First four words of the video: "Chomsky and so on". Everything as expected so far.

@greenvelvet

3 жыл бұрын

hahaha "..and so on". perfect

@luciop4139

2 жыл бұрын

@@greenvelvet or whatever, and so clearly objective, ok, lets talk about, you know, and so on ...

@dnlzuir

8 ай бұрын

And so on *sniff sniff* *picks his nose* Chumsly and so on *sniff sniff*

@Coneman3

6 ай бұрын

Needs speech therapy. Hard to listen to.

@DimitarBerberu

3 ай бұрын

According to Zizek the above is Less than Nothing ;) The beginning was cut off "... academy, Chomsky & so on ..."

Chomsky's idea of ideology is slightly different to Zizek's though. Manufacturing consent (which is awesome I grant you) is basically about misinformation and its dissemination. Zizek talks about the way in which truth is presented, it's not about refuting facts but breaking out of the narrative in which they are placed - you can't do that empirically. If you think Zizek and Chomsky are doing the same thing but Zizek's work is simply couched in obscure language then you have misunderstood Zizek.

@stevewillis1916

2 жыл бұрын

Noam wasn’t the mind behind manufacturing consent. Edward S Herman was.

@ilhamrahim9269

2 жыл бұрын

You clearly haven’t read Manufacturing consent, Chomsky also shows how truth is presented

@confusedarmchairphilosopher

Жыл бұрын

@@stevewillis1916 and really you can trace the ideas behind that work back to Michael Parenti

@Knaeben

9 ай бұрын

This is a good comment. This needed to be pointed out. Breaking out of the narrative is something people need to understand regardless of whose idea it was.

@tobsternater

5 ай бұрын

Zizek spouts and postures....and it's very gauche! His criticisms are a bit like name calling in a schoolyard. You feel he's being a complete pratt.

one more "intj v intp" comment and the gulags will have start up early

"I'm not sure that would fit my definition of melodrama" lmfao.

Both Zizek and Chomsky are great minds

He flattened Chomsky! That makes me happy.

For being somebody who "isn't analytical and empirical enough" (sic), Zizek brought a lot of facts and anecdotes in his response (contrary to Chomsky)

@MonkeyDIvan

3 жыл бұрын

'facts' and 'anecdotes'... so which one is it?

@shaansiton7884

3 жыл бұрын

@@MonkeyDIvan I think he's just using words he likes

@martonkardos8094

2 жыл бұрын

Chomsky isn't really empirical either. Analytical maybe, but he definitely doesn't really believe in empiricism

@soniyazas

2 жыл бұрын

My God! ^sniff^

@bellumthirio139

Жыл бұрын

one might infer that he's doing that to beat Chomsky on his own terms

I think that's a fair assessment. Yes, when I said misinformation I meant to imply the conspicuous presence and absence of concrete information (as well as bare faced lies), your description of Manufacturing Consent is spot on. Zizek is a philosopher though, he's talking about the Ontology of change! Ideology for him runs deep! Chomsky cannot tell you why some people long to change the world and why some can't bear to see it change, or why people deny the truth when it's right in front of them.

"Well, I don`t think I know a guy who was empirically so often wrong" -Touche! Speculative philosopher vs. empirist 1:0 ^^ - Quite an amusing rhetorical battle of two important contemporary leftists.

I think I've just witnessed the most civil and reasonable interaction that has ever taken place on KZread.

5:15 About cognitivists: "You don't see them, but they are the power". Slavoj Zizek, 2013.

@guillegermo9406

Жыл бұрын

Have you ever heard about neuroscience? Lol

"If you asked who was my leader, your head was chopped off" [citation needed]

@larshofler8298

5 жыл бұрын

it is true, the Angkar was supposed to be a faceless, nameless Organization; it only declassified its identity to the people and called itself Communist after Maoist China pressured it to do so.

@smoothacceleration437

4 жыл бұрын

The whole point is you can't give a citation since it s a nameless organization... It s based on historical witnesses.

@obbeachbum69

2 жыл бұрын

@Vegalus I don't even remember making that comment 5 years ago lmao

Indeed, you can write him off from a whole range of perspectives! "Seems like his whole schtick is drawing tenuous connections, looking for abstract structures" Yes, that is explicitly his whole shtick - he's a philosopher and pschoanalyst. Remember he is also an academic, his theories are developed to to have consequences for political science, psychology, cultural studies, literary criticism, media and film, sociology etc etc and he has been highly influential in a number of these fields.

Great response, very clearly organized

I am glad Slavoj made this 'question' statement at the end but I wonder whether it reached many people.

i'm glad that the discussion between what is different and what is the same in Zizek and Chomsky is finally happening i greatly respect them both and would like to see them share a stage one day (won't happen from Noam's attitude though, i guess)

@michielkarskens2284

2 жыл бұрын

What is interesting about discussing what is different and what the same between night and day? Why do you blame Noam for preferring not to waist Noam’s time? The man is >90.

@HANECart1960

2 жыл бұрын

@@michielkarskens2284 hi thnx for the reply--i just feel that 2 highly placed leftists should be able to sit down and discuss different issues--both are very interesting thinkers and i bet they might be able to stumble onto some very neat agreements and disagreements? but yeah no point NOW thats for sure...Noam is still sharp in the noggin but a little slow speaking wise..

@michielkarskens2284

2 жыл бұрын

@@HANECart1960 hope I will be that slow when I am >90. Other than that, I couldn’t disagree with you more. I would temper the feeling and stay off the betting if I were you, because there’s no point in nor to it. Chomsky comes as close to proving this is true scientifically as is humanly possible.

@HANECart1960

2 жыл бұрын

@@michielkarskens2284 well let's agree to disagree then--i DO know that some great insights can come from mixing odd sources..that certainly can't be denied..

@HANECart1960

2 жыл бұрын

@@michielkarskens2284 Am I to suppose by your responses that you are a fan of Noam but not a fan of Zizek? Or do you enjoy listening to both-- I personally love both thinkers if that helps in our discussion?

And so on and son...

@SchopenhauerVsCamus

3 жыл бұрын

And so forth…

He doesn't say they are, he make them become

"That wouldn't match my definition of melodrama, so it would be highly inappropriate to bring up!" *pearl clutching intensifies*

Come for the sass stay for the lisp

Yes indeed! Exciting stuff. Cuts to the heart of the range of left critique as they represent polar opposites in epistemology, method and style. But I don't know where people are getting this idea that you have to pick a side or decide which one is more 'useful' and indict the other one on that basis! Perhaps they're both being a bit too divisive but yea, chomsky basically rufuted the whole tradition of thinking that Zizek is working in by saying he "can't see the theory" come on! Haha

ideological belief is never persuaded by observing something, it creates in a way how we observe. As Zizek would say if a wife catches her husband sleeping w/ another woman and the husband persuades her it was nothing, “I still love you.” Then what is more powerful here, what the eyes see or what she believes. Even w/ Galileo he may show them the moons of Jupiter but they still believe the earth is the center of the universe and God made it so.

@BigEvan96

5 жыл бұрын

You're saying ideological beleif can't be reinforced by observation? If your ideology is that the earth is not the center, then wouldn't seeing Jupiter's moons confirm the ideology?

Revisiting my playlists

start?

This is way better than Real Housewives of whatever…and so on and so on.

Cool, hit me with some of your favourite philosophers/theoretical traditions! Yea i'm not so sure on Chomskeys philosophy of mind. I don't know all that much about linguistics so I don't feel I can criticise him on that. But i've seen him try to extend his structural theories beyond their plausible reach!

@owennelson3772

3 жыл бұрын

Stirner

is this the academic equivalent of the Diss track spit lol

INTJ vs. INTP.

"we need ideology more than ever" that is one bold statement by Slovaj, I wish he explained why and made a complete argument.

@nikolajovic7686

4 жыл бұрын

the ideology of today is a belief that there is no ideology... that we're basically all rational subjects, acting in our self-interests, pursuing our own deepest desires in an attempt to self actualize as authentic individuals... that's their own propaganda, but to put it bluntly, call to consume and demand to desire. It leaves you with the feeling of you being an autonomous agent with free will, while you're being rendered as a subject to the power relations of the market forces. Like with the example of the authoritarian and liberal fathers Zizek always likes to refer to... Authoritarian father you can always rebel against, you're rendered as his subject but the relations between you and the father are pretty clear ("go to the village to visit grandma and that is it, I don't care how you feel about it, it's your duty"), while the liberal father always frames his call to action as something which he's not in control while he's framing the entire situation ("you can do whatever you want, but you know the grandma is all alone and old, and she would be very glad to see you, and you know how much she loves you... you wouldn't want to break her heart..."), meaning that not only do you have to do what is told to you, but you also have to enjoy it and be grateful for the opportunity at the same time. That is how the 'not ideological' ideology functions. It doesn't tell you what to do, it just reduces and heavily regulates the options you have to choose and tells you how to experience those options... and by failing at that, it's almost as if failing in being a human being. And through practicing you start identifying with these roles the dominant ideology gives you (why do commercials place emphasis on how the devices are used... they basically provide us with tutorials for life to mimic until they're internalized as our own), which is why dressing is a way of saying something about yourself, brand of tech you use tells something about yourself etc. It doesn't give you a perspective to look forward to, but options to orient towards. It's being reactive, masked as activity. In that sense, what we're in need more and more, is not less perspective, but to the contrary, we need some objective for which we can stand for. Getting rid of all ideology would basically mean chaos in that sense, that is a situation where you're basically aimless. That is why we need more ideology today, even if it would mean to reject it ultimately, because everything is better than to pretend like this Fukuyama-esque dream is going just fine, when it's not.

@emmanueloluga9770

3 жыл бұрын

@@nikolajovic7686 This is such a nuanced comment in a sea of unsubstantiated inputs. To elaborate on your last few sentences, I think the grand jewel point is that chaos is and should be the end game to any system. However, such a state of chaos should and will only exist when all the parameters are fulfilled for it. I think this was the endpoint of Hegel's dialectic. More so, this further substantiates the idea that we need ideology more than ever, simply because we are not ready for that state of chaos yet and we also have not all the parameters for this chaotic state for be fully realized. I partially blame this Social starved state of ideology rejection on the unempirical Darwinian dogma known as Evolutionary Biology that has come to claim the human sciences. I mean for all their panderings about empiricism, they have chosen to forsake and contradict their positions by upholding such a pseudoscientific system that is and has been falsified and unsubstantiated. This is also one of the root motivations of what I consider to be the most toxic element of postmodernism, which is absolute relativism.

@nikolajovic7686

3 жыл бұрын

​@@emmanueloluga9770 Thank you for your comment... With the relativism thing, although I highly respect what some of the postmodern thought has done, it is a kind of way of approaching life and thought where you're pretending as if you're standing on your own shoulders... judging everything from above... I think Hegel's reproach to that would also be like what he said of Kant in his lectures in History of philosophy... It's as if you're trying to swim without ever getting into the pool... like you're not a part of the same thing that you're dissecting. As for the thing about chaos... I mean, things only seem in order once you abstract from the reality, try to ignore certain parts... Zitek often times cites Marcus Aurelius who would even go and imply that a true beauty and attraction is an abstraction that is outside of life since, and that if you're compelled by beauty of another person you should only imagine them getting old and nothing, while Zizek adds that you don't even have to do that... focus on their imperfections, the fact that under their skin humans are basically gross, bad smell... you only see beauty once you ignore these things, but if you super HC focus, you see chaos. Now some would conclude that that could mean that a perception you have of everything is then some sort of abstraction and illusion then since you naturally have fixed frame through which you're looking at things, and that's the basic lesson of German Idealism... with this talk of stability and chaos in our times, we basically want to reach a point of stability where we've got everything right, but the lesson from above is that behind the veil of how reality presents itself, there are only things we put there... there is nothing, about which we speculate, and put things there pretending that it's a status of fact. Somebody like Kant, or I would even say Chomsky, definitely believe in this X unknown thing being the appearance, while Zizek sides which Hegel in a sense that on that place of thing in itself there is basically nothing there, but you have to put something there yourself in order to be productive.

@emmanueloluga9770

3 жыл бұрын

@@nikolajovic7686 eQUALLY SUBSTANTIAL REPLY. I hope and am optimistic we will eventually get it right

@emmanueloluga9770

3 жыл бұрын

@@nikolajovic7686 What's your background

Chomsky's very point is illuminated by the fact that he HAS been proven wrong on numerous occasions. Zizek is very good at dancing around the point and trying to use that point as an argument, when in fact it is evidence proving him wrong. Chomksy's point is that Lacan or Zizek cannot be wrong. And if you can't be wrong, then what else would you call a person with an infallible position someone who "posters"? Otherwise, we'd all be living the Berkelean dream. A very nice use of sophistry.

@visnjaknezevic9954

3 жыл бұрын

That depends on the criteria you employ to denote something as (un)scientific. Empiricism and positivism discard anything that diverges from the method as unscientific, whereas at the same time they remain blind for their own ideological presuppositions. Science is not free from ideology. It never was, it nevere will be. Btw, it is no wonder that from the (cognitive-)behaviorist position psychoanalysis appears as unscientific. It's positivism + reductionism vs. hermeneutics + antireductionism. It's different metaphysics, ontologies, as well as politics and ideologies in the end.

@alibitter6361

2 жыл бұрын

@@visnjaknezevic9954 Their difference reminded me precicesly of the Psychonalysis vs Behaviourism dispute: Deep and holistic appach but vague and unfalsifiable statements vs Rigid scientific emipiricism but limited to the hard facts. Which I find especially ironic since Choamsky helped to bring Behaviorism to an end in his dispute with Skinner.

@michielkarskens2284

2 жыл бұрын

@@visnjaknezevic9954 “That depends on .. “ No, it doesn’t. If, and only if, you’re a post-modernist it does; because only a post-modernist is thát stupid.

@visnjaknezevic9954

2 жыл бұрын

@@michielkarskens2284 Loved your comment 😊. But, actually it does. Positivism applied different criteria than Popper, , e. g., or pragmatism, or Lakatos, etc. and none of them were postmodernists. It's has been a regular topic of philisophy of science 🙂.

@visnjaknezevic9954

2 жыл бұрын

@@alibitter6361 Precisely.

Probably Zizek should have read Chomsky before he talk about him.

I specifically said that he doesn't always get it right. It's part of his style to attack the one thing people assume is undeniable, in this case it's chomsky's empirical rigour and, as you say, he gets it wrong! By the truth in Zizeks work I meant to suggest that I think his epistemology and methods are legitimate. This is something mr chomsky has refuted.

so there's an empirical philosopher?

"This is something we do all the time when we cite a cause for a belief (e.g. I believe it is raining because I looked outside). I see no reason to think such an account would fail." You fail where people like Dawkins fail in trying to concretize belief, to believe in God or an ideology is not based in empiricism. People still believe in God no matter how much Dawkins argues it’s a delusion and with all of Chomsky's revelations about abuses perpetrated by corporations most people still go on

deduction vs induction

GANGSTA

"Hegel wasn't hegelian enough !" Hahaha Classic cOOLio😎 La revolution mange leur enfants✊

I don't know if Zizek explicitly has his own ontology, His work in that field as far as I can see (which is purely from his online lectures and a few times I've seen him cited) is mainly in drawing out the implications of christian metaphysics, buddhist metaphysics etc.

GET READY TO RRR...RUMBLE!

There is always truth in Zizek's work? Weird that his attack on Chomsky is factually incorrect.

Zizek is so based

It's a moot point who is more effective unless you specify what at. I think you're implying more effective at pursuading people to engage with leftist politics? In which case I would tend to agree. I don't know how you can say you don't think Hegels Dialectic idealism is responsible for the 'impact of Marx' I don't disagree I just don't really know what you mean. Marx wouldn't have been Marx without Hegel. And Marx still has an ontology, materiality and historicity are categories.

Nightingale against the world>

I love philosophy so i'm bound to find Zizek more interesting but yes of course if you want to know the truth behind U.S foreign policy or you want a more objective analysis of concrete events Chomsky's your man. Chomsky started this shit anyway because he's so much of a positivist he is incapable of grasping the truth in Zizek's work (that's not to say Zizek always gets it right with his dubious pschoanalytic metaphors). p.s apologies for the long comments!

@michielkarskens2284

2 жыл бұрын

If you love philosophy why would you ever find Zizek interesting? I am no psychoanalysts but I would quickly seek some help if I were you. Secondly “Chomsky started .., because..” I believe this is called projection. Third, “the truth in Zizek’s work” is an oxymoron. p.s. apologies accepted, don’t worry about it.

@jamiehovis7722

Жыл бұрын

@@michielkarskens2284 You clearly have never read Zizek’s work or much philosophy in general. When will people stop judging things they have NEVER READ?

@jamiehovis7722

Жыл бұрын

Zizek practices political analysis as a highly sophisticated layman, he’s primarily a philosopher which is very different than political science which is what Chomsky does.

@pietzsche

5 ай бұрын

​@@michielkarskens2284it's all very weird, I'm not trained or anything, but I read a lot of philosophy, and I've never heard Zizek say anything interesting in a philosophical sense. I've never heard anyone explain what is interesting about him either. And the people who say Chomsky doesn't get philosophy always use examples that I've seen Chomsky repeatedly demonstrate his understanding of. I don't get it, and I suspect that's because there's nothing there to get.

"why would we need the ontology of political change" this describes only one facet of his work but look at Hegel, that was an ontology of change, and would ultimately become fundemental in marx's work, without work in ontology we wouldn't have Marx! You can't say it isn't influential. His work is supposed to influence our thought on a more general level and on a different time scale. If you want to inspire criticism of U.S foreign policy....yes, he's completely useless.

Ambos tiene razón, zizek le falta más teoría y más baraje técnico , ,además de tener ese toque soberbio típico del filósofo especulativo , haciendo citas de autores y hablando sobre temas que realmente no conoce como si lo hiciera, por ejemplo cita a Paul Krugman sin tener idea alguna de algo tan básico de como se hace una derivada, o cita Karl Marx si no siquiera comprender como se realiza la competencia entre capitales. Chomsky es no tanto "adademico elitista", si no que realmente no analiza las cuestiones desde un marco teórico , si no que se remite a citar estudios aislados , y criticar todo desde la intuicion.

a long response with no weight. so, basically, he doesn't like chomsky's approach to analysis. i don't like zizek's approach to analysis. and here we go on the circular ride of rhetorical argument.

I’m not sure this answered the wager of Chomsky saying that Zizek lacks “principles”or empirical structure, but otherwise this is a pretty compelling response.

@alex-7578

Жыл бұрын

It does answer. This was a rejection of empiricism, in defense of the principles of speculative philosophy. To understand the principles of his work, you'd need to engage with his work (in the same sense that this video doesn't deeply explain Chomsky's principles, so you'd need to engage with Chomsky's work further to know)

Zizek's analysis seems to be that of a nihilist - There is something wrong, only I understand it, and nothing can be done about it. Thankfully, it may now be said that thiis is after the end of post- structuralsm

Although I am a generative Linguist myself, I must admit that Zizek owns Chomsky here (such as Foucault already owned him).

Yes, indeed, I prefer to listen to the public discourse rather than some postmodernist professors 'expertise'. Oh but wait a minute, according to the postmodernists, isn't there only populists and unqualified people participating in public discourse? When he has to counter a point made by an intellectual of far greater caliber than himself (Chomsky is after all one of the most cited individuals in all human history...), suddenly public discourse becomes the standard of truth? Pretty inconsistent, isn't it? While the term 'modern' is typically abused by marketing or other manipulators of the public, such as politicians, as being a synonym for something good or positive, 'postmodern' does certainly not mean anything better, even if advertised by the most prominent figures.

ENTP is never going to be able to understand an INFJ. Zizek sounds too angry to be using his intellect correctly imo

The amusing clown is speaking :)

believing in the capitalism by working, paying bills, etc. What is more, Dawkins for all his empiricism still has beliefs not based in empiricism, e.g. a Darwinian dogma that gives us evolutionary psychology. Also Dawkins preaching in large church-like halls begins to take on the form of a proselytizing fire-brand. All this leads to Hegel who revealed the relationship/dialectic of religion and empiricism. Empiricism tries to reduce belief to sticks and stones and misses the ideological aspect

الصلح خير

Chomsky destroyed these theory posers like Zizek.

chomsky is old, he can't rumble

This man is more a salad of ideas than anything else, yes, he is very theatrical, tosses a lot of words in his monologue but I don't see him exploring any point. Yes, he works his audience to the point where the only thing that is left is a punch line (and then we laugh) ... but that's about it !

Chomsky is not a serious figure, except in linguistics, where he is dead wrong about everything.

I always got the feeling that Chomsky was another one of those envious intellectuals, the same people who had set up those communist regimes that would wreck whole nations, which is why he defends them. I've not read much of his work and so I may be wrong, but I think the difference between the two is Zizek, although critical of capitalism and it's ideology he understands the value it has and is very nuanced in his critic, however Chomsky to me seems supercritical and lacks the ability to understand the good aspects of his enemy.

@FirstLast-ms4yl

2 жыл бұрын

Chomsky does not defend communist regimes.

@annabengtson3308

Жыл бұрын

It sounds to me like you've read literally nothing by Chomsky. He is incredibly critical of "communist" regimes, one of his fundamental principles is his critique of concentrations of power... He is an anarchist, not a communist (something Zizek describes himself as). I like both of them, but if you think Chomsky is the more likely out of them to support a regime that may "wreck whole nations" you've misunderstood him to an extreme extent. Simply because he doesn't support regimes as such at all, haha. Yes he has defended certain aspects of regimes, but so has Zizek (he's been positive to aspects of the CCP and USSR, to name two)

@foodchewer

Жыл бұрын

I think you've understood the basic reality of the situation Zizek: Based Chumpsky: Cringe

and tho on and tho so...

This is the second time I've tried to listen to Zisek to try and hear an alternative view from Chomsky but I just find the man impossible to listen to. Everything he said in the first few minutes was simply a lie. Chomsky never defended the Khmer Rouge, ever. If one of Zizek's supporters wants to defend him all you have to do is simple: find a quote and give the source where Chomsky defends the Khmer Rouge. What Chomsky did say was that to a great extent the terrors of the Khmer Rouge could be laid to blame on the chaos and terror caused on the whole region by the US and that the US terror was equivalent to that of the Khmer Rouge. I would think a supposed leftist such as Zizeck would agree with that. And the idea that Chomsky ever defended Stalin is just ludicrous. Chomsky has never even defended Lenin. Look up some of Chomsky's videos when he talks about Lenin, he always talks of him as a right wing deviation and not a true socialist, this goes back to when Chomsky was very young and many leftists still supported the Soviet Union. Chomsky has talked about this, about how suddenly the Paris left and others such as Zizek woke up one morning and realized how awful the Soviet Union and China were and suddenly acted as if they were the first to realize this when leftists like Chomsky had been saying it all along. The outright lies from Zizek are pathetic. I'm amazed that anyone can consider this guy an intellectual. He's a clown and a con man, a left wing Trump.

@furiousmat1667

5 жыл бұрын

@Lephilosophe Your first comment sounds mostly disingenuous and the second, I'm not sure how I would not characterize it as a strawman. I mean first saying that someone is "defending" a group like the Khmer rouge isn't really open to interpretation. This doesn't suggest just getting things wrong about the extent or causes of their violence. It's also a complete non sequitur by Zizek: if Chomsky has been empirically wrong that doesn't make 'Theory' better or diminish empiricism. And then this "he just uses it as an example where empiricism fails - photographing a gulag would not in itself be a dismantling of the regime". What's that even supposed to mean. Is empiricism limited to just simplistically taking irrelevant samples and letting them sit there with no context or framework? Zizek might have taken a page off Chomsky's book and given actual examples and citations from Chomsky's work showing how his approach would fail. Instead he does as usual: stays in his fairy land of broad strokes. Chomsky's empirical approach is easy enough to understand. He doesn't bother with lame and failed attempts at building grand theories to explain stuff. He looks at the facts. What actually happened, which facts are available to draw conclusions. I'm not sure how anyone can be against a methodology based on empirical research, which is the basis of modern science. Not building complexe unverifiable theories.

@bentaro9743

5 жыл бұрын

@@furiousmat1667 "looks at the facts" is such a dumb thing to say in regards to linguistics or any kind of philosophy. The arrogance of objectivity. Even Chomsky has been wrong, and you'd be better off reading some critiques of sciences themselves

@furiousmat1667

5 жыл бұрын

@@bentaro9743 ""looks at the facts" is such a dumb thing to say in regards to linguistics or any kind of philosophy" Luckily we're not talking about linguistics or philosophy. We're talking about understanding human affairs. About that Chomsky's view is quite clear: " There’s no theory in the social sciences… …the term theory should not be applied to fields as intellectually thin as the social sciences… …there’s just some common sense observations." Which is a repeat of a claim he made in some of his earlier work, American Power and the New Mandarin, which goes something like "there exist no accepted body of theory, beyond the grasp of the layman, to explain policy and human affairs". Which seems correct. However little facts you think Chomsky may have access to, that's just how little facts people who try to elaborate grand complex theories have too. The difference being that Chomsky doesn't build a house of card to stand on it and pretend to see further than he does. I mean just look at what physical sciences do, and what the theories look like. Look say, at Einstein theory of physics. The whole thing can be summarized in a page and a few mathematical equations. The relative volume of work that happens behind the curtain just to confirm Einstein conclusions, challenge them, build experiments to validate them, that's like... A huge part of human enginuity and most sophisticated work that has to be devoted to this. Huge amount of resources spent in this pursuit, and in trying to come up with the next bit of understanding. Now compare this to the resources spent in social sciences to develop "theories". To explain vastly more complex dynamics. How could they possibly actually know what the hell they're talking about. The only conclusion one can draw is that there's a lot of bullshit and posturing going on. Richard Feynmann expressed the same incredulity towards social sciences when he said "I have the advantage of having found out how hard it is to really know something. How careful you need to be with the experiment and how easy it is to make mistakes and fool yourself. I know what it means to know something. And I see how they get their information and I can't believe they know it, they haven't done the work necessary, haven't done the checks necessary haven't done the care necessary. I have a great suspicion that they don't know the stuff they claim and they're just intimidating people.

@miat9039

3 жыл бұрын

Zizek never said chomsky defended stalin he just use it as a metaphor to use

@michaeldebellis4202

3 жыл бұрын

@@miat9039 You are correct and I apologize for the mistake about Stalin and thanks for correcting it. But you ignored the first point that I made. Zizek claims that Chomsky defended the Khmer Rouge and then changed his mind once more data was available but he gives no quotes to support his claim. I've read virtually everything Chomsky wrote around that time and I NEVER recalled him EVER saying that the Khmer Rouge were "nice guys" or that people should support them. What he actually said was that the reason the Khmer Rouge were able to take power in Cambodia was due to the incredible chaos and terror inflicted on that nation by the illegal carpet bombing of that country by the US. He also said that one could make the case that between the two, the US caused more death and destruction by mass bombing from B-52's then even the Khmer Rouge did with their terror. In none of what I remember reading (and although this was a long time ago I remember this because I kept reading that Chomsky "supported" the Khmer Rouge and I wanted to find the truth for myself) did Chomsky ever say as Zizek claims he did at the beginning of this video that Chomsky defended the Khmer Rouge but then later changed his mind and said he didn't have the data available when he was defending them. Chomsky would never make a claim like this about someone else without having the exact quote and a reference. Where is Zizek's reference? The other thing that Chomsky points out with the Khmer Rouge is the disparity between the way their crimes are reported in the US media and the way comparable crimes by US allies (e.g., Indonesia's invasion and repression of East Timor) are also reported. I just picked one of my Chomsky political books: Necessary Illusions, off the shelf more or less at random and looked up Khmer Rouge. Nowhere does he defend them. He uses them to point out the incredible hypocrisy of the US media (e.g., pp 155-156). I would expect an actual leftist to be in agreement with these points and I would expect a responsible academic to carefully study someone before slandering them and to have actual quotes and references when attributing such opinions to them. Zizek does neither because he is is neither.

Makes****

.

Zizek is just empty noise. I don't understand why so many are drawn to his chaotic and nonsensical dissembling..

@shael177

2 жыл бұрын

Maybe it's noice to you because you don't understand it.

Chomsky was right this guy cannot coherently formulate an argument or find his point…

@foodchewer

Жыл бұрын

He's far too intelligent for such things as those

“ Violently opposed”. Ok, chill dude and talk slower ffs

strawman

Nice try....but epic fail. The Professor is on point.....more on point than anyone I have ever listened or learned from.

chomsky is right

Are Zizek's theories emperical if they can't be verified by others through observation/experimentation? If not, I think his theories would be merely anecdotal.

Žižek is popular but not popularly liked. He’s constantly misunderstood because liberals would rather fantasize that things can change without confronting fundamental contradictions within neo-liberal Capitalism.

Ah this is so awkward!!!!

lol u mad Zizek?

How would you prove one of this guys theories incorrect? Marxism has continually been wrong, but then backtracks and "revises" its theory and asserts that it was correct all along. Popper's analysis of Marxism comes to mind. Also, the 2008 housing crisis had everything to do with giving low-income families (with a government program leading the way) the ability to own a home. Slavoj just simply asserts he isn't a clown and that it's a mistake to say so. Hardly an effective argument. Awkward.

Word Salad.

Zizek is a charlatan, a self important actor who pretends to be a philosopher, but has not published anything of any significance

"(Bullshit)... and so on... (incoherent rambling) ... and so on... (more bullshit) and so on." Slavoj "spit" Žižek

@LfunkeyA

7 жыл бұрын

you missed the point, well done

@JeezVince

7 жыл бұрын

you're an idiot, congrat'

One of the biggest intellectual clowns around.

He clearly didn’t understand Chomsky’s critique and postured again as a self-made marginal star. Embarrasing.

Yah... Zizov just proved what Chomsky said. Blah blah...many words. But he said absolutely nothing. There is no content in here .

@dusanprelevic7184

7 жыл бұрын

Irene Duma Chomsky is absolutely right . He says absolutely nothing.

@tonegoober

6 жыл бұрын

Only if you're unwilling to follow his line of thinking. But he says quite a lot - even in the first minutes Zizek points out that public discourse indicates where a regime is headed, what its intentions are, and what possibilities exist in the future. You cannot deduce or analyze these political situations from only empirical evidence without totally discarding the subjective nature of politics, and the hidden possibilities in political projects. If you're going to talk about politics, you need to be able to deal with interweaving subjectivities, or you might as well just let your computer speak and vote for you.

@JamesFlemingIreland

6 жыл бұрын

M what public discourse? The ruling class control discourse in any class oriented society. The bourgeois in capitalist society, the bureaucratic clique in a Stalinist one etc. Zizek says nothing. He wears "Marxism" as a badge, but he is not Marxist.

@bentaro9743

5 жыл бұрын

Narrowmindedness is truly saddening yet powerful

@larshofler8298

5 жыл бұрын

See, you prove Zizek right by being a cynic. A cynic misses everything that is in front of his eyes. Zizek is no cynic, he is more on the hysteria side, which is how we can get knowledge anyway. For him, ideology is not ignorance or spook, it's in our spontaneous daily life, and that's why cynicism might be the biggest enemy of progress, for it is how we actually experience ideology. In other words, a leftist cynic is "objectively" a capitalist ideologue.

Jeez, Zizek is an intellectual joke. Lacan and Hegel? Seriously??? Pfff.

@Quinceps

7 жыл бұрын

Ugh! Let's read Upstreamprovider then!!

Chomsky never said what you are saying about Cambodia. Get your facts straight.