Chomsky's criticism of Postmodernism

Noam Chomsky, the famous linguist, does not have nice things to say about Postmodernism. We try to lay down his main points in a coherent way, and in doing so, we see that much of his critique follows some themes cherished by Postmodernists themselves. In particular, Chomsky argues that much of postmodernism was an instrument of power wielded to obtain material rewards.
Chomsky goes particularly hard on the Postmodern tradition and we try to put into video form the essence of his scathing critique.
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter:
/ mon037895046
Discord:
/ discord
Substack:
mon0.substack.com/

[@IgorNV]

"Postmodernism is cringe" -Noam Chomsky

[@AB-ok7hu]

yeah, that's an argument...

[@stueyapstuey4235]

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.

[@anarcho-savagery2097]

BASED

[@cheezew1zz]

Literally this

[@subcitizen2012]

It used to be that people thought Noam Chomsky was cringe. How the times have changed.

[@ryangarritty9761]

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.'

[@ronh3935]

thank you for this quote.

[@loussis8584]

Thank you for sharing, it is beautiful and very freeing I believe :-)

[@afd5231]

@@user-jl2mx6zr5z 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.

[@afd5231]

@@user-jl2mx6zr5z 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...

[@randygram9310]

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

[@rabidcentrist]

"Creating the impression of profundity" Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

[@ricklanders]

No, that's standard discourse. There's nothing there but naive assumptions and linguistic ignorance.

[@eskybakzu712]

@@bobsacamano1274 Bro acting like Foucault isn't

[@lucarmin9683]

Much like Jordan Peterson in fact.

[@kehana2908]

literally what chomsky is accused of often

[@rabidcentrist]

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.

[@buddinganarchist]

He is not saying power difference does not exist. There is evidence, there is truth, morality. Ethics. Not everything is some game.

[@nathanfreeman7362]

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.

[@jefersonlemos4135]

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

[@talastra]

They were probably indoctrinated in US colleges.

[@dargkkast6469]

Chomsky truly connected with people, specially with Epstein am I right

[@joules_sw]

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

[@russellmason5095]

I understand post-modernism primarily as Frederick Jameson did as the social conditions and way of thinking under Late Capitalism or Neoliberalism. In this respect, the post-modern condition is something that affects us all, left and right. For clarity's sake, I would talk about writers like Derrida and Foucault as being post-structuralist. Derrida's critique of Levi Strauss signified the point at which it became necessary to recognise simultaneously the limits of structuralism and the impossibility of moving beyond it completely. I don't identify strongly with what you call intellectual post-modernism, but to write off the whole phenomenon as being absurd is laughable. Anyone who believes in "objective truth" clearly lacks a basic knowledge of the history of philosophy, psychology etc. You don't need to be a post-modernist to see this. Just read Daniel Kahneman's work on cognitive biases or the impossibilty of establishing theories of truth (correspondence theory, coherence theory, the probelmatic nature of a dualistic discourse centred around subject and "object" etc.). It seems equally absurd to criticize a whole group of writers en masse as lacking political activism. Who really thinks that French philosophers as a group are less politically engaged than philosophers in other countries? Of course, many of them came out of a background in activism in 1968: Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, Deleuze, Baudrillard to name a few of the most famous. Also, I am not sure that deconstructing the work of a post modernist writer actually means that you have "won the argument". If their argument is that every belief system can be deconstructed, have not you actually lost the argument?

[@christofthedead]

you bring more nuance and context than this video deserves

[@stueyapstuey4235]

Pretty much spot on - the term Post-Modernism should be used as periodizing notion, like the Renaissance, or the Enlightenment. The only point I'd disagree with is your account of French intellectual engagement post-1968. Various struggles within the French left - over Stalinism, Algeria etc - brought an end to effective engagement with social reform and politics. There was a large reaction against Sartre, and as Structuralism morphed into Post-Structuralism the 'yuppification' of French intellectual life started to hurry up - leftist philosophers and academics being more interested in their jobs than their political activism. Chomsky's gripe is a pretty tame one considering that he continued his activism and to write about actual power abuses by institutions and governments, while the armchair revolutionaries from France took up tenures in US universities. Chomsky was (and remains) committed to empiricism and scholarly research also, which sets him at immediate variance with 'philosophers' and 'historians of ideas' who just talk a lot in their own discursive patois!

[@Opposite271]

-It seems to me that there is no basis for denying naive realism as obviously wrong. -If you are making a reductio ad absurdum then the realist can just bit the bullet even if that means that the realist has to believe in true contradictions and adopt a paraconsistent logic. -If you make a argument from history then the realist can just create their own historical narrative. I mean if there is no objective truth then history can not be objectively true anyway. Any argument against naive realism is pointless as it relies as much on blind faith as naive realism.

[@francisbarrera9868]

Well put. These midwits in the comments have never read any of these texts.

[@rob9726]

​@@Opposite271 That's why I say reality is consensus-based.

[@NoMoWarplz]

Mr. Chomsky, you sir are a god-send to our times and an impeccable guide and example. Thank you.

[@MA-go7ee]

In a way the post modernists won. It's remarkable how much cultural commentary is now just basically an analysis of power relationships.

[@naveed210]

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

[@java4653]

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 KZbin, filled with so much commentary that it contradicts the claim.

[@castelodeossos3947]

The foundation of Woke.

[@glennmaillard5972]

@@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.

[@pavlovsdogman]

​@@castelodeossos3947 Chomsky is pretty woke, he ain't no pseudo intellectual grifter like Jordan Peterson.

[@nsbd90now]

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.

[@riccardodececco4404]

both is related - the video doesn´t go profoundly into the problem of the formula of "textual criticism" used by postmodernism though....

[@loudenlaffnite246]

"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?

[@wolfgangdevries127]

@@loudenlaffnite246 people who are at least 90 years old, I suppose.

[@nsbd90now]

@@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.

[@toonyandfriends1915]

@@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

[@Primitarian]

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.

[@bubstacrini8851]

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.

[@subcitizen2012]

Chomsky is an amazing academic, but he was also a fad.

[@squatch545]

Chomsky is a pseudo-intellectual who has proven to be incorrect about nearly everything he has ever claimed.

[@mippim8765]

......nothing like a lecture from the millionaire "socialist". .......

[@ineshvaladolenc6559]

​@@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.

[@BardovBacchus]

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

[@johannalvarsson9299]

I think the same.

[@castelodeossos3947]

Dr Chomsky gives a similarly scathing critiique of sociology as a whole in one of the table-talk interviews with the small bald gentleman.

[@salvatronprime9882]

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.

[@castelodeossos3947]

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.

[@alexdavis1541]

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.

[@markpx]

Who are the people at 2:30? I recognize Boulez, Foucault and Barthes. (Possibly also Elliott Carter.) The others?

[@onurbo77]

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.

[@palladin331]

That's all that Chomsky knows to do: his ideas cannot stand on their own; he's against everything.

[@RhetoricalMuse]

I think he got to a point where he realised you can't argue against cray cray.

[@gregmattson2238]

i've also got to admit that it's a damn clever tactic of chomsky's to use the postmodernists' own arguments against them.

[@JEQvideos]

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.

[@vis7139]

@@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]

@@vis7139 I will check it out, thanks!

[@commentatron]

@@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).

[@eshitvaprakash6681]

@@commentatron Peterson? Yup, you definitely don't have a philo background.

[@matrebour220]

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?

[@fe7kh]

Idiotic

[@ElSantoLuchador]

So Chomsky deconstructed postmodernism in terms of power relationships. What a postmodern thing to do. Derrida would be proud.

[@AMehra-im1gr]

Not at all a postmodern thing to do.

[@VolkColopatrion]

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.

[@VolkColopatrion]

how do you mean? @@AMehra-im1gr

[@wmorris189]

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.

[@anthonyderosa7757]

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

[@ChrisTopher-xu2dh]

Really enjoyed this. Thanks for your efforts!

[@PunishedFelix]

When you watched the Netflix original series but didnt read the manga

[@marccawood]

Postmodernism is not about the abolition of absolute truth (or reality) but of absolute certainty and people’s belief they have Truth.

[@joshogden1081]

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.

[@icecreambone]

didn't foucault reject an absolute truth about justice in his debate with chomsky though?

[@martinguila]

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.

[@redrum3405]

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

[@bodricthered]

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

[@destrygriffith3972]

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.

[@patpowers9210]

Liked and subscribed: a great summary of Chomsky's position.

[@ssrmy1782]

"I don't like the cultural philosophy that derives from the existence of people like me."

[@markusoreos.233]

And?

[@ssrmy1782]

@@markusoreos.233 And?

[@markusoreos.233]

@@ssrmy1782 Ant?

[@ssrmy1782]

@@markusoreos.233 Got a life?

[@markusoreos.233]

@@ssrmy1782 Yup, thank you for asking. Have a nice day.

[@felipeormazabalmoraga7955]

The book he references at the begining is called Fashionable Nonsense by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont

[@99tonnes]

My copy is called 'Intellectual Impostures'. Same authors, and I suppose same book.

[@Skygoers]

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

[@endofjourney665]

This is genuinely an ad hominem attack. You don't even have to agree with postmodernism to say that. This is an intellectual field, where people exchange arguments to understand where every person comes from and what they see as a problem. When asked about Zizek, Chomsky said he proposes nothing of value and is pretty much a charlatan like postmodernists. The irony is, everything Chomsky reads he reads from his own idealist pragmatist episteme, something that postmodernists pretty much object against while acknowledging themselves that episteme is inevitable. "He has nothing to say" in Chomsky's eyes is "the next step is not provided". That is clearly showcased in his public debate with Foucalt who says "it's too dangerous to create a new ideology considering we achieve these using the same way we achieved the previous ones" and that led us to the horrors of WW2 etc, which Chomsky replied with "well we can't just sit around". Zizek's motto is pretty much "I'd rather not" because he understands that any opposition is commodified etc, yet Chomsky fails to see any value in this as he rejects any pessimistic tendencies. Chomsky just believes there is the same innate goodness (read ethical tendencies) in all of humanity and he believes that we will achieve greater society just by doing science. This is quite bullshit as you can provide the opposite argument using the same logic. In another interview Chomsky admitted that Foucalt's work on power relations is ok-ish but he says it's just a truism (aka he just calls it common sense) and Foucalt greatly exaggerates it. He said his struggle was not being published in the right time because of sort of oppression. Well, that struggle example is genuinely disrespectful considering how some people still live in scarcity while we live in the society of excess. And this is not an appeal "we gotta eliminate suffering in society at every level" ie against everything bad, in the name of everything good; this is saying "the ways in which we try to eliminate suffering are only those which serve those in power better lives rather than those who, while already in scarsity, are destined to never even have the opportunity of power" Chomsky's argument "things will get better" is just a safe say without addressing the core issue - they way things get better is our responsibility as a society, not only of those in power. Chomsky just bashes on postmodernists instead of adressing their arguments or conclusions, that's the same "rockstar" behavior he accuses postmodernists of. I do not mean he is dishonest bor not a good intellectual, I just think he's a bit too much up his own ass. Sokal's article has been critised and the book he mentioned also has some good points but oftentimes takes statements out of context. Postmodernists have their shortcomings (like the "rockstar" behavior he mentioned) but some of the approaches they take are not plain nonsense just because it doesn't fit american "1-line" thesis type of intellectual debate.

[@gonzalochristobal]

Exactly, if anything this is a critique of "postmodernists" rather than "postmodernism" - just to make a pun. It's simply ad-hominen against the people that happened to condense some of the main ideas within what's largely called postmodernism. Yes, late 20th century postmodernist intelligentsia is also under power-structures that act in certain ways and allow them to do certain thinks - cool he got the point then, and cool, he agrees with it then. It can be interesting to know if there was any actual critique to the ideas themselves, rather than to whoever where condensing this ideas in the first place (this is also to say that ideas generally do not spawn in the minds of philosopher like a god touch of knowledge, but are already in discussions and debates in the cultural environment of their contemporaries).

[@podzycie3567]

Well said. Chomsky also notoriously lacks a sense of humor, which I think is necessary to appreciate some of the individuals he criticizes. I think he is receptive the notion that an analysis of power has to be factored in to avoid the issues post-modernists raised, he’s more taking issue with a kind of insufferable and pretentious elitist version of it, which I mean, fair enough but that ain’t everyone.

[@pietzsche]

@@gonzalochristobal His critique of the ideas is that they're (in general) true but trivial

[@framcescomariacarreri5349]

I sympathize with your frustration with chomsky's stubbornness but most of your argument is just lies, and mischaracterizations I guess you don't really know much about him which is a shame cause you could have spent your time listening to the thoughts of an intelligent and interesting man instead of postmodernist re-7-ards. Chomsky believes there is innate goodness and innate evil in humans because everything humans do is by definition (at least according to him) allowed and dictated by human nature. What he argued is simply that humans are not amorphous blank slates defined only by material societal ideological etc forces but that such a thing as human nature exists, his life's quest was to define some characteristics of it especially in relation to the language faculty but he never pretended to understand it fully or to give any kind of positive or negative judgement to it. As for him saying that "we will achieve greater society just by doing science" this is something you just pulled out of your hat and that Chomsky never even remotely expressed so not sure how to comment it. Just like it's blatantly untrue to say that Chomsky just believes that "things will get better" while he acknowledged that there have been advances in areas such as woman's rights, racial equality etc. you just need to look at his criticism of steven pinker's better angels of our nature or his misguided and alarmistic warnings about things like climate change to see that nothing could be further from chomsky's view of the world, if anything he's quite pessimistic. Anyway who cares

[@matrebour220]

@@gonzalochristobal Exactly what I was thinking. Not only that but he very much mischaracterizes Postmodernism's general critical view and dissolution of meta narratives as thinking all meta narratives are bad. Even if you did grant the Postmodern thinkers generating their own "power structure" that wouldn't necessarily go against any of their beliefs as long as they were aware of that structure and how it shapes their lives.

[@ComradeRedRoo]

idk y but at 2:08 when it cuts to chomskys legs dangling i lost it he looks so small.

[@lonelycubicle]

Near the end of his debate with Foucault, Chomsky said, “Don’t hold me to this …” and started to sketch out his theory for how could have objective ethics … would love to know if he has filled out his theory more. Both sides make good points and since great minds still disagree, I kinda go with act like there’s objective truth but keep those post-modern/pragmatic (like Richard Rorty) ideas in the back of your mind also.

[@AngloSaks666]

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....

[@ClarkHathaway3238]

You know he's a genocide denier right?

[@conorknapp6764]

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

[@brunoaraujo1411]

Everyone watching this video should read this text first.

[@loudenlaffnite246]

"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?

[@grumpydharmabum]

@@ClarkHathaway3238 ?

[@df3575]

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....

[@hunterluxton5976]

Your presentation of this subject was really superbly done. You used clear simple language which was precise and explained the topic very well. Thank you.

[@smugmonkey6147]

Yes, the effort and time dedicated to this project video is plain to see in its excellence of form. Thank you, cheers. 🙏

[@spookybuk]

But he doesn't know much about the topic and treated "a particular school of people calling themselves postmodernists" as "the whole postmodern phenomenon". So what's the use of "easily explaining" what you don't really understand and spreading more confusion to people? I mean, I hope you can see how the video says "Chomsky's criticism", but the video is actually "Mono's criticism using Chomsky in some very short clips out of context". Noam Chomsky was involved in publishing Orientalism, by Edward Said, which can be said to be a postmodern book. Look for his opinions on The Structure of Scientific Revolution, by Thomas Khun... Not knowing there are many schools called "postmodern" (which Chomsky certainly knows, as I myself have learned this from him) just turned this video into a joke :(

[@Mon000]

@@spookybuk How have I taken Chomsky's clips out of context? Everything I have ever seen of Chomsky on postmodernism has echoed the themes I discuss in the video. Also, I have my own views on Postmodernism, I believe some of my other videos should showcase as much.

[@SeventhSaucer]

@@spookybuk I’m looking forward your eight-minute video that thoroughly explores all the points you have raised.

[@spookybuk]

@@SeventhSaucer Whatever I had to say, I have already said. I don't see how it needs any further explanation. "treated 'a particular school of people calling themselves postmodernists' as 'the whole postmodern phenomenon'" should cover it all, but still I do believe I have mentioned a couple of very significant books you all can refer to. Think of the people calling themselves "patriots" in the media nowadays. Are they representing what "patriots" mean, or are they "a certain kind of patriot"? It's the same situation. Whatever I've said, you might consider I still stand by it, unless I've answered here saying something like "Oh yeah, you're right. I hadn't considered that." I'm satisfied with what I said. If someone isn't, that's not my problem. I've already said enough and whatever was said afterwards didn't change my mind.

[@johnmiltonkeynes]

Have you considered making videos on the Repugnant Conclusion and the Experience Machine? Besides that, keep up the great work!

[@Mon000]

Yes I have, not sure If I'll actually have the time to make them though!

[@pedroivomoraes]

Please, where can I find the source video?

[@wendigo2442]

Chomsky: "post mod...er.... frankfu......buh.... Where am I"

[@AB-ok7hu]

The funny thing is that Chomsky's critique of power relationships made by Post-structuralists includes him saying that Post-structuralists use that posture for the power that comes from it (material reward and recognition). Which seems like a circular paradox that actually re-affirms what post-structuralists are saying. But Chomsky seems so attached to his own ego and identity that lacks the perspective to see it.

[@remhawk73]

NC: Their bullshit makes them hypocrites, and they make too much bullshit to be of value. It’s not worth it to have them continue on like this. You: so you’re saying they’re right about power structures? Checkmate!

[@AB-ok7hu]

@@remhawk73 They actually make arguments. Chomsky just throws insults. Insulting it is not an argument.

[@stueyapstuey4235]

@@AB-ok7hu Chomsky is not insulting them. It is clear that his critique comes from an engagement with the humanist/scientific tradition of rational debate and the ontological status of evidence. The Post- & Structuralist characterization of western humanism as merely power, without any valid grounding is the target Chomsky identifies, pretty much irrefutably. The famous Derrida quote - roughly translated as 'there is nothing outside the text' - is an attempt to problematiize the ontological grounding on which science operates. Demoting all linguistic descriptions of objective understanding to merely 'discursive power games' is the core conflict. If the choice is between scientific empirical experiment and evidence versus coterie philosophical discourse analyses, the fact that this comment is made to you on a computer rather than on a piece of parchment delivered by a courier on horseback should identify the effectiveness of the humanist/scientific tradition. And to emphasize - I am not making a moral judgment. I am making a factual one.

[@kip388]

I would say that all post-modernism seems to do is semantically attach value to something that's a bit of a law of 'nature' (for lack of better word) as if it's some profound observation. It's like stating that since gravity pulls down on all of us, it's an oppressive force. So post-structuralists say that everything is related to power. Well, yeah, power is likely the highest motivating factor of human psychology since power = survival, control, well-being. When humans possess zero power over their circumstances, they generally become depressed, nihilistic. I think he's aware of that cyclical, almost "hypocritical" aspect of the post-modernists using their thesis on power structures to attain power -- that's actually his point. Just because you point out something as existing and attach a value to it doesn't mean that value is actually valid, or that there's even a true alternative.

[@christofthedead]

@@stueyapstuey4235 would you prefer Derrida argued for promoting all linguistic descriptions above the reality they represent? To throw away the territory & only care about the maps? Highlighting the restrictions within the language we use is empirical, and contributes to furthering science

[@timfronimos459]

Harden my lack of english and non knowledge/training on this subject. But I find this topic interesting. Can anyone provide a video link that explains what Chomsky believes? My training is in banking and finance. A whole different level of obfuscation. That's for another discussion. No one can clearly explain or illustrate what chomsky believes or stands for. Again, forgive my not understanding.

[@johnbolender5246]

If you are interested in his views on language, I would actually recommend reading text books. One possibility would be English Syntax: An Introduction, by Andrew Radford.

[@christofthedead]

have you read his books? he's quite enthusiastic about explaining what he believes and stands for

[@subcitizen2012]

Chomsky once described himself as an anarchist becasue that's what he observes in the world and human nature.

[@LowestofheDead]

Chomsky believed that humans have an in-born instinct for fairness and equality. So we're supposed to live without hierarchy. He does a lot of political activism. The postmodernists agree with Chomsky that hierarchy is bad. But, they disagree with the idea of any in-born instinct or objective truth. They believe that anyone who claims to know the 'truth' - is holding power over others (even if Chomsky is doing it for equality). Chomsky thinks the Postmodernists are sitting on their asses, when they could be doing activism. He had a famous debate with Foucault where they both explain their disagreements. You can watch it on KZbin.

[@Anark]

I recommend looking for videos where Chomsky talks about his views as an anarchist.

[@alecmeans3442]

This is the same Noam Chomsky who basically said that "Pirahã doesn't violate the rules of universal grammar because I said so" right?

[@kehana2908]

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.

[@nsbd90now]

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.

[@danx1216]

LOL it is an ignorant sill Anti-intellectual game Truth is to strong for u to acknowledge a Gaslighting #CULT

[@perhenriksson6767]

Great description, modern day sophistry.

[@erichigley9280]

Book mentioned at 2:57 is Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmount.

[@ZacharyBittner]

Look up criticism of that book. Turned out it wasn't actually the win they present itself as. Like their fake essays were submitted to a fake journal.

[@mr-iz8cx]

What is the book Chomsky mentions, 'Dangerous Illusions'? I couldn't find it and am unfamiliar with the author as this is a new topic for me. Cheers

[@robertpiotrowski9586]

I think I found it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashionable_Nonsense

[@mr-iz8cx]

@@robertpiotrowski9586 Thank you Robert. That's it. I'll track down a copy

[@humesspoon3176]

The claim with Latour and TB being a social construct wasn't an ontological claim like it seems you may be insinuating. The point Latour made was that the Pharaoh dying of TB was socially constructed to be the case epistemically. Not every social construct needs to be ontological.

[@atticusosullivan9332]

Latour is extremely conservative, anti-marxist and a pseudo environmentalist

[@user-tp7gy4dj4l]

Pu-leese! Did they find TB bacilli in the mummy or not? "the Pharaoh dying of TB was socially constructed to be the case epistemically." What does that *_mean?!_* Other than you're smarter than me?

[@Leavemealonenowplz]

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”.

[@heberpelagio7161]

As an anthropologist, what do you think about this? kzbin.info/www/bejne/gKivqoNjq7ihqpIsi=P1RYt62g4Oo_VwL3

[@francescocerasuolo4064]

what

[@heberpelagio7161]

@@francescocerasuolo4064, watch the video of the link a I've posted before.

[@tangerinesarebetterthanora7060]

Post modernism shouldn't be applied to biology. That is playing with fire.

[@pedrosampaio7349]

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

[@GG-mn9ls]

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

[@pharaohhermenthotip1553]

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

[@GG-mn9ls]

@@pharaohhermenthotip1553 wow thank you so much!!

[@jonathaneffemey944]

Thanks so much for posting.

[@ekkeism]

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.

[@99tonnes]

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.)

[@VioletDeliriums]

Well Chomsky doesn't get it, so it must be wrong.

[@Uniule]

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.

[@magicsinglez]

You’d have to understand what they are putting across in order to be shocked.

[@francisbarrera9868]

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.

[@magicsinglez]

@@francisbarrera9868: I’m saying the same thing Chomsky is saying; post-modernist writing is jibberish

[@andrewsmith3257]

Exactly

[@raymondjparadise]

Thank you so much - very helpful

[@frankv7774]

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

[@christianvaneeden7460]

Spoken like a true structuralist.

[@VioletDeliriums]

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.

[@addammadd]

@@VioletDeliriumsit helps to pivot sharply to populist activism and refuse to consider actually reading the works you claim to critique.

[@VioletDeliriums]

@@addammadd Perhaps you should consider actually reading the works you defend?

[@urosjovanovic808]

@@VioletDeliriums genetic basis for language (a uniquely human enterprise) is a crazy idea? lol, you sound more ridiculous than you may suspect

[@VioletDeliriums]

@@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?

[@kiwiopklompen]

Chomsky is ironically considered a post-modernist. The understanding about the media and how consent is manufactured, follows the post-modern or social construction theory that power is achieved through controlling discourse. This understanding comes from Gramsci and Foucault. Chomsky has demonstrated, through his work, that he is a post-modernist.

[@subcitizen2012]

Bingo. People think this stuff was invented when it's actually the fabric of our thought and language, especially in our contemporary historical context.

[@loliloloso]

We don't even have to read Gramsci to understand it. US is one of the oldest democracy, people argued and manipulated opinions all the time. That book you said might have been inspired by Walter Lippman's 1922 book "Public Opinion" . And since his political criticism had long been censured by major media, banned by NYT, why would he need to follow Gramsci and Foucault? Chomsky's books are quite easy to read, that is the point. There is no irony here.

[@Banana_Split_Cream_Buns]

A guy named Adolf figured out that power is achieved through controlling discourse. That's not a particularly big revelation.

[@kida3168]

Good point. On the other hand, his theory of Universal Grammar is antithetical to postmodernism and very much grounds his philosophical outlook.

[@loliloloso]

Adolf learned a lot from American history, perhaps Gramci too. Public relation industrial actually started in US. It is not difficult for someone with Chomsky’s intellect to author a theoretical model。His criticism on Marxists, on the Cold War, knowledge and universities, on MIT itself are very interesting perhaps original.

[@garygoldman4603]

what is this intro footage?

[@flaviopaccagnella3918]

That's just the iteration of the old Socrates VS sophists debate

[@squatch545]

Notice how postmodernism is never defined in this video, nor are any actual postmodernists ever identified. That way, the narrator can sneer and hurl insults without fear of saying anything that can be fact checked.

[@shaynagaultier5617]

They showed more than one shot of Deleuze so.......

[@ss193857]

Facts? Who needs facts? Got it?

[@squatch545]

@@shaynagaultier5617 True, but Deleuze is never quoted or cited.

[@II-wk8kv]

Does he not define it at the start? Could you give me your definition?

[@mayormccheese6171]

If you're watching this video do you really need one? You should understand the basics going in.

[@CarlosElio82]

Alan Sokal exposed their academic BS in one of their leading journals. Postmodernists wallow in nonsense, with intense devotion.

[@marichristian1072]

Yes I believe Sokal et al wrote some post modern gobbledegook which was actually published in a mathematics journal.

[@CarlosElio82]

@@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.

[@sincerityissacred5101]

For an update, check this out the Pluckrose, Lindsay, Boghossian hoaxes.

[@gregowen2022]

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.

[@stephenpowstinger733]

Who is the white-haired blinking professor @6:20? He looks familiar.

[@Anti.Oedipus]

Jacques Derrida

[@Scapegrace74]

Aren't we past all that by now? Aren't we into the era of post-postmodernism? Edit: aka metamodernism.

[@peternyc]

@LoneDuck, how is metamodernism used? Does it have a central idea to put forth, or is it more of a tool, useful in analyzing?

[@Scapegrace74]

@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.

[@peternyc]

@@Scapegrace74 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.

[@MrUndersolo]

We seem to be post-everything right now (just cannot figure out what common ground we now stand on).

[@jonathanbailey1597]

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.

[@xenoblad]

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.

[@paissaa]

Hate the fact that there are no links to at least some of the original content! I want to see Chomskys video

[@educatingfool216]

When and where in the interview Chomsky said Postmodernism is this or that!?

[@donhussey3022]

A valuable lesson from all this is that we should assume a right to explanation in plain language. Foucault did this well, and we can have a conversation and agree or disagree. Derrida, on the other hand, was just unintelligible.

[@KravMagoo]

As I said elsewhere in these comments, Derrida identified a real, tangible phenomenon in Deconstruction that has descriptive power, but he didn't really understand it on the whole, because he viewed it through his own particular prism and set of values. It is not so easily tamed.

[@harshkumar2473]

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

[@subcitizen2012]

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...

[@LowestofheDead]

You're right, that's the real disagreement here

[@danx1216]

NO it is not complex it is deliberately contradictory to put one in a maze it is a ignorant silly childish game.. #Obviosu #Cult

[@harshkumar2473]

@@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

[@harshkumar2473]

@@subcitizen2012 yeah if common people under the pressure of political and capitalist regime can gain some insight from anything ... Then it is illicit ... Okay

[@marichristian1072]

For the first time, I agree with every word of Chomsky's critique.

[@kot0564]

Didn’t think it was possible to be left of Chomsky

[@stevemcdede8559]

I was mocked by other grad students because of my skepticism of postmodernism. I was labeled as a reactionary.

[@tangerinesarebetterthanora7060]

Post modernism is a reactionary movement.

[@Christobanistan]

No, you're just smart and they're not.

[@tzenophile]

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?

[@PierreLucSex]

Yeah sure lmao

[@addammadd]

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.

[@seanburke6521]

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.

[@castelodeossos3947]

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.

[@tedankhamenbonnah4848]

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.

[@seanburke6521]

@@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.

[@castelodeossos3947]

@@tedankhamenbonnah4848 When I hear the word cherry-picking I release the safety catch on my Browning.

[@pete3953]

You apparently didn't try very hard. For example just google Foucault and pedophilia.

[@philv2529]

Could you please record at a higher volume I can barely hear you

[@L14MA]

"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."

[@halfredp]

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.

[@ha5638]

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.

[@MemoTea]

In defence of Latour the essay Chomsky is referring to was more of an observation related to the original choice of words by the magazine Paris-Match in light of the discovery: "Our scholars help Ramesses II who fell ill 3,000 years after his death »

[@rafaelantoniorodrigues2390]

there´s no substantial critique of post-modernism in this video. Actually, it shows that the ones who did it don´t understand it at all. In the beginning, I was enthusiastic by the title of the video and was really interested to see an actual critique of post-modernism, but there´s none.

[@DEPARTMENTOFREDUNDANCYDEPT]

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.

[@Ejacunathan]

Can't wait to read it (:

[@tzenophile]

When you say postmodernism, what exactly are you referring to? What specific position? Who said exactly what? I bet you have no answer.

[@marymally8106]

Hmmm.... all religions are made up.

[@wildfood1]

Los que vendieron ropa nueva al emperador crearon el posmodernismo. Supongo que necesitaban un nuevo trabajo.

[@tzenophile]

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.

[@gardenladyjimenez1257]

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!

[@SvendBosanvovski]

Honest admittance.

[@johnlewis9158]

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.

[@andrewleyden2752]

This is very concise and fair.

[@rezamostafid8810]

You hit a of critical nerve-points...Thank You!

[@colej236]

This guy is criminally underrated. I hope the algorithm blesses your channel. I'm a newbie to your channel but I am absolutely eating up the chomsky content. Would love a succinct breakdown of chomsky and skinner's beef back in the 19th century 😂

[@klowen7778]

Actually, the 'criminal' part is Chomsky defending Pol Pot by pedantically arguing re: the 'over-reporting' of just how 'many' millions were murdered during the Pol Pot massacres.... ironically mostly made up of educated folks and other 'intellectuals just like him.

[@xiaonanw6374]

Criminal and retarded u mean

[@jessejordache1869]

"The Chomsky Reader" is a short omnibus of his writings (on Amazon it's even got an "explore now!" button that has his demolition job of Skinner. If you're looking for a back-and-forth, this is not that, but it at least gives you the reason there are no pure behaviorists anymore. The reason Noam Chomsky steps into a debate already carrying a body of work with him, and not someone who's gained their fame by making dullards in television opinion journalism look stupid, which is really shooting fish in a barrel [read: Jordan Peterson] is because of his work in linguistics, chiefly constructions of a universal grammar and arguments that grammar is an inherent part of the developing brain, as opposed to purely learned behavior. You learn to speak a language the same way you learn to see with binocular vision. This would inevitably bring him into conflict with B.F. Skinner, so you'd have to search pretty hard to actually see them beef with each other -- by the time Chomsky is a household name, B.F. Skinner has already lost.

[@9000ck]

There was beef in the 20th century. We currently live in the 21st century.

[@colej236]

@@9000ck tis true I may need to challenge you to a dual to restore my honor. Wasn't those in the 19th century 🤔

[@whynottalklikeapirat]

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.

[@wyntyrmute]

Chomsky talks like a robot that is falling asleep.

[@whynottalklikeapirat]

@@wyntyrmute when AI becomes too human for it’s own good …

[@whynottalklikeapirat]

@@wyntyrmute “Slurry Robot” is like an indie band name …

[@sincerityissacred5101]

Right. You sound like Trump criticizing the other politicians. Not entertaining enough.

[@whynottalklikeapirat]

@@sincerityissacred5101 You on the other hand - are quite the barrel of laughs 😏

[@williambaker3112]

Well, Peter Salmon, author of An Event, Perhaps (2020), would ask for specific examples of quotes from the works criticized...

[@andrebenoit283]

The power of correlationism cannot be understated.

[@skyolson3905]

Chomsky is spot-on in his analysis of power dynamics.

[@VioletDeliriums]

So was Foucault.

[@hoon_sol]

When Chomsky explicitly says he cringes when he reads something you know it's bad.

[@DJWESG1]

I first encountered it when i read ulrich becks risk society and then was introtuced to giddens arguments and theories on similar subjects. Not to dismis what either said, both indeed had their truths, but i was always suspect of the academic tennis match between the two in the midst of a general decline in the social sciences. Reflexive modernization (beck, lash giddens) Structuration (giddens) Risk society (beck and many others)

[@eottoe2001]

For a long time, I didn't think Postmodernism was all that relevant except in France or hoity-toity universities northeastern US, however, when I look at the tactics used to attack vaccines and science here in the US and around the world, you can see that it can have major ramifications like the US having 5 times the death rate by Covid compared to Australia, Japan, Norway, or Isreal. The evangelical movement focuses on the “personal” experience with "god" and not the theological or ethical relation to “god” in the past. The gun phrase "Gun don't kill, people kill" is exquisite post-modern because it divorces the object from the intention of the object. In the US we had 45.2K gun death in 2020.

[@SomethingToSee101]

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]

The postmodern is only a critique of the past, the metamodern is a way foward

[@SomethingToSee101]

@@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.

[@vernacularpunc]

@@SomethingToSee101 Yes and postmodern thought endlessly critiques itself hence a return to sincreity despite the irony is needed

[@CitizenAyellowblue]

Pharaoh still,died of TB

[@hm5142]

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.

[@TorMax9]

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.

[@patrickdunne153]

Human beings are part of nature and they can have a caring moral outlook

[@andsalomoni]

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".

[@AbdiHassan-jq2ln]

@@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?

[@user.abuser_]

Well, friend of mine is a physicist and a postmodernist at the same time

[@TeaParty1776]

The unfocused mind, whether rationalized by grammar split from reality or subjective power-seeking, is the basic method of self-destruction. As the basis of both, Kant, said, "I have denied knowledge therefore, in order to make room for faith." The focused mind, discussed by Ayn Rand, is the basic alternative.

[@olgaatman4677]

Absolutely truth!

[@missc2742]

Its always nice when smart ppl agree with you about something being dumm 😂

[@BigLeagueChew11]

It’s called confirmation-bias 😁

[@waitwhat3148]

Or corroboration.

[@Or_else_it_gets_the_hose_again]

​@@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?

[@fredaldridge9001]

@@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.

[@hereigoagain5050]

Surprisingly, post-M dominates the humanities at my university, especially in English Literature. Maybe not that surprising since fiction writers create their own reality.

[@valerianmandrake]

Why is it "surprising" to you though? Postmodernist thought dominates universities across the globe! I think some ideas can be useful, but when taken to the extreme ("EVERYTHING is a social construct, everything is a spectrum, morality is relative") -- which it is as the moment -- you get completely outrageous fabrications claiming to be "truth". The effect of this type of subjective thinking on politics is terrible, if you ask me. Having been raised by a psychotic and abusive parent whose "reality" was very different from everyone else's, I know that there is a shared consesual "objective reality" that most of us depend on, and just because something feels "real" for someone whose thinking is distorted, it does not mean I must accept their version of "truth" and allow myself to be gaslit into it.

[@hereigoagain5050]

@@valerianmandrake Because it rejects the principles of the Enlightenment: there exists an objective reality that we can discover through observation and experimentation. It relies on dogma and authoritarianism that ruled academia from 1000 to 1700: the "good old days" of executing heretics and witches.

[@crisoliveira2644]

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.

[@sssf55]

I wonder what Chomsky would have thought of Breadtubers (KZbinrs who spread postmodernist ideas and usually have a very left leaning audience). Interestingly enough, I suspect that a lot of these individuals are unaware of the goals of such a movement. They seem to treat it like a religion of some sort.

[@petebrag]

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.

[@vickygreenplate113]

Foucault has aged very well. These systems are very hard to see. He's right about power. More so with pervasive technology.

[@softwetbread248]

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.

[@MrUndersolo]

Excellent breakdown of the movement and how there really isn't much to it.

[@benh5003]

But so many people think there is some profundity to it.

[@MrUndersolo]

@@benh5003 And so many people think that there is something to the modern GOP. That does not mean that they are right.

[@benh5003]

@@MrUndersolo American conservatism? There is an ideology with some type of moral backing behind it. If you don't agree with the morality then that's fine but other people do. What does postmodernism have to offer? Deconstruct and critique everything without examining itself? How it that helpful?

[@jonathanbailey1597]

There never was a 'movement' in academia. That's some odd strawman thing that echoes from the departments of certain universities. There were 'postmodern' movements in art and architecture however; perhaps you are referring to those?

[@jonathanbailey1597]

​@@benh5003 But conservative values and moral codes get to go unexamined, and need give no account of themselves? 'Internal' critique is precisely that. It doesn't need to to give an alternative vision, that's not it's job. It takes the prevailing standards an value in a society and uses them as their own evaluative foil.

[@lokeshparihar7672]

which book he is talkking about at 3:00

[@udaykanungo4169]

Fashionable Nonsense

[@BenHammond]

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

[@PunishedFelix]

Thanks for the resource!

[@atticusosullivan9332]

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

[@tyronD9]

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"?

[@jamesabestos2800]

Blessed your Channel

[@jameshicks7125]

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.(!)