se desviem das ideias e se voltem às pessoas. No fundo, resulta em uma forma de exclusão, de censura e de desmerecimento da interlocução, assemelhando-se a uma insinuação "ad hominem". Que prevaleça, portanto, a dialética crítica pura, sem desmerecimentos pessoais nem insinuações de superioridade nem de inferioridade dos interlocutores como frágil base improvisada de apoio a argumentos que talvez fossem melhor resolvidos exclusivamente no plano das ideias, ao largo de insinuações pessoais, que, salvo melhor juízo, parecem repelir a graça do processo. Saudações muito especialmente fraternas, Cláudio
"Postmodernism is cringe" -Noam Chomsky
yeah, that's an argument...
Well, Chomsky actually said 'French Intellectuals' 'writing about science induced 'cringe'. It's lazy to use the 'Post-Modern' or, 'Post-Modernism' as a synonym for Structuralism, or Post-Structuralism but here we are... All over U-Toob it's the same lazy.
BASED
Literally this
It used to be that people thought Noam Chomsky was cringe. How the times have changed.
Postmodernism: The idea that truth is always subjective, but I'm always right.
Brilliant! You nailed it 😅
its an attempted master class trying to abstract their philosophy after the period, well it can get that, or remaking a genreration before yours... you could almost call can't and hegel post modernists,, they just do it as an existentialism then abstract the content onto paper through philosophy... also all the american post modern philosophy in plain language that doesn't do the subject its authenticity. It's always on a target thats delayed or isolated somehow, reversed as a metaphysic in reality. Remember these philosophies existed for years before they were actaully abstracted. Japanese sumarai phenomology is uncanny similar to husserlian phenomonology...... Kant's town was established in 1200,... he wrote the treatise in the 18th century.... heidegger is a literal post modern remake of hegelian dialectic synthesis between concepts he made up.. its post modern as well
Chomsky's not wrong, but his critique of post-modernism is incredibly shallow. What he's speaking of is just one branch of post-modern ideology, and in one specific context.
Post-modernism is an epistemological foundation that exists in what I would argue to be more ideologies that not, including capitalism, ethno fah shizm (I have to do this because of automated sensorship), intersectional feminism (and other socjus ideology), voodoo, most precursors to pre-modern religion (superstitions and mysticisms), new age religion, and much, much more.
Anytime someone says "x is subjective" they're going down a post-modern rabbit hole and rejecting objective reality, and the problem with this is that power struggle becomes guaranteed because when there is no shared, external and universal truth, one can only use force to solve problems.
This is incredibly dangerous, as the very same reality detachment that allows one to say something like "x is a social construct" can also be used to dehumanize others while rejecting all evidence to the contrary, usually by proclaiming the out group's experience and mind to be somehow incompatible with the ingroup. This is for instance seen in the "Jewish Question," wherein the out group is presupposed to be incapable of the same reasoning, experience or negotiation as the in group, and an extreme "solution" is thus justified.
😄
This might be the dumbest thing I read on the internet today. Congrats on not understanding something yet commenting on it anyway. Very Trumpish of you.
Elements of postmodernism were already alive and thriving in the early 20th century. In his 1907 essay 'The Study of Mathematics', Bertrand Russell wrote : 'Too often it is said that there is no absolute truth, but only opinion and private judgment ; that each of us is conditioned, in his view of the world, by his own peculiarities, his own taste and bias ; and that there is no external kingdom of truth to which, by patience and discipline, we may at last obtain admittance, but only truth for me, for you, for every separate person. By this habit of mind one of the chief ends of human effort is denied, and the supreme virtue of candour, of fearless acknowledgment of what is, disappears from our moral vision.'
thank you for this quote.
Thank you for sharing, it is beautiful and very freeing I believe :-)
@@JohannesDonnerstich 1914-B.R: Our Knowledge of the External World as a Field for Scientific Method in Philosophy
It’s Analytical Philosophy vs Continental Philosophy, Chomsky vs Foucault.
@@JohannesDonnerstich no guy in particular. You can find the rather short article.
Mathematics , with its beauty, elegance and truths, is the answer to scepticism and cynicism of those who doubt there’s truth.
Great period for Science and Philosophy...
Good old Bertrand. Worth his weight in gold. At the age of 90, he was literally badgering JFK and Khrushchev over their insanely dangerous behavior during the Cuban Missile Crisis.This would certainly constitute 'activism' from an intellectual.
Strange as it may sound, Russell seems to have believed that a nuclear war leading to the annihilation of much of the planet was an objective truth, true for all, rather than a social construct that was true only for those seduced by the peculiar grand narrative known as science.
file:///Users/macpro/Downloads/jadmin,+fulltext-1.pdf
He is not saying power difference does not exist. There is evidence, there is truth, morality. Ethics. Not everything is some game.
Postmodernism isn't saying everything is a game. It's saying that when alot of people accept an ideology it's oppressive for people who don't or can't conform to it. Now if a Christian conservative hangs out with a group of wokies they will experience oppression. If a wokie hangs out with a group of Christian conservatives ditto. Both ideologies are full of half truths so invoking either(as an absolute)should be met with a nice strong "go fuck yourself" both sides are fragile and are just mirroring the fact that victim-oppressor are the same thing.
There is no morality. That is Chomsky's point. What do you think was Adolf Hitler's big realization? It's that we have globally adopted a "Jewish" morality - It Is by no means universal or universally eternal. The idea that the least shall become the greatest, Christianity, the idea that the poor and the weaj should be looked after by the strong and the rich - none of those are contingent. But that is exactly the point of postmodernism. They don't just deconstruct. What they insist on is that there is no such thing as objective morality, which is all the more reason to preserve the one we have. Postmodernism is a critique of scientism and of materialism.
I'm sure this is obvious to most. A great deal of Chomsky's career involved the critique of certain particularly nasty and unrestrained power structures.
On the other hand, I would disagree and say that everything is in fact "some game."
But I'd also say "play stupid games, win stupid prizes."
We live in a hyper capitalist society. Nearly everyone is driven by a competitive mentality, and cooperation as a competitive strategy against the hardships of nature is severely undervalued. Yes, I'm going into memetics here. It's a must. Unfortunately, this means your average person is in a situation where they need to keep game theory on the forefront of their mind, just to avoid being completely trampled by society. That also puts them precariously close to being the person doing the trampling.
Post-modernists love to critique power dynamics, but they ironically fail to see their own power, or recognize that what society severely needs right now is for people to learn how to restrain their aggression, and stay in their own lane.
Post-modernist activists claim to oppose capitalism, yet are some of the most hyper competitive and predatory people on the planet because they simply fail to recognize the common ground between themselves and others, and the fact they are often best served by simply agreeing to a state of non-aggression with those around them.
This is, of course, a product of their rejection of objective reality. They simply can't recognize that the vast majority of humans aren't particularly different than them, nor are they in a particularly different boat than they are.
The analogs that exist between all between different states of human existence simply allude them; They cannot, for instance, see that the decedent of a "white" Irish serf is often not in a particularly different situation than that of a "black" slave. And so they foolishly and pointlessly wage war with those they should be cooperating with.
Power is a mental construct. Spirituality wins.
@@donaldclifford5763 spirituality is a mental illnesz
I am from Brasil and I very much identify with what Chomsky says about the disconnection among the intelligensia and popular movements. I often even find latin professors deffending positions so simmilar to the US department line and reproductions of imperial myths, really terrible
They were probably indoctrinated in US colleges.
Chomsky truly connected with people, specially with Epstein am I right
Repiten las soluciones que les son enviadas por los europeos y estadounidenses, cosas pensadas en inglés para la gente de habla inglesa y para su contexto propio. A este paso, los avances de los saberes nuestros se va para la mierda y con ello nuestro propio auto-entendimiento y lugar en el mundo
Not to mention the post-modern ideas about crime and violence, which have swept the imagination of our legislators and judges, and over the last thirty years turned Brazil into the most violent country in the world. It is important to point out that throughout these thirty years living conditions in Brazil IMPROVED; that is to say, if the problem were that too many people are poor, Brazil would be much more violent thirty years ago, not less. (I'm Brazilian as well, hi. 👋)
@@he_was_a_skater_dog That's exactly what I thought watching the video. To this day, postmodernism has a huge influence on these topics in Brazil.
"Creating the impression of profundity"
Yep, that pretty much sums it up.
No, that's standard discourse. There's nothing there but naive assumptions and linguistic ignorance.
@@bobsacamano1274 Bro acting like Foucault isn't
Much like Jordan Peterson in fact.
literally what chomsky is accused of often
Looking at the replies, I'd like to point out I judge writers in how they write, not how they interview.
Chomsky's writing is pretty clear and to the point, which appeals to my aesthetic and reading style.
Foucault's writing is profundity manifest. Foucault's work on institutions such as penitentiaries is valuable nonetheless and should not be ignored.
The biggest problem is bringing a tribal and/or consumerist approach to reading political philosophy/theory. Each theory, each perspective, is a data point for your own analysis, no single writer has the full picture. I highly recommend reading Zygmunt Bauman's work, (Liquid Modernity and Postmodernity and its Discontents) were great frameworks for how to approach previous theoretical frameworks.
In a way the post modernists won. It's remarkable how much cultural commentary is now just basically an analysis of power relationships.
This intrigues me too. How much of an effect has it had on the general public? I think a lot of folk, both of a socially liberal persuasion and those on the right (but not conservatives) believe in the particulars rather than the universal, are distrustful of grand ideas and sceptical about whether there's an objective truth etc
LOL. This is not even remotely true. It's not even possible to be true - such a thing would require a closed society, not the freedom & access to info we have. The pursuit of context today is way more open. Historical forces, dramatic events, cultural barriers, technological changes, etc. the stuff Ben Shapiro says ignore. Sometimes the bizarre p-mod conclusion is real, but often it's a *idea* distinction, like understanding 3-D in a 2-D experience. Are any ideas "real"? That kind of thing. The dumb stuff never gets far anyways. Somebody has to go too far with their thoughts to show where that is anyways.
But then, the author here also has too narrow view of Post-Modernism, treating it like Marx and forcing it into an exact form it never had.
And you posted this on TH-cam, filled with so much commentary that it contradicts the claim.
The foundation of Woke.
@@castelodeossos3947 Woke again! Everything is ‘woke’...if you want it to be. Yet again, without a definition that can’t be presented in anything less than a chapter. Btw a chapter is not a definition, it’s a dissertation.
@@castelodeossos3947 Chomsky is pretty woke, he ain't no pseudo intellectual grifter like Jordan Peterson.
This is not a critique Postmodernism as much as it is a critique of Posmodermist scholars and intellectuals (which is a different critique and could be applied across various ideological positions).
So, you think you can separate the art from the artist?
He seems to be saying that the critiques levelled by postmodernists can also be levelled against them.
@@johnnyswattsPoMos often think so. The “death of the author” - as postmodernists would call it.
I think you're onto something here. The disreputable tactics for which the postmodernists are criticized can be found wherever you look, from the hallowed halls of the theoretical physicists to the women's sewing circle. Nonetheless, French poststructuralists do stand out in terms of the virulence and shamelessness of their sophistry, perhaps none more so than Jacques Derrida. Paradoxically, this is where I find the enduring value in Derrida's contribution. There was brilliance in his capacity to take the most reprehensible behaviour of the intelligentsia and elevate it to unparallelled heights (and despite the grave intensity of his persona, I still can't decide to what extent he was taking the piss). This forces us to recognise the destructive inanity of the games he played (or at least it ought to) and better enables us to recognise them when subtly employed elsewhere. It is proof of his genius as a wordsmith that he was so successful in getting himself taken seriously, and I can't help but admire anyone so consistently able to crack me up.
Is he criticizing "postmodernism" or a certain group or type of academic? It sounds more like that than as you are portraying it. He doesn't talk about "postmodernism" in terms of textual criticism, but more about academic egos and those who absent themselves from social activism. This was not even remotely a "complete denunciation of the movement" as you conclude.
both is related - the video doesn´t go profoundly into the problem of the formula of "textual criticism" used by postmodernism though....
"He doesn't talk about 'postmodernism' in terms of textual criticism" -- who is supplying the postmodernist text & textual criticism if not those humans in the postmodernist movement?
@@loudenlaffnite246 people who are at least 90 years old, I suppose.
@@loudenlaffnite246 It is Republicans who don't have the slightest clue what they are talking about as they are totally uneducated on the topics, the issues and the authors. And that is obvious to anyone who IS educated in those areas and familiar with those authors.
@@loudenlaffnite246 if you think this is an actual criticism of what they are saying, then i'm afraid to admit it is ad hominem, as this really does not say anything at all except that some of them play language games
This may be a misreading of Chomsky by taking what he said too far. It could be that his critique was more limited to certain actors within the post modern movement that have had a negative effect, in his opinion, in shaping the movement overall. My analogy would be to certain teams acting in such a way as to change an entire sports league in some fundamental way. It would be taking that example too far to say the entire sport should be invalidated in some way or another. I'm not sure Noam was saying we should not analyze power structures and their real world applications, just the these twats have mucked it up by acting like lawyers instead of educators
I think the same.
Dr Chomsky gives a similarly scathing critiique of sociology as a whole in one of the table-talk interviews with the small bald gentleman.
Yes I was thinking the same thing. Chomsky himself challenges the same power structures, the issue is that the postmodernists in question are just fancy talking con artists.
Good point, since he himself examines power structures. His point is not that there are no power structures, but that it is one-dimensional and contrived to attribute all the ills of the world merely to the existence of hierarchies (and to add some spurious ones too), and to contrive a whole discipline/language to 'proving' that it is so. As he says somewhere, if something cannot be explained with simple language, then there's some phoniness going on somewhere.
I'm not sure that the French postmodernists were all that influential. Could it be that we would have fallen into such a level of twattery anyway and with hindsight we can now blame them?
We will never know of course but I have a feeling that once we have woken up to what we have done to our civilisation, and start rectifying the damage (if we ever do), it wont be the postmodernist that the new movers and shakers will be using as a reference, but the likes of James Burnham, Thomas Sowell and the Italian elite theorists.
Chomsky has never been one to dress himself up in fads, be they of ideas or of language. He has consistently been a serious thinker to the core, which is why I have long valued, even on those occasions I disagree with him, what he has had to say.
Chomsky has made many of us think, that doesn't mean he's infallible.
The footage of Chomsky looks pretty old and the video is another attempt, by an independent agent to feed the appetite for anti post modernism as we collectively tumble into AI culture.
This backlash, this appetite for anti post modernism, is nothing less sentimental nostalgia for the confused . ( Jordan Peterson, comes to mind)
We certainly aren't living in Modernity any more Dorthy.
Chomsky is an amazing academic, but he was also a fad.
Chomsky is a pseudo-intellectual who has proven to be incorrect about nearly everything he has ever claimed.
......nothing like a lecture from the millionaire "socialist". .......
@@mippim8765 He's a brilliant intellectual who's both an emeritus professor, lecturer in linguistics, most cited scientific article author, as well as writer who is politically active and has written several books on modern society and American and international politics.
Most of his money comes from royalties, of which he deserves every cent and then some. It's possible to become a millionaire off of one's own work.
Mr. Chomsky, you sir are a god-send to our times and an impeccable guide and example. Thank you.
🤣🤣🤣
i've also got to admit that it's a damn clever tactic of chomsky's to use the postmodernists' own arguments against them.
He isn't though. Most of what he says about them could be said about him as well--he is a sort of star in academia. He uses his clout to sell books. Etc. Etc. Usually when I see Chomsky talking about postmodernism he's pretty quick to admit that it is unintelligible to him and he doesn't understand what they're talking about. Which isn't really a serious critique, there are people on youtube that do a better job discussing and critiquing postmodern thought than he does.
@@JEQvideos There's a great video called Animating Poststructuralism, which explains the divide between people like Chomsky (structural linguists) and people like Derrida (poststructuralists / postmodernists). If things don't make sense to Chomsky, I put it down to this fundamental disagreement on the nature of language and communication itself.
@@vis7139 I will check it out, thanks!
@@JEQvideos J. Peterson being one who bridles at any mention of postmodernism, or adherents such as Lyotard, Foucault or Derrida. His arguments seem quite well thought out and compelling (granted, I'm without a strong background in philosophy).
@@commentatron Peterson? Yup, you definitely don't have a philo background.
I honestly thought he would have stronger arguments against post modernism, other than an aggressive relativization without ideas that can stand on their own instead of just being against something.
That's all that Chomsky knows to do: his ideas cannot stand on their own; he's against everything.
I think he got to a point where he realised you can't argue against cray cray.
You can't crack fog with a hammer.
@@hadronoftheseus8829 does not say much for the hammer either
@@ekkeism You have absolutely no idea what propositional content is.
Great description, modern day sophistry.
So Chomsky deconstructed postmodernism in terms of power relationships. What a postmodern thing to do. Derrida would be proud.
Not at all a postmodern thing to do.
hey, honestly maybe that's a good thing. the movment seems to lack applying the standards to itself and that's how we get so much problems. If it were any other ideology it would be just as bad. you can't even question postmodernism with out being denounced as a racist status quo upholder. just as the church used to denounce anyone criticizing the sale of indulgences.
it very much is the sale of indulgences.
how do you mean? @@AMehra-im1gr
I forced my way through Of Grammatology and at the end of that total waste of my time, i didn’t feel I was stupid and hadn’t understood a work of great profundity, which is clearly the intention, rather,
this man is an utter charlatan. If you want to spend your time on “difficult” books and aren’t a scientist read Joyce and Beckett incredibly rewarding, which I know many of you will have done already.
Yeah man, demonstrating that a world view makes no sense even by the standards of its own internal logic is totally the same thing as agreeing with or demonstrating the validity of its internal logic. You must have come top of your philosophy class
Who are the people at 2:30? I recognize Boulez, Foucault and Barthes. (Possibly also Elliott Carter.) The others?
But everything in this video is simply a critique of postmodernists rather than postmodernism as an idea? I don’t understand how this constitutes criticism on postmodernism at all.
Well, i think it's legit cause those people built the foundations and further nurtured post modernist thought
I had a similar thought. Just because you get caught up in power structures, doesn’t mean you’re wrong about them and their corrupting influence. In fact, everything that is explained in this video confirms post-modernists’ critiques about power. It’s just that seeing a problem and being able to fix it are two different things. At the end of the day the unbalanced distribution of power in society might not be “fixable.” It might be a necessary part of the way human beings organize themselves. This is what is so strange about us as animals on this earth. All social animals have hierarchies and I’m sure there are lots of animals in the world who don’t like their place in that hierarchy. What’s weird about us is that we can communicate about that experience in ways that can impact the actions of people in power. Language is an incredible disruptor of power. Maybe it’s not helpful to try to dismantle and spread power out completely. Maybe it’s more important to have good people in positions of power. Like a good boss, or any other good leader, good people in power can do incredible things. Still, the post-modern power structure isn’t one I’d particularly like to be a part of. At a certain point, your ideas take on a life of their own and these aren’t ideas worth getting caught up in. :)
@@Warispeace-eq8yy Can you name a post modernist scientist?
can you name a post-modernist mathematician?
Can you name a post-modernist architect or engineer?
Can you name a Post Modernist philosophy that doesn't deny logic and objective analysis?
Can you guess why there is so much fraud and plagiarism by university post grads in the last 20 years?
Oh, you're just saying, "these folks said it and wrote it down, and taught it, s they nurtured it and and 'furthered' it?" Circular reasoning or Assumed Conclusion. Both are fallacious reasoning and invalid logically. Do you understand?
@@gregrice1354 Oh yeah, you think so? So what are you gonna do about it? You think you put the quietus on me or something? You and what army.... My point being, and I think I might be making a postmodernist point even though I don't really know anything about postmodernism, is I don't care what you say, make me agree with you. If you can't, you better shut up. Power's the name of the game, baby. I don't care about whatever your logical drivel says. Might is right. And isn't that Foucault's big thing, who has real power, and how is it wielded? And if so, what's the problem, is that some illegitimate line of intellectual inquiry? I wouldn't think so. Once again, I don't know anything about the dude, but I don't think you can blame him and his ilk for the collapse of contemporary academia, that was always going to happen on account of inexorable socioeconomic forces, and 60s/70s French over-intellectualism didn't have nothing to do with it. That's just our system finally devouring itself.....
How can you criticize something you don’t understand?
I've shied away and these subjects because they seem difficult to understand on their surface. What a great breakdown you've done here, thank you.
Total respect for Chomsky, his thinking, his experience, his observations, and also all respect to this attempt to critique something important, but we need actually engagement with a broad sample of what those who claim to be postmodernists actually say, and their couterarguments to criticism. This makes broad claims and generalisations about postmodernist thought and thinkers, many of which many of them themselves would challenge, and many of which are not what is often actually being said in the works critics draw these conclusions from. Many of the observations about the culture around it, of the status, power, financial reward, attention, etc., etc., is probably all true, but is a phenomenon surrounding it, and not the thing in itself. Many of the examples given of seemingly silly conclusions drawn or claims made by postmodernists are perhaps also true, but a mere list of such examples, not exploring where they might not exist at all, or where they might be looked at in proper context and seen to be not saying at all what people claim they are saying. There's a bunch of crap in there for sure, but that does not establish the whole venture as so flawed. It's like when the UK's Daily Mail finds immigrants defrauding the benefits system and presents that and all the realities around it that meant those immigrants could do that as a broad reality that means immigrants are a nuisance, the benefits system money merely thrown at the lazy, and the governmental systems that exist merely dumb, politically correct and wasteful. A broad look at the whole reality these examples sit in shows a very different reality in which these rare problems, dysfunctions, exploitations, and misunderstandings are inevitable hiccups in a system on the whole that makes a lot of sense. This cherry-picked bunch of criticisms and examples doesn't give a true critique of post modernism. Near the beginning a list of characteristics and central themes of postmodernism is given. These are generally taken by critics to mean that they think all proposed truths are as valid as each other, or that there is no objective reality, and that everything is a social construct, and that where the truth lies is merely a question of where the power lies, but none of these things are actually claimed by any of those listed scepticisms, which are merely a highlighting of how people variously relate their truths to their own situation and experience, and that the closed patterns of understanding we can get caught up in need to be questioned so as to in fact try at least to get closer to objective reality. I'm not saying you're wrong in any of this, just that it seems to merely be listing narrow criticisms of narrow aspects in narrow contexts, seen as shallowly at it is narrow, and therefore not to be really either clearly demonstrating real rot at the real fundament of postmodernism, nor even to be showing the more robust arguments Chomsky has. My basic response to this fashionable attacking of postmodernism in recent years is that both positive claims about it and negative ones seem to be simplistic, lacking context, and caricaturing it, and not reading it deeply or in proper context, and so it's a waste of time, and encourages me merely to go and actually read a lot more postmodernism. I feel quite sure that I'd find a lot of worth in it, even if all the negative things connected to it that are listed here are absolutely true, because it's so narrow a view, and so much cherry picking and merely listing negative critiques of it, or negative phenomena attached to it, and also often ver y rushed conclusions drawn about it that don't actully refer to the fullness of the ideas that it discusses, suggests, explains, makes claim to, etc., etc. It might seem clever that Chomsky turns their own arguments against them, and he probably is particularly doing this with those who wouldn't recognise that they're not applying the same standards to themselves, but that does not actually establish that the vast majority of them indeed would, and do apply the same standards to themselves. Just like the motivation of status, celebrity and material reward driving the activity of people criticised does not demonstrate that that drives them all, nor, even if it did prove that was true of all of them, prove that the original ideas were flawed in themselves. There is no actual dismantling of post-modernism here at all, just examples of where it does, or might, have negative outgrowings, and where it might be negatively exploited, and we don't know how often or rarely, because that context isn't given either. The closest to an actual discussion given to it is at the beginning, where all it is is a list of areas in which postmodernism questions with how much faith and confidence we should take claims that may have more of a subjective, biased or entrenched, habitual or systemised viewpoint than initially seems to be the case. That is actually the opposite of a denial of objective truth, yet....
You know he's a genocide denier right?
Couldn’t agree more, Chomsky doesn’t actually engage with any of the claims or the discourse, he just waves it aside with a banal characterisation of it all as some celebrity-academic movement.
For a man so erudite one would assume he could see past his own bias to critique beyond his shallow impressions, but we all have our biases I suppose, with our own blindnesses
Everyone watching this video should read this text first.
"My basic response to this fashionable attacking of postmodernism in recent years is that. . . .[you're] not reading it deeply" -- ah, the old yOu'Re-nOt-DeEp-EnOuGh ditty. And that's pretty choice: a Postmodernism-apologist claiming to be a victim of "fashionable" attack; outside of Critical Theory, what recent movement has gained more traction due to "fashion" than Postmodernism?
@@donotletthebeeswin ?
This is not really about postmodernism. It's a caricature of the idea of postmodernism. There's no real information here.
Liked and subscribed: a great summary of Chomsky's position.
It's tough watching the great Chomsky resort to name calling and mudslinging against continental philosophy from the analytical side of the philosophical spectrum rather than providing a substantive critique of postmodernism, which like all forms of thought is rife with both flaws and virtues. It's interesting that whoever edited this video attempts to suggest that "critique of power relations" and "distrust of grand narratives" is a bad thing? Or that its somehow not accurate that "dominant power structures shape peoples identities and worldviews"?
"Please eat my stale bread. I've got few sandwitches left" -Naom Chomsky
I think people that are against post-modernism have difficulty arguing against it in a theoretical level and fall back into criticizing some of it's thinkers lives and their way of writing. Most critics never try to prove that post-modernism is wrong, they all do "post-modernism bad". And in my view there's a lot of things to criticise about obscurantism, the way some post-modernist ideas are used, the establishment of french academia and the lives of some thinkers, but to me its conclusions are just the logical progression of western thought, if you look at philosophy's history it always pointed in that direction
The postmodern is only a critique of the past, the metamodern is a way foward
@@vernacularpunc What we can call "metamordern" is only the creation of art and culture influenced by post-modern thought. All philosophers create their work by replying to the ideas of the past, and in a way this process creates the future.
@@SomethingToSee101 Yes and postmodern thought endlessly critiques itself hence a return to sincreity despite the irony is needed
Pharaoh still,died of TB
Is Chomsky's critique not a critique of the Postmodernist thinkers themselves rather than the movement and its ideas as a whole? I think the critique is sound but what about people who agree with some of its core tenets who don't necessarily participate in that academic sphere and therefore system of power?
Idiotic
The problem is the movement and its ideas generate the conditions in which this system of power appears. If a system fails to hold propositions accountable to a standard of truth then those who wish to manipulate language for their own power will eventually gravitate to those systems. This is partly why Plato's philosopher kings don't want to rule, but more importantly it's why Plato is an enemy of the sophists, and his theory of truth as the form of the good is what undermines the power games of sophists like Thrasymachus, who states in the republic that "Justice is whatever is to the advantage of the stronger". Plato goes on to influence western religion and consequently the tradition of modernism, which is exactly what the postmodernists attack. But when you get rid of the true, the good, and the beautiful, all that is left is filth.
“They muddy the water to make it seem deep!” Zen. Chomsky is correct in saying PM is a self-referential maze of ever decreasing circles. But not all of PM is unhelpful, we should not throw the baby out with the bath water. Foucault’s work on the notions of the Clinic and the Panopticon are genuinely useful and in many ways dovetail into Kuhn’s work on the Nature of Scientific Revolutions and paradigms. I consider that Chomsky is also correct in saying that academics need to exit their ivory towers and conference circuit gravy train and more readily and robustly apply their work directly with the aim of building more intelligent, resilient, utilitarian and open political systems. He himself is, and has been for several decades now, a prime example of walking that talk. More power to him and his calm, empirical, persistent and progressive approach. Namaste.
Postmodernism is supposed to a critique, the original goal of which is to bring clarity to meaning through contextualization. It is simply an extension of the overly polemical characteristic of western academia. And Professor Chomsky’s critique of postmodernism will be welcomed by true postmodernists
Really enjoyed this. Thanks for your efforts!
Postmodernism is not about the abolition of absolute truth (or reality) but of absolute certainty and people’s belief they have Truth.
Idk what postmodernism is about, but I agree with what you're saying. The unfortunate reality is that we can't agree on What Is. Of course there is a singular absolute Truth, a Final Sum of all the infinite variables in reality, but how can any one of us Know it? How could a million, or a billion even? Our minds are not set up to pursue the truths of reality, but to feel comfortable within the chaos that is mostly impossible for us to comprehend. Going forward we must shirk our pride lest we destroy ourselves with war.
didn't foucault reject an absolute truth about justice in his debate with chomsky though?
No not at all, modernism, the enlightenment and science rejected the idea of absolute truth and truth based on authority since its inception. Thats why there is tradition of criticism. It has to be because science realized it is fallible because all humans are. Postmodernists pointing out the fallibalism and power interests is pointless because its obvious and known, and postmodernism has failed to come up with a better solution than having a tradition of criticism. So at its core postmodernism adds nothing constructive to knowledge production. Its a pseudo intellectual excuse for rejecting science you dont like.
But typically used in the service of tearing down western norms and institutions. Never used to question the failures of the pet models of the left
Given 'Justice' is a human conception that's culturally normed it seems a bizarre statement that there is a capital T Truth about justice. You may as well say there's a truth about how hot to set the temperature of a shower, never mind about the context of the person using it or the environment it's being used in. It would be great if we could agree on justice, that doesn't mean we'd be right but it would at least be useful to building a happier society but I'm not going to hold my breath
I don't know whether or not my personal experience is representative of the general state of South America, but I don't see it around here that Postmodernism has been insulating professors from popular struggle. Many professors are away from it, sure, but of those who are active in social and political movements, most can't shut their mouths about Foucault and Deleuze. I'd like to see examples of what Chomsky says, because I see many examples of the opposite every day.
Just the scholars are talking about this nonsense. The working people are voting for the right wing because there is no left.
Chomsky has always been very rigid and shallow in his thinking about Postmodernism. This is weak, and has more to do with the problems with French academic rock-star culture than postmodern philosophy.
Chomsky is on the money.
Tho postmodernists may have made an occasional interesting point for the most part they generated masturbatory gibberish that did or does nothing to improve society and thereby serves the interests of the prevailing Plutocracy by failing to challenge its Status Quo.
Excellent comment.
Hang on, this video sounds like a low-rent undergraduate essay. The characterisation of 'postmodernism' here is a strawman, and not one universally recognised. It doesn't correspond to any of the contentions of any of the purported theorists, or the various iterations of the term in architectural or artistic movements. Postmodernity if it anything like you describe, was a counter-movement in the arts. Many detractors point to French academics like Jean Francois Lyotard as proponents of a misplaced epistemological view like the one forwarded in this video. However, what they were actually up to was describing the direction of travel in society, not making a set of epistemological claims. Be that Foucault, Baudrillard, DeBord, Bachelard, Derrida, et al. I think the 'post-truth' social-media politics and 'cultures wars' of today vindicates much of what some of them wrote. Critiques like Habermas' and Chomsky's are the weakest part of their work, and did not issue from any serious engagement with the work of those claimed to 'represent' a movement in 20th century European academic (particularly French) circles, which did not in fact exist.
Thank you.
I miss a lot from the first ideas of the Frankfurter Schule, Hegel, Nietzsche, early feminism, Herbert Marcuse, Angela Davies, Critical Theory and so forth, progressed in its different forms today. I should say, the influence is important in especially the social sciences, and it changed the society, if we like it or not.
Power isn't the problem. The problem how power is used. If it is used for good or evil. Since the postmodernists reject moral objectivism, they have no right to decry tyrannical use of power. If they accept moral objectivism then they should promote the judicious and prudent use of power. Not simply redistribute power to oppressed groups.
You hit the nail on the head. I needed this explanation. Thank you.
the most educated comment section ever
idk y but at 2:08 when it cuts to chomskys legs dangling i lost it he looks so small.
It a popularity contest in the end, isn't it? Except that Chomsky has already won by virtue of surviving all the other dudes. Literally, the last word on the topic...this clip is just a cheap dig without any engagement on the debates.
Wait, a structuralist analysis of postmodernism? Oh the irony. Even the haters have to admit that Foucault has aged well. What's interesting is the intention behind Chomsky's attacks.
Foucault has aged very well. These systems are very hard to see. He's right about power. More so with pervasive technology.
Chomsky is the shadow that is threatened by the postmodern condition, as such he rejects it. He is too much of a formalist to realize this though.
Yes, his intention and his emotional intensity,-- why does he express so much rancor not only toward the "effects" of postmodernism but the early big-name thinkers themselves? as if they intended and planned out all of these effects... (They didn't.)
In 1983 while working at a Steel mill in Cleveland my Coworker told me that "Opinions are like a$$holes everybody has one, even if you're using a colostomy bag"
George "The Forge" Udovich
1931-2009 RIP
My discipline (Anthropology) really struggles with this. Focault, Saussure, and the like are very popular amongst the people who study Sociocultural Anthropology.
I work on the Biological and evolutionary side of things, but it’s wild because we might as well be entirely separate fields. I love the behavioral sciences, so it kills me to see how much of Postmodern thought pervades amongst anthropologists because I’ve heard so many insane takes like “Conspiracy Theorists are a marginalized group” or “Obesity is not a reliable marker of health”.
As an anthropologist, what do you think about this?
th-cam.com/video/JwLyP-vSnt0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=P1RYt62g4Oo_VwL3
what
@@francescocerasuolo4064, watch the video of the link a I've posted before.
Post modernism shouldn't be applied to biology. That is playing with fire.
Yeah they are marginalized, that doesn't mean it's a bad thing??? And indeed, sumo wrestlers are obese but they aren't particularly unhealthy
This clip does next to nothing to describe what post modermism is and how it functions, or how a bunch of people no one can understand gained the power suggested here...
WHAT authority do these academics have in "3rd world countries" that at all impacts the daily lives of the people that live there? How is that authority used? I mean....just a snippet perhaps for those who don't already know (or believe) what this clip is talking about....
You’d have to understand what they are putting across in order to be shocked.
Keep reading the text and you might understand. What book in specific are you having trouble with? You need more philosophical grounding to read some of these texts.
@@francisbarrera9868: I’m saying the same thing Chomsky is saying; post-modernist writing is jibberish
Exactly
there seem to be a lot of people here that vehemently anti-postmodernism/anti-poststructuralism. i would encourage you guys to read at least a bit of baudrillard and foucault to, at least, get an idea of what they're saying. chomsky, like a lot of american/analytic philosophers, has a dislike of continental philosophy. that being said, there are a lot of clever ideas in that area of philosophy, so it's at least worth reading some to get to know what you disagree with a bit more.
There are a lot of people here who haven't even come close to reading Derrida as a starter. "Postmodernism" is a right-wing dog whistle to them. This video was of Chomsky criticizing certain types of academics who go for fame, celebrity, rather than social justice activism. There was no criticism of "postmodernism" at all.
LOL it is an ignorant sill Anti-intellectual game Truth is to strong for u to acknowledge a Gaslighting #CULT
If the premise is wrong from the get-go (humans can neither come to know the meta-narrative if its there, or there's no meta-narrative to be known, doesn't matter which one sides with) then everything else that follows is a waste of time. The Divine exists, and is knowable by human beings. It's no surprise this movement is "of the Left" since the Left is oblivious to the existence of the Divine. Needless to point out, the Divine is the "meta narrative" (spiritual force) behind all goings on in material existence.
It is revealing that not a single person commenting, and appearing to lend some support to the idea that Post Modernism has any valid claim nor simple summaries nor an analogy as to what constitutes this "Post Modernism" as a school of thought, distinct from historic categories of reasoning, analysis, or philosophy.
It's hogwash. Society and apparently our gullible, non-critical thinking collegians, have been duped. We will all suffer from the frustrations and stress that students who invested time in Post Modernism to any serious degree, have wasted their learning and studying time - and can't even summarize what makes Post Modernism distinct from a block of cheese. Or a wheel of cheese, if you prefer! Days and Nights are structured by our human life on this planet Earth, moving around our Sun. How uncomfortable your lives must be to be faced with facts and responsibilities and eventually, hopefully, reason.
Alan Sokal exposed their academic BS in one of their leading journals. Postmodernists wallow in nonsense, with intense devotion.
Yes I believe Sokal et al wrote some post modern gobbledegook which was actually published in a mathematics journal.
@@marichristian1072 Perhaps also in a mathematics journal, but for sure was published in Lingua Franca, the leading journal of postmodernists. Sokal wanted to prove that the language of postmodernism is gobbledygook while the language of science is mathematics, so postmodernists should not meddle in the province of science. Lingua Franca dedicated an issue to postmodernism in science.
For an update, check this out the Pluckrose, Lindsay, Boghossian hoaxes.
Some of them, sometimes, to varying degrees. It's not really that different from what people with academic ambitions have always done, trying to get good grades, a job, a professorship, tenure, also some people like attention, and that's true in many walks of life.
I just get the instinct that most commentary on postmodernism doesn’t get to the heart of the ideas but it is a commentary on the groups that are a side effect of post modernist view.
Chomsky: "post mod...er.... frankfu......buh.... Where am I"
Chomsky is spot-on in his analysis of power dynamics.
So was Foucault.
The parallels between postmodernism and invented "religions" like Mormonism and Scientology are remarkable. The fable of "The Emperor's New Clothes" predicted all of this.
Can't wait to read it (:
When you say postmodernism, what exactly are you referring to? What specific position? Who said exactly what? I bet you have no answer.
Hmmm.... all religions are made up.
Los que vendieron ropa nueva al emperador crearon el posmodernismo. Supongo que necesitaban un nuevo trabajo.
There is another fun aspect to your comment; you're implying that only some religions were invented. I know you can't answer, because you're a postmodernist too, so: just for fun, how do you distinguish between invented religions and non-invented ones? Just curious, this is not a test of your IQ.
Every generation thinks it is smarter than the one that came before it and wiser than the one that comes after it. George Orwell.
UK here - did Orwell say 'smarter'? If he did, he'd be very unusual in the Britain of the 1930s and 1940s (and he'd be departing from his usual style).
but it is smarter. older generation eventually got a dementia
I do not wish to be the naysayer here but Chomsky is lumping together thinkers with quite different points of view: Derrida, Foucault, Baudrillard and Lyotard. By doing so he does his own argument a disservice. One good thing about the French and about Continental philosophy is general is that they are out there doing philosophy (Alain Badiou is an excellent example) whereas elsewhere thinkers who call themselves philosophers are publishing books about long-dead philosophers or, as is the case with the analytic school, are engaging in mental activity which has very little to do with the people's lived experience.
So why don't you wanna be the naysayer? Be the naysayer!
I'm so very appreciative of your post!!! Chomsky harkens back to my own college days when I thought he was an intellectual dunce, promoting ideas that conflicted with the reality of the human condition. And - in the 70s, after all the "required readings" - I dismissed him as unworthy of further attention. Just now, I had to smile and laugh as I listened here. You have motivated me to open the door to his more recent ideas & writings. Thanks!
Honest admittance.
Yes Chomsky's take on how the unvaccinated should be removed from society was spot on. Indeed if i had my way i would have lined them all up against the wall lol. Of course i jest. No i'm in the Sowell a real intellectual camp who has no time for Chomsky who should stuck to linguistics.
Did ChatGPT write this? This was a stream of grammatically correct yet dead end assertions, cobbled together with audio and video clips removed from their context, to essentially say, "Postmodernism is bad umm kay?"
By showing us pictures, are we expected to merely dismiss and sweep aside, Foucault, Derrida, and Lacan? If I were to classify a postmodernist, it would be in the practice of epistemic dis-integration, for the sake of being "edgy". This video was a narrative of epistemic dead-ends - ironically very similar to postmodernism - the very thing in which it seeks to disparage.(!)
Chomsky definitely has a more coherent critique of post modernism than Jordan Peterson
With all due respect to Doctor Peterson, that’s a low bar to clear
Peterson not up to the level of Chomsky.
Lyotar did it first .
The power of correlationism cannot be understated.
Chomsky is the old guard. Postmodernists are more common than this video makes them out to be. Kurt Vongergut, Jean-Paul Sarte, John Fowles to name a few. Their ideas are represented in more works than you may think! Catch-22, American Psycho, Naked Lunch.
This video paints Postmodernism as an absurdist abstraction. That is a lay interpretation. Postmodernism explores reality as a place much more complicated than we can perceive, and sees the human as overly confident in its abilities to perceive ideas both local and theoretical.
To the brief “scientific” point touched on but not explained in this video, neuroscience and physics have concluded as much is true: we vastly oversimplify our reality. We are simply limited in our capacity to understand reality. We see tuberculosis, to borrow his example, as a singular thing. In reality it is millions of organisms, interacting with billions more, waging a massive war in an organism which is independent of, but also dependent on, the organ where TB wages it’s war. As a result, TB has different outcomes for different people and the course of it depends on thousands of factors (including those as distant as where you lived as a child and the climate where you live now, for example).
Another example: consider a car. Cars are viewed as independent objects, despite their being very complicated, we feel we “know” them. Of a car’s many parts, none can operate on their own as a car is intended. In this way, a car is fundamentally different from its parts. Conversely, none of its parts could be mistaken as a car on their own. Nor could a car with its parts strewn about in the back seat operate as a car. The idea and the function of the car relies on each part, their position in space and the forces acting on them. Therefore, knowing about a car is the same as knowing about its parts and how they fit together. The view of the car as this standalone object is therefore an oversimplification. This is Postmodernism, a nuanced but comprehensive view of an object, concept or structure.
“Why not take it further?” a Postmodernist might ask the mechanic, “why not learn about chemistry and corrosion and physics and wear?” In this way, Postmodernism is absurd because it never ceases to seek more information. Is this not what we should want for ourselves too?
Postmodernism asks us to investigate everything to see its formal causes, and it teaches us how to do so. In learning about Postmodernism, you also learn about yourself and your life as subjects of your study. It is a fantastic and enriching experience. I am not saying they got everything right and that they’re not pretentious, but they are valuable.
To learn more, consider reading on Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan, Jean-Paul Sarte, Simone de Beauvoir. It’s taxing at first, but more rewarding than Chomsky would have you believe.
Aren't we past all that by now?
Aren't we into the era of post-postmodernism?
Edit: aka metamodernism.
@LoneDuck, how is metamodernism used? Does it have a central idea to put forth, or is it more of a tool, useful in analyzing?
@peternyc
It tries to use both Modernism and Postmodernism, strike a balance, find a middle ground.
My understanding of it is new and limited, but it "is a thing."
Time to do more research.
From about 180 miles to the north, I ❤️ NYC. Lived there briefly as a child and it made a huge impression on me.
@@JCPJCPJCP Thanks, LoneDuck. I need to look into it more myself. NYC was a cool place before the 80's. It's a hub of capitalism, like all major cities, but you see a huge variety of ethnicities, social classes, identities, and so forth all squished into the same spaces. For that, NYC is special.
We seem to be post-everything right now (just cannot figure out what common ground we now stand on).
It's an old, tired, and nonsense debate that captivates K-12 and first year undergraduates until they realise that it's all strawmanning and hot air.
The value of postmodernism is mistaken to be a philosophy of substance that has a structure. I see postmodernism's value as a methodology that can be but isn't always useful. The West, especially the US, has been intellectually vapid since the 1960's. The victory of neoliberalism over the socialist urge has been so deep and widespread, that the only thing able to grow has been the narrow utility of postmodern thinking. Postmodernism is a tool, like a hammer. Who in their right mind confuses a building for a hammer? The answer is a bourgeoisie that wants meaning in their lives when there clearly is none. The role of postmodernism in the West is to cloak the emptiness of its shallow members. Fool's gold.
As a physicist, I have assumed that no one who understood anything about physics could not be a postmodernist. Nature does not care what we believer or want, and I find that very charming.
There are two basic steps to the postmodern pantheon, 1) no view, interpretation, equation, model, paradigm, etc., is the final, exclusive, complete truth - which I agree with, there is always room for improvement, new discoveries to be made, new information may come to light, new dimensions to be explored, new functional tools to be created, etc., and 2) therefore anything goes, which is patently absurd, some things work - others don't, some things work better - other things not so well, some things are life-affirming, life-promoting, life-enhancing - other things are life-denying, life-harming, life-ending.
It all depends what your end goal is - promote vulnerable life in a hostile universe or create as much chaos, confusion, conflict as possible in order to wipe out the old guard and usher in the new Marxist utopia.
The Marxists have repeatedly failed on every font - economic, cultural, creative - and have thus resorted to slight-of-hand methods like postmodernism.
It's a power-play to undermine the "opposition - transcendental religion, the stable family, the sovereign individual, the LOGOS, rational thought, i.e., the "superstructure".
It won't work and anybody who buys into postmodernism will soon fade away. Mother Nature won't be fooled. Physics won't be cajoled. Psychology will not be put on its head. Love will not be denied. God will not be trifled with. Life finds a way. Postmodernism will be rejected and ejected by the eternally active and dynamic immune system. The life force. In short, postmodernism is dysfunctional.
Human beings are part of nature and they can have a caring moral outlook
If, according to postmodernists, everything "is a language/social construct", you can use the classical argument, a kick in the ass, then ask them in which way it is just "a social construct".
@@TorMax9 Marxists didn’t use post-modernism as a “slight of hand” post modernists were explicity anti marxist and the two groups hated & critiqued each other intensely
This is basic historical knowledge wtf r u talking about?
Well, friend of mine is a physicist and a postmodernist at the same time
A truly wonderful self explanation of and by the big Chomper himself.
Fantastic compilation and review of his view, thank you! For anyone interested, the Michael Albert interview (the bald guy in his kitchen in many of the clips) is fantastic, I believe still easily watchable here.
I was mocked by other grad students because of my skepticism of postmodernism. I was labeled as a reactionary.
Post modernism is a reactionary movement.
No, you're just smart and they're not.
What bothers me is that you went to a school where "postmodernism" as such was a position to defend. Just to be sure, what exact authors, books, theories etc were you skeptical of?
Yeah sure lmao
I agree with the above comment. I’d be interested to read precisely what you think “postmodernism” is, which authors/theories you take issue with and most importantly, why.
I have spent a great deal of time on Derrida and do think that he can be understood and that his ideas and reasoning are in fact quite profound. It is also to be noted that his concepts draw heavily on his philosophy predecessors such as Husserl, Heidegger, Saussure, Hegel - to mention but a few. Even those subjected to his readings eg Rousseau, Levi-Strauss contribute to his philosophy. I do not pretend to know much about his contempories - but to dismiss him as simply too difficult or obscure is also bad philosophy. There are parts of his work which are vogue seeking or sensationalist, but not what I would call the core.
I discovered Derrida, I forget by what happy accident, while studying Chomskyan linguistics (decades ago). It was such a relief to find someone with really interesting things to say about (among other things) language, when Chomsky had almost stultified me into thinking it was the most boring thing in the world. Chomsky's mind runs on very rigid rails. And Chomskyan semantics was unbelievably, laughably primitive - which they gradually, but entirely unsuccessfully, addressed by making it incomprehensibly formal, yet still incapable of getting much beyond 'analysis' of the meaning of 'bachelor'.
I mean, I agree with you (even if I did just try to read "'Genesis and structure' and phenomenology" and got completely lost in the second half.)
Well Chomsky doesn't get it, so it must be wrong.
Majority of Deleuze's books are analyses and explanations of other philosophers' concepts, like Spinoza, Kant, Leibniz, Bergson and Nietzsche. Pretty important and fundamental stuff.
@Uniule readings, yeah, but not analysis. It's the same thing Heidegger does, he just picks whatever he wants and goes with that
Really great video for outing Chomsky of not understanding “postmodernism” (whatever that is) or any post-structuralist philosopher. The real problem here is academia, which some of the more prominent writers have indeed circumvented.
Chomsky’s opinions everywhere outside strict linguistics are idiotic.
And inside strict linguistics. I've been there, it's desolate.
Mr. Chomsky is himself a postmodernist figure- a caricature of the expert who knows everything about any subject one cares to name.
"There is very important book by Jean Bricmont and Alan Sokal, I forget what it's called, Dangerous Solutions or something. Where they simply go through, (they happen to concentrate on Paris which is the centre of the rot but it's all over), and they go through the most respected French intellectuals and run through what they say about science, and you know it's so embarrassing, that you kind of cringe when you read it."
_That_ Alan Sokal? 🙄
When you watched the Netflix original series but didnt read the manga
I don't understand why you don't let Chomsky speak for himself. His critiques of PM are perfectly clear and understandable, and -- no offense -- but much better than your inadequate explanations.
If you didn't intend offense you ought have struck "inadequate." If your own criticism was adequate, you would have explained how the video was flawed.
@@robertabrahamsen9076but he did lol and inadequate is a necessary component of his complaint
Criticisms of postmodernism as a "school" and the behaviors/attitudes/opinions of its adherents are all good and well, but the core tenets of the philosophy aren't broached. I find them to be pretty uncontroversial. This summary was done by Google's AI Bard, I leave it here as an exercise for the viewers to consider:
"Postmodernism is an intellectual movement that arose in the mid-20th century as a reaction to the perceived failures of modernism. Postmodernists argue that modernism was based on the assumption that there is a single, objective truth that can be discovered through reason and science. They argue that this is a naive and dangerous assumption, as it leads to the oppression of those who do not conform to the dominant ideology.
Postmodernists also argue that modernism is based on the assumption that there is a single, linear history that can be understood through the study of great men and events. They argue that this is a simplistic and misleading view of history, as it ignores the complex and often contradictory forces that shape the world we live in.
Postmodernists advocate for a more pluralistic and open-minded view of the world. They argue that there are many different truths and histories, and that we should not be afraid to question the assumptions of modernism.
Postmodernism has had a major impact on a wide range of fields, including philosophy, art, literature, architecture, and criticism. It has also been influential in the development of social movements such as feminism and postcolonialism."
AI is WOKE
It sounds very benign on the surface, but actually it's ideological extents and conclusions go much further and have had a much more negative affect on culture than is expressed here
@@FraterOculus Despite some less than productive ideas, it has also had an extremely positive affect on culture and negated a lot of the pitfalls of modernism that also aren't covered here. Almost like it's a complicated & nuanced field of thought, rather than a scary boogeyman to demonise.
@@FraterOculus Can you actually name those 'ideological extents and conclusions?' Give them a shape? A color? Anything?
Chomsky accuses postmodernism of the same things that are true too himself aswell. If his argument is that intellectuals and professors, through postmodernism, become wealthy and powerful, contradicting their own ideology, then that is also applicable to Chomsky himself. He himself benifts from the world and society he is critizing, living in just a theoratical world, instead of the practical. One might argue that it is the world, society, and the current systems that make them as powerful and wealthy as they are- the very same world, system, and society they are deconstructing and critizing.
Yet, and despite abundant critiques indeed, over decades, of French "philosophy", Chomsky is at the very forefront of that "Post-Modern" thinking. He only ever think of international political problems in terms of morality. He never, EVER considers the "raison d'État", the principles that forces any government to defend its interests and the militaro-strategic situation encountered by States. Only the morality of interventions. International politic is NOT moral. And it's exactly the problem we encounter today in Western societies: we put morality, not democracy, not legality, not feasibility, not practicality, not the economy, but morality and morality only at the forefront of any question or problematic. Chomsky is very much a proponent of Post-Modern thinking. He is one of its fathers.
Noam Chomstky is so right. We need more academics like him.
How to develop an excellent critique of a philosophical movement. 1) Become an elite professor. 2) Ignore the work of others for 50 years in neighboring fields. 3) Dismiss the work. 4) Watch as admiring acolytes repeat the dismissal.
hi does anyone know the book he mentions at 3:00? i keep trying to look it up, but can’t find it. i’m probably spelling authors names wrong. thanks
It's called 'Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science' by the physicists Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont. You can also look up the 'Sokal Affair' for more context
@@pharaohhermenthotip1553 wow thank you so much!!
@@pharaohhermenthotip1553 Scrolled down all the way to see this comment. Here's your cape
Hate the fact that there are no links to at least some of the original content! I want to see Chomskys video
"I don't like the cultural philosophy that derives from the existence of people like me."
And?
@@markusoreos.233 And?
@@ssrmy1782 Ant?
@@markusoreos.233 Got a life?
@@ssrmy1782 Yup, thank you for asking. Have a nice day.
I don't hear Chomsky, I hear someone speaking FOR him...always a dangerous practice.
Well not really, it's what happens every day in lecture halls through out the land!
Well, blow me down. I agree with Chomsky on something.
Yes, very curious, so did I for a change.
When you consider Nietzsche's observation that philosophers are simply trying to rationalize their vices and then look for 5 minutes into the "proclivities" of "Saint" Foucault, it'll all start making sense.
bingo!
The book he references at the begining is called Fashionable Nonsense by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont
My copy is called 'Intellectual Impostures'. Same authors, and I suppose same book.
The thing about Chomsky is I really want to know what he is saying but he sends me to sleep every time with his hypnotic drone. Denneth fools me by looking kind and invested and making little dad jokes but before you know it - you’re off … he is like an angler fish god of sleep, that way, but Chomsky shows you the nature of his sleep magic right away, and then still makes it work by fixating you with the steady, slightly slurred typewriter rythm of his voice and then softly but surely exhausting your mental faculties.
Chomsky talks like a robot that is falling asleep.
@@wyntyrmute when AI becomes too human for it’s own good …
@@wyntyrmute “Slurry Robot” is like an indie band name …
Right. You sound like Trump criticizing the other politicians. Not entertaining enough.
@@sincerityissacred5101 You on the other hand - are quite the barrel of laughs 😏
Chomsky is spot on here!
As far as i have understood choamsky ... He is very pragmatic...... He dismisses anything which is obscure and doesn't help common people directly or indirectly..... That's why he is very much against post modernism and i am trying to understand Foucault and derrida and it's very complex ....... What the hell can a common person gain from it except abstract concepts
Youre trying to look at it pragmatically. Why does it have to illicit some sort of gain? The common man already rejects most philosophy for this reason. That's not a problem with philosophy; it's a problem with the common man expecting gain and absolute clarity. And my dear child, if you truly are curious, you better stay curious about it, just wait until you truly grasp it and realize it's not in the abstract at all, nor the practical understanding it could help you gain...
You're right, that's the real disagreement here
NO it is not complex it is deliberately contradictory to put one in a maze it is a ignorant silly childish game.. #Obviosu #Cult
@@danx1216 nopz it is complex most people don't understand these things .... And common people should gain something from everything... They are already at crisis because of rigorous capitalism.... and if they don't find anything useful in the post-modern concept to gain a common ground and overthrow regimes that are constantly trying to either use them and discard them.... Then what's the point of this philosophy.... You can point out all the contradict i have no problem with it i think it's a good thing and socrates and hegel did the same thing.... But there is something which could be understood from socrates about society and modern political methods and concept ..... That's not how it is with post-modernism ... And in fact all the post-modernist philosophers have very different ideas
@@subcitizen2012 yeah if common people under the pressure of political and capitalist regime can gain some insight from anything ... Then it is illicit ... Okay
This is an underrated critique, if you simply deconstruct deconstructionism it created the very thing it says it's fighting. It's just power relations with them using the simulation of critical thought to opress critical thought of them and language minpulation to acquire power.
I’m not going to defend postmodernism as a “movement,” because I don’t think it is a unified movement, that is a lie spread by anti-postmodernists. Postmodernism began as a term to describe architecture that declared itself post-modern architecture. All the shit attributed to post modernism is as much a part of the period within which postmodernism emerges as it is some deliberate scheme of mass postmodernists. Blaming post modernism for the period it emerges is like blaming modernism for WWI.
Cool video, but I got the feeling that he’s going more after the thinkers and not their ideas.
Is he objecting to the idea of grand narratives being false?
Is he objecting to the idea of synthetic knowledge being true?
At most all I got was that post modernists don’t make predictions and that’s true, but they’re not claiming to make predictions.
They’re just doing philosophy which isn’t about predicting specific things about the future, unless you consider setting limits on what can conceptually be done to be a form of prediction.
As a materialist, in the philosophical sense, postmodernism and related approaches just seem to reopen 19th century debates on idealism.
There is an excessive focus on ideas, norms etc
Its always nice when smart ppl agree with you about something being dumm 😂
It’s called confirmation-bias 😁
Or corroboration.
@@BigLeagueChew11 It's confirmation bias when smart people agree with you? Is it safe to assume nobody smart agrees with you, then? If they do, I guess you also suffer from confirmation bias?
@@Or_else_it_gets_the_hose_againreread the original comment. the confirmation bias is the “good feeling” they get when smart people agree with them.
Nice video!
Thanks a bunch!
I love Chomsky, and I’ve also felt quite enriched by folks like Derrida, Foucault, Rorty, etc. I wish this included specific examples of what he has in mind. Without that, most of his assertions sound fairly similar to many conservative criticisms, and standard mainstream criticisms of post-structural philosophy (many of which end up sounding like they are somewhat missing the point).
Please don’t get me wrong, my worldview, values, and opinions are such that I’m primed to more readily accept assertions made by Chompsky than question them. I just wish he was more specific - without that this series of clips isn’t something that’s going to be compelling to folks sympathetic to what he’s critiquing.
UPDATE: This is the best take on Chomsky's views about postmodern philosophy I've seen (one that seems sympathetic with his take). It's also worth noting that the author of this post also correctly pointed out that it seems like Chomsky is critiquing a specific subset of the broader, and more properly named "Continental Philosophy" when he uses his label "postmodern philosophy" (which is more of a pop-culture reference than a meaningful label an academic philosopher - "postmodern" or not - would use): medium.com/paul-austin-murphys-essays-on-philosophy/chomsky-on-the-pretentiousness-and-political-impotence-of-postmodern-philosophy-2da0b8a6f62b
Thanks for the resource!
Chomsky, not unlike the majority, assumes he knows what 'science' is, but he is mistaken. That is aside from the fact that 'linguistics' itself sits awkwardly even inside that assumption.
This isn't an analysis. It's silly name-calling.
Well presented but I fear that there is a lot to lose if we don't pay attention to some of the interesting and provocative insights offered in the postmodernist movement.
While they never offered anything close to an answer, some of them did pose very interesting questions.
Like what, like the sky is blue (and just imagine how many lengthy discussions or even seminars it would take before they would acknowledge even a slight possibility that such a radical insight could be instantiated into their oh so esoteric world view)?
Thanks so much for posting.
Chomsky’s critique isn’t profound. He knows a great deal about political conditions, but is …under-informed, and perhaps incapable of reading merit in postmodern texts. The contributions of Derrida, Deleuze and Sloterdijk, and Foucault… are too profound to be overlooked.
I greatly admir Chomsky, and that is why I would respond with directness, Chomsky is an incomplete -and very insistently …ignorant form or argument.
Its not a matter of academic conferences and superficial game play. Shallow will to power. Chomsky writes and thinks about linguistics from a completely western and empirical manner. While I admire his political acuity, sheer dismissal of continental thought is a highly intolerant ideological position to take.
Chomsky never once could demonstrate he actually understood what post-modernism is, much less give us a succinct critique of it. He only seemed annoyed with specific people involved with the movement in the 60's and 70's, which is fair enough I guess, but hes attacking the character of the people behind the social movement, and never really the substance of any real philosophical writing. You can criticize the well known people in the movement, you can critique the accessibility of the writings, but that is no replacement for a critique of the substance behind the writings.
Post modernism isn't one thing or philosopher. It's an undercurrent that runs alongside modernism and entails various philosophical critiques and descriptions of modernity. This video (and Chomsky) is randomly cherry picking shit about power relations, but that was primarily Foucault. There are probably a hundred different schools of thought within "postmodernism", from just as many different philosophers.
Hell, much of Zizek's work is trying to critique and deal with post-modernists, specifically Deleuze. He is a Uber modernist and humanist, but even he recognizes that post-modernist critiques deserve more respect than what Chomsky's lazy anti-intellectual ass gives it.
If I write a load of gibberish and you say it's gibberish, I can just say you don't understand it. Got it.
And Zizek is one of the biggest clowns of the lot.
I know this just a short video, but it would be cool to get some examples of what you are saying. Also I tried to find the claim that postmodernists said 12 and 13 year olds should be able to choose sex partners and didn't find anything. Having references would be a good idea.
It was an idea put forth by, among others, JPSartre and SdeBeauvoir. They even made a kind of manifesto. Found something about it once on the Net, with many outraged/self-righteous comments but not sufficiently interested to recall where/what.
There is a lot of cherrypicking and unsubstantiated evidence here. Chomsky's critique of US hegemony mediation and the power structures examined by post modernists only differ in their degree of abstraction. I would think Chomsky would agree with Foucault's assertion that modern society is based upon a war production model, as he outlined in Civilization Must Be Defended. It is the other side of the coin of Chomsky's description of the Military-Industrial Complex. Post modernists have their successes and failures, like any other intellectual movement. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a common neoconservative trope.
@@castelodeossos3947 That's interesting, but they aren't really considered post-modernists. But really my point is the video shouldn't make these things so obscure, if he makes a direct reference to something, say who said it and where.
@@tedankhamenbonnah4848
When I hear the word cherry-picking I release the safety catch on my Browning.
You apparently didn't try very hard. For example just google Foucault and pedophilia.
Spoken like a true structuralist.
Exactly! As if some hypothesized, yet unverifiable hidden structure embedded within the human mind that allows them to understand some language is not a crazy idea that someone can hide behind and pretend to know things.
@@VioletDeliriumsit helps to pivot sharply to populist activism and refuse to consider actually reading the works you claim to critique.
@@addammadd Perhaps you should consider actually reading the works you defend?
@@VioletDeliriums genetic basis for language (a uniquely human enterprise) is a crazy idea? lol, you sound more ridiculous than you may suspect
@@urosjovanovic808 that's not what i said...just because it might be based upon some genetic commonality does not mean it is structured as chomsky suggests... but ok, erect your straw man and enjoy yourself. :) ...and who is to say that animals do not have languages? certainly they may not be like human languages, but it sure does appear that they are able to generate sounds to communicate. perhaps yet another wild assumption on your part, fueled by some sort of random neuron firing?
I'm in 4th year for Socio-Cultural Anthropology and I get this. Next year I will be out on the street, explaining to my homeless friends how Strauss considers incest to be the basis of all culture, and how phonemes resemble kinship cladograms. *hey guys where you going?*
I empathize!
You hit a of critical nerve-points...Thank You!
Society's been changing at an amazing pace. I live in Brazil, I was born in the 70's and just cannot deny there's a huge gap between my generation and youngsters. Relationships will never be the same. The impact of new technologies is yet to be grasped. Chomsky may not like the term, ok, but he probably agrees we are stepping into a whole different age.
Dear Bruno, coincidently I also live in Brazil, and have a slightly different take on this. To start with, it doesn't seem to me that relevant the technology gap amongst generations. Having born in the early sixties, I came to distrust all the emphasis on radical changes in the human condition from one decade to another, from one year to another, from five minutes ago to now. It simply doesn't ring true to me. Humans are humans throughout, I think, since ancient times. Very little seems to me to have truly changed since Plato's writings, for instance. In this regard, several aspects of this video appear to me to be so valid, such as the assumed imposture of these rock-stars academic imposing nonsensical views on the entire academic field (and to, as the video also claims, the "well-meaning masses", and to journalism, as a category). This is precisely what I myself experience down here and elsewhere in the world. Postomodernism, according to my impressions, is indeed this extremely powerfull, irrational and ill-meaning strategy to secure power by means of attacking reality, as if reality were a fiction. Fiction, on my modest opinion, is the view that reality is a fiction, a mere narrative and a social construct. Socially constructed is the view that reality is socially constructed, applying the spell reflexively against its own agents. However, I very much respect those who see it somewhat differently, and truly care for their thoughts as well. Very best regards from Niterói and São Paulo! Peace to all, that nothing is better than peace! Cláudio
@@luisclaudioportugaldonasci7250 Eu acho que você está equivocado se você acha que não houve nenhuma mudança significativa na forma que estruturamos a realidade no contexto atual.
Você já participou de alguma comunidade online como a Twitch? Já jogou algum jogo competitivo online? Já participou ativamente de alguma comunidade como Reddit, Twitter, TikTok, Instagram? Você já viu o impacto que todas essas esferas sociais causam na nossa sociedade?
Nossas relações não são mais as mesmas dos antigos escritos de Platão, vivemos em uma sociedade dopamínica que não pode mais ser resumida em realidades objetivas.
Se você tentar buscar entender mais como funcionam comunidades em Telegram, Discord, Twitch, TH-cam e em vídeos, irá entender o porquê podemos discordar de Noam Chomsky. Acho que esse "tradicionalismo filosófico" seu vem da sua própria idade e do seu próprio contexto, pois logicamente, creio eu, é mais difícil alguém da geração do Noam Chomsky entender ou querer compreender o período extremamente existencialista e niilista que vivemos.
Always healthy to see people arguing in the old fashioned (?) way. Clearly, we are not competing. I see two different points of view, both contain well supported arguments. I quit all those "Facebooks" long ago. Only kept TH-cam. And I'm very picky.
Intelectuals, especially linked to academics indeed distort reality in a way that seems dishonest, just repeating the struggle for possessing "reason" - Power. Colleges in Brasil are an easy target for right wingers because if on one hand they have adopted a "correct" agenda (especially on literature, history, sociology), on the other hand the speech is just... artificial. You're told a tale in classroom that is unreal. In the street society remains brutally hipocrite. Guys, I'm not as smart as you, but I insist. Be suspicious. The age of Doubt
@@kairosj Querido Kairos, de nome tão inspirado, não sei se concordo com seu ponto de vista, que muito respeito, entretanto. Na verdade, há uma série de referências, em sua mensagem, a minha própria pessoa. Tais alusões e pressuposições me parecem estranhas e impertinentes à boa dialética crítica. Sugiro evitarmos levar argumentos para o lado pessoal, em nome de aumentarmos a chance de avançarmos nossas compreensões de mundo.
Observo, por exemplo, que seu ponto de vista de que minha visão sobre a realidade possa estar influenciada por minha idade (não tão elevada, assim, a propósito) e por minha meramente presumida não participação nas tais redes sociais (o que não se tem como afirmar, sem isto haver sido evidenciado) como constatação de minha alegada inaptidão para compreender o conjecturado estado de transformação das coisas me parece, com todo respeito, impróprio. Essa forma de argumentação poderia ser espelhada de volta para sua alegada própria condição (supostamente mais antenada com tais novos costumes), como base para sugerir, de igual maneira e nos mesmos termos, ainda que simétricos, também sua incapacidade para formular tal juízo de transformação. Mas, em qualquer dos casos, não me parece adequado qualquer desses argumentos que se desviem das ideias e se voltem às pessoas. No fundo, resulta em uma forma de exclusão, de censura e de desmerecimento da interlocução, assemelhando-se a uma insinuação "ad hominem".
Que prevaleça, portanto, a dialética crítica pura, sem desmerecimentos pessoais nem insinuações de superioridade nem de inferioridade dos interlocutores como frágil base improvisada de apoio a argumentos que talvez fossem melhor resolvidos exclusivamente no plano das ideias, ao largo de insinuações pessoais, que, salvo melhor juízo, parecem repelir a graça do processo.
Saudações muito especialmente fraternas,
Cláudio
@@luisclaudioportugaldonasci7250 data venia vou pesquisar "ad hominem"