You could email Chomsky your question, and please let me know if he replies.
Apparently Chomsky is critical of continental philosophy.
What you’re referring to is what’s called “theory.” And when I said I’m not interested in theory, what I meant is, I’m not interested in posturing–using fancy terms like polysyllables and pretending you have a theory when you have no theory whatsoever. So there’s no theory in any of this stuff, not in the sense of theory that anyone is familiar with in the sciences or any other serious field. Try to find in all of the work you mentioned some principles from which you can deduce conclusions, empirically testable propositions where it all goes beyond the level of something you can explain in five minutes to a twelve-year-old. See if you can find that when the fancy words are decoded. I can’t. So I’m not interested in that kind of posturing. Žižek is an extreme example of it. I don’t see anything to what he’s saying. Jacques Lacan I actually knew. I kind of liked him. We had meetings every once in awhile. But quite frankly I thought he was a total charlatan. He was just posturing for the television cameras in the way many Paris intellectuals do. Why this is influential, I haven’t the slightest idea. I don’t see anything there that should be influential.
It's true that critical theory uses the term in a completely different way than the way that Chomsky does--theory in humanities is much closer to "critical perspective or methodology." The problem that Chomsky has never been able to adequately address though is that just because something is nonfalsifiable doesn't mean it's not true.
In Chomsky's debate with Foucault Chomsky was completely manhandled and out of sorts and eventually started talking about how at some point his own politics believed in Platonic ideals of truth. Foucault clearly came out on top as the more systematic and rigorous thinker, and Chomsky for his part hasn't engaged with critical theory since.
Lol, well who knows. Maybe they are actually objecting to my definition of critical theory not referring exclusively to the Frankfurt School, or they are objecting on the grounds that Marxist theory is grounded in an objective analysis of natural history? 😉
I think on the whole critical theorists actually like Chomsky quite a bit more than he likes them.
You could email Chomsky your question, and please let me know if he replies.
Apparently Chomsky is critical of continental philosophy.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/5f0yhc/whats_up_with_chomsky_vs_zizek/
It's true that critical theory uses the term in a completely different way than the way that Chomsky does--theory in humanities is much closer to "critical perspective or methodology." The problem that Chomsky has never been able to adequately address though is that just because something is nonfalsifiable doesn't mean it's not true.
In Chomsky's debate with Foucault Chomsky was completely manhandled and out of sorts and eventually started talking about how at some point his own politics believed in Platonic ideals of truth. Foucault clearly came out on top as the more systematic and rigorous thinker, and Chomsky for his part hasn't engaged with critical theory since.
deleted by creator
Lol, well who knows. Maybe they are actually objecting to my definition of critical theory not referring exclusively to the Frankfurt School, or they are objecting on the grounds that Marxist theory is grounded in an objective analysis of natural history? 😉
I think on the whole critical theorists actually like Chomsky quite a bit more than he likes them.
deleted by creator
sonic is faster, thats the whole point of his character
Superman went so fast that he changed the spin of the earth to rewind time and unkill Lois. Sonic never did something like that.