The futility of non-stem intellectualism summarised

Zizek: Speaks multiple languages fluently, extremely familiar with huge amounts of works of art and their analysis, dove head first in to philosophy at a young age and has been a philosophical researcher for many decades, charismatic and funny, strong level of historical and political knowledge, embraces both high and low culture

Chomsky: Probably every STEMfag would admit he has a first rate analytical mind that they would consider extremely intelligent. Extremely good memory. Innovative linguist. Been researching political and societal issues for decades.

You'd have to be a major troll to think they're not highly intelligent. Now let's see the ENTIRE result of their LIFE'S WORK in Humanities / Philosophy / Social Sciences (ignoring chomsky's linguistics stuff).

Zizek: Hegelian and Lacanian BS that sounds so le deep, overdefined bullshitty unfalsifiable politics / society related nonsense.

Chomsky: "This country you think is good has done bad stuff. These countries you barely hear about have had bad stuff happen in them"

Why THE FUCK do people think that non-trivial insights can be gained outside of STEM? It's UN FUCKING BELIEVABLE to think that this could happen. It has NEVER happened.

Other urls found in this thread:

city-journal.org/html/clown-prince-revolution-14632.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

i dont know about zizek, but chomsky is the most cited living scientist.

Oh, he got a lot of retweets? Im so impressed now

you literally have no clue what you are talking about.

>Chomsky
>first rate analytical mind

If he had such a great analytic mind, how come he was friends with Chavez?

bad troll

You can't judge Zizeks On the Sublime Subject of Ideology just like most people can't read a book on quantum field theory.
t. theoretical physics PhD who tried reading Zizek
I'm gonna assume you're judging him by his public discourse in the last decade - philosophy is also developing and is discussing stuff you don't even know the base of. Just like as a physicists I do renormalization theory and really explain its point to an outsider.
My point is that
>let's see the ENTIRE result of their LIFE'S WORK
is not something you can perform.

Why do scifags always feel the need to weigh in about subjects they have zero knowledge about?

Motivation is a large component of it. They are intelligent, but their ideas are never put into practice or tested, they can ignore criticism or muddle it with sophistry. Their goal is to not to ascertain the truth or solve problems, it is to look good in front of others or sate some emotional need of theirs. That is what their intelligence is plied to and they do a good job of it.

Being intelligent doesn't mean shit when it comes to spouting opinions. Chomsky scorned testimony of the Cambodian genocide, he's biased to his last bone and none of his opinions on anything other than linguistic should be taken seriously.

authors like Zizek, Derrida and Deleuze purposefully make their work obscure and "deep" so that they cannot be judged. They are frauds.

city-journal.org/html/clown-prince-revolution-14632.html

>make their work obscure so they cannot be judged
No, they don't. You also have no right to judge their work if you're not aware of why they're manipulating language in such a way.

Scruton is seen as a complete joke anywhere outside the US / UK.

Why is he biased? He doesn't make much money off it.

Wow jajajaja so funny jajajaja

Sorry timmy, just because you're too stupid to understand them doesn't mean it's wrong. You sound like a /pol/cuck who calls modern physics a jewish invention.

Nevermind. You guys did a great job of convincing me. You're all so well-spoken and thoughtful.

>actually claiming Derrida wasn't obscurantist

People aren't rational, and that includes being rationally selfish.

it's not wrong or right, it's nonsense. The fact that every continental author has to create their own unique vocabulary and literary universe, distancing from their influences, is proof enough that they're trying to be obscure instead of actually building knowledge collectively like actual scientists do. It also shows they're very narcissistic.

user, it's just the superiority of analytic philosophy over the rest of it.

>The fact that every continental author has to create their own unique vocabulary and literary universe, distancing from their influences, is proof enough that they're trying to be obscure instead of actually building knowledge collectively like actual scientists do.
Literally fucking what? There's debates and criticisms all the time among different philosophers on their analysis. Again just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's wrong. I laugh at how you're trying to call science somehow objective, yet if I picked up a research paper on fluid mechanics I'd have no idea what the fuck is going on. Of course according to your logic, fluid mechanics would also be bullshit.
> It also shows they're very narcissistic.
I don't even know how you can derive such a conclusion.

Only the dumb STEMfags dismiss intellectuals from outside STEM. Anyone with half a brain can understand that you can be smart and not interested in STEM.

just keep on wasting your life trying to understand ill-defined concepts and masked inferences pretending it's knowledge. You'll feel better by choosing to believe all science is subjective anyways, meaning zizek's theories are just as valid as fluid mechanics, so that's what you'll do.

This has to be bait.

Seriously. Do you actually think scientific findings are any less trivial? Be honest.

>Newton: "woooah dude, like, what if forces governed motion???"

>Einstein: "everything's relative! now look at me make a funny face! XD"

>Euclid: "If a line segment intersects two straight lines forming two interior angles on the same side that sum to less than two right angles, then the two lines, if extended indefinitely, meet on that side on which the angles sum to less than two right angles."

>Chomsky: "This country you think is good has done bad stuff. These countries you barely hear about have had bad stuff happen in them"
have you even read "manufacturing consent"?
I would say chomsky's political analyses are as close to hard science as political analyses can be

>Zizek
he's a meme, and needs to stay on Veeky Forums
as should all philosophy.

philosophy isnt falsifiable and therefore has no place on a science board

> t. Non-STEM fag

Lemme just ftfy
>Newton: "woooah dude, like, what if forces governed changes in motion???"
A philosopher came up with the one you said and was proven wrong holding back physics for centuries.

Also Gallileo invented relativity, Einstein just found that changes in time can be converted to changes in space and vice versa.

>just keep on wasting your life trying to understand ill-defined concepts and masked inferences pretending it's knowledge. You'll feel better by choosing to believe all science is subjective anyways, meaning zizek's theories are just as valid as fluid mechanics, so that's what you'll do.
You're literally retarded, I'm not going to waste anymore breath on you.

Thanks for posting - I actually read the whole thing (it's too long).
I agree with the article (as far as I understand it), that Zizek leads nowhere. Even if I have my own vision (or rather vision of how the world should not be) and don't intent working towards what a Zizek likes, I can still ponder about his ways of thinking and take something away from it. So there, despite the points in the article. I see validation for Zizeks writings.
Moreover, I don't even agree with the mindset of many other physicists or engineers around me: the advancing technology is something inherently good. Thus I don't find it very problematic even if the contribution of such philosophy guys may (according to some norm) be low. All contribution is questionable, e.g. advancing the human life span.

bumpy

That's partially because of how easy it is to publish within linguistics,,,,,,,
(and how easy it is to not have any original ideas in linguistics)

Again, plz back to /pol/

Chomsky's linguistic work is extremely influential on theoretical computing. My Automata/formal language course featured a lot of Chomsky's ideas

Chomsky is amazing. Go die in a fire OP, or, alternatively, do something half as great as Chomsky and your life will be worth it.

I think the more you do science and actually work in the academia the more you should realize 1, how much you don't know and aren't fit to generalize and judge; 2, that science and academic pursuits have inherent value not related to any "real world impact".
I don't know much about Zizek but Chomsky has widely attributed academic contributions and he basically transitioned to a public intellectual and a political voice later in life. It's stupid to conflate the two sides of him.

It's easy to publish in linguistics? You want to share some papers you easily published?

some intellectuals are actually pretty smart tho. like this dude, who dislikes intellectuals

>Why THE FUCK do people think that non-trivial insights can be gained outside of STEM
when Chomsky was a young man americans were just a step below worshipping the state and the presidential figure. not the ideals upon which the country was based, but the the government. he simply exposed the nasty stuff the US had to do to keep the red menace at bay (like the collusion between the media and the establishment which most people imagined existed in one way or another but never thought much about). I think he went to far when he became a fanatic of socialism and constructed this caricature of the ruling elite as all-seeing, all-controlling masters of the world, to the point where he is now no longer a vanguard of rational, educated thought (but he should still be respected for his previous contributions)
this insights are not trivial to the people they were originally directed to (average citizen, not college liberal) because as much as science has led us to prosperity and progress scientists can better flourish in a free, educated society

>isnt falsifiable

Why is this relevant?

Neither is math, they're both a priori knowledge.

By that logic most scientists are inferior to carpenters, mechanics, and plumbers.

Go take your non-STEM regrets somewhere else

Why is there are there so many fucking superiority complexes on this board, holy shit.

>You don't study what I study therefore you're stupid
Jesus, fuck off with this shit.

His works on linguistics was very influential (even though it's now outdated) and also extensively used by computer scientists in programming language theory.

>Probably every STEMfag would admit he has a first rate analytical mind
lol? no. his entire life's work has already been btfo before he even died.

>shit talking zizek
ummm back the fuck off??

It is not outdated. If not a true majority, at least a large plurality/near majority of linguists work in the most recent version of Chomsky's paradigm, the Minimalist Program. His last linguistics publication, Problems of Projection, in 2013 and 2015 was extremely influential.

>This country you think is good has done bad stuff. These countries you barely hear about have had bad stuff happen in them

And you are too autistic to care? I would argue humanity has developed too far in STEM fields compared to it's development of social systems. The threat of nuclear war and ability to influence climate make us children playing with matches. Chomsky is absolutely right to put his interest in politics, human rights and survival of humankind.

As for Zizek - he sometimes has something interesting to say, but usually just argues for the sake of arguing. Even Chomsky said Zizek is empty.

Is Biology considered the niggers of STEM?

kek