tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1178284085080580526.post6309696883178507943..comments2024-02-12T23:25:09.583-08:00Comments on Overweening Generalist: Unpacking "Common Sense" and My Chomsky Problemmichaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13526042582094867513noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1178284085080580526.post-61359312071410525842018-05-25T11:22:33.798-07:002018-05-25T11:22:33.798-07:00Perhaps I shouldn't comment on Chomsky Proble...Perhaps I shouldn't comment on Chomsky Problem Time. Yet another interesting blog.Eric Wagnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04312033917401203598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1178284085080580526.post-23136763698044526502017-07-10T19:07:22.089-07:002017-07-10T19:07:22.089-07:00"disembodied reason" -> Microtubules?..."disembodied reason" -> Microtubules?<br /><br />https://youtu.be/gBHss9g0pB0Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1178284085080580526.post-39786710430590782372011-06-13T02:28:35.529-07:002011-06-13T02:28:35.529-07:00A few "different" examples of critics of...A few "different" examples of critics of Chomsky. The first a UK "mainstream" journalist, the second "activists" somewhat sympathetic to Chomsky:<br /><br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2006/jun/18/politics<br /><br />http://www.thecommentfactory.com/criticising-chomsky-on-the-balkans-three-activists-speak-out-3043/Sue Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02042694919673009972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1178284085080580526.post-5694875176469369442011-06-13T02:05:59.821-07:002011-06-13T02:05:59.821-07:00I should probably explain my "position" ...I should probably explain my "position" as someone reading mostly UK media (<i>Guardian, Independent</i>) where there seems no shortage of "dissident" commentary (John Pilger, for instance, praised the antiwar stance of those newspapers over Iraq; a recent academic study found Channel 4 conforming largely to an "independent model" of reporting, etc).<br /><br />In this context I do see a few critics of Chomsky who might have a valid point when they accuse Chomsky of simple-mindedness (or similar) on certain issues. But they probably come from a different direction than Robinson (whom you likely have a better handle on than myself - I know nothing about him).<br /><br />"Simple-minded" does sound harsh, I agree, particularly when applied to someone of Chomsky's intellect. Perhaps it seems harsher in the US media context, with more at stake?<br /><br />Maybe "simple-minded" in <i>some</i> relatively minor (but strangely crucial) respects when put up alongside, say, Lakoff's takes, or Foucault's, even, on these political matters. This probably goes back to the fitting together of the linguistics/philosophy with the politics. The true "nature" of capitalism in Chomsky's view, etc...Sue Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02042694919673009972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1178284085080580526.post-45001098559827225192011-06-12T14:10:20.508-07:002011-06-12T14:10:20.508-07:00Great to see you here, Ms. Howard.
I'm not ou...Great to see you here, Ms. Howard.<br /><br />I'm not out to get Robinson on a demon list; I will check out more of his writing though. I assume (making an "ass" out of...oh nevermind...) he is another intellectual who has so internalized the status quo among official intellectuals that the US, while some mistakes are made, is really trying to spread democracy and to open up free markets eveywhere so the world will be a better place for all, etc. <br /><br />But maybe there's something nuanced to his political views; I don't know. <br /><br />Maybe I have drank too much of Chomsky, but I can't see any of his critical writing about political matters as "maddeningly simple minded." In fact, he's one of the few who seem NOT "maddeningly simple-minded." (MSM) Look at someone like Thomas Friedman for MSM, in my book, and there are SCADS more where he came from.michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13526042582094867513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1178284085080580526.post-24812787990591352832011-06-12T08:52:11.575-07:002011-06-12T08:52:11.575-07:00"I think, folks, we get a clue about Paul Rob...<i>"I think, folks, we get a clue about Paul Robinson there"</i><br /><br />Not knowing anything else about Robinson, the main clue I have comes from his use of the word "often" in his criticism of Chomsky: "an equally substantial body of political writings, accessible to any literate person but often maddeningly simple-minded."<br /><br />For some acolytes of Chomsky that would tell them "all they need to know" about Robinson. But I'd need a bit more evidence before I put him on the demon list.<br /><br />Anyway, I look forward to your future post on the fitting together of the linguistics and politics. Here's a provocative line from Lakoff & Johnson <i>(Philosophy in the Flesh)</i>:<br /><br /><i>"The empirical findings of second-generation cognitive science are at odds with Chomsky's philosophical worldview on virtually every point"</i> (p494)Sue Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02042694919673009972noreply@blogger.com