Are there any great thinkers alive today? Chomsky seems like a figure most people agree on...

Chomsky is a tremendous goof

I honestly don't get why most people hate/love Peterson desu. The only thing people seem to know about him is his recent stance on transgender pronouns, but he's addressed himself on much more serious topics, on which he makes a lot of sense. Considering his stance on religion, I'm actually pretty surprised most right-wingers like him.
youtube.com/watch?v=MLp7vWB0TeY

how so?

the thing that turned him off me is his cultural marxism thing. he just spouts /pol/-tier generalisms how the people protesting against him are cultural marxists, when it's clear that both they and him have never really delved into Marx and Dialectics.

he's probably more experienced in the work of archetypes I would wage.

Why would you not take he's psychological lectures serious?

Because we're obviously talking about philosophy and politics commentaries here.
That said he didn't get famous cause of his philosophy. We both know well that the only reason we're talking about him is because he opposed preferred pronouns and debated a few times with Scam harrtist. That's a pathetic qualification, considering that we're trying to find here a new, worthy public intellectual.

I don't recall him using that term against people who criticize him specifically. I'd say he meant that they're not cultural marxists themselves but the product of the influence of cultural marxism on western society. I think it's a dumb umbrella term personally but I wouldn't discount all of his beliefs based on his justified exasperation against politically correct liberals.

I personally knew about him before the whole pronoun scandal, I wouldn't let it alienate you from listening to his lectures, which are definitely worthwhile on their own imo.

>I personally knew about him before the whole pronoun scandal, I wouldn't let it alienate you from listening to his lectures, which are definitely worthwhile on their own imo.

I'm not bashing him for his psycological works, of course. I don't see why I should do so, nor I have the knowledge to even attempt such a slander.

Yet I feel that he can be critizised with his (unoriginal) philosophical propaganda. I don't see why, for example, should we talk about him here on Veeky Forums.

how is his work propaganda in any way?

It is propaganda in the sense that he's proposing it without ever really asserting (not publicly, at least) the foundations of any of his statements.

His arguments are weak in the sense that you can simply say ''I disagree'' and he would not have the foundations to actually change your mind. Either you already think what he's saying or you simply won't even care about what he has to offer, at least on his philosophical side.

Besides Chomsky all you've listed are pseudo intellectuals even zizek. I also have a strong suspicion that you're a muslim arab and haven't been exposed to as much philosophy and literature as a majority of this board. I suggest you diversify your viewpoints and think more critically.

Have we all forgotten when Sam Harris BTFO'd Chomsky?

you can disagree with anything, no one is forcing you to be convinced by any statement or "proof".

We haven't forgotten, but that's clearly not what happened.

>"Greatness"

he got humiliated but as usual climbed on his podcast soapbox to attack his opponent as being "mean spirited" and tried to show that despite what obviously happened he was somehow right.

But intentions do matter.

Noam Chomsky is a professor emeritus of linguistics and philosophy at MIT. In his early career he garnered fame for instigating a major paradigm shift in linguistics and cognitive science. Later in his career, he became interested in various theories of quartz crystals and other occult and esoteric fields of study. In 1974, Chomsky was introduced to quartz crystals and spent the rest of the 1970s investigating their tendency to also act as a vessel for storing, magnifying, and converting mental energies. Chomsky claimed to be able to duplicate the "Backster effect" (the idea that plants "feel pain" and have extrasensory perception (ESP), which was widely reported in the media but was rejected by the scientific community) using plants as transducers for bio-energetic fields from the human mind, showing that they respond to human thought. He claimed his findings had the same effect irrespective of distance and suggested that "inverse square law does not apply to thought." According to Chomsky, he had scientifically proven the existence of a compound that he described as a form of energy in the body that was the physical manifestation of the libido, building up in the body until it was successfully discharged through an orgasm.

I know that this is bait but
>visit r/harris
>tfw everyone there actually think that Chomsky got BTFO'd in that debate

That's when I understood that it was a cult. There's no way you can be so detatched from reality. literally nothing in that debate can indicate a Chomsky defeat. They're that blind.

Why is Chomsky considered great?
He has contributed to sciencve very early in his career and apart from that he has had political infoucen on the fringe.
I agree with him on many things, but I don't think what he says is mindblowing. When I listen to him I usually notice he rambles half of the times (often does not get to the point or even loses it), He often talks like he is reading from a histroy book (event by event), he is very one sided (very black and white) and is very western centric in his thinking (history and thought is created by the west).
Any thoughts?

um, what?

His contributions in political studies are usually underrated, but in many subjects in university you will start with his books.

>When I listen to him I usually notice he rambles half of the times
To be fair he's actually one of the clearest public intellectuals out there. When you read him in context is actually hard to misinterpret his words, and there's very little jargon in his speeches. If anything he's nauseatingly empirical and factual. He reads all day long and memorizes an astounding quantity of facts, proceeding then to actally logically link them in ways that prevent any sort of easy debunking. He's solid.
Can you make an example of his rambling? Maybe post an article or a video.

>he is very one sided
Can you make an example?

His work has defined the field of linguistics for his whole career. Even as recently as 2015 he's still publishing definitive stuff.

...

Most people can tell you what's wrong, but only intelligent people have any practical, minimalistic solutions.

Unfortunately I don't have a concrete example but will nake note of it next time. But it is in relation to what you mentionof him connecting facts (I agree he is very easy to follow and clear in his words).
The problem I have with it is that there is no coherence. Which is normal as normal life and history is inherently incoherent.
But what I expect of an intellectual (one is often referred to as #1 public intellectual) is to make sense of the nonsense and he is not one to do that.
Or to put it in other words; he does not have a philosophy, a way to make meaning out of the randomness, to me he does not even seem to have a coherent idea of what politics should look like (I have not read his books) aside
some leftist clichés like working class are slaves to the few rich and powerful.

The black and white and western thinking I mostly mean his solipsistic criticism of the USA. I get you are mostly critical of your own country. But he seldom if ever states his intentions (so you don't know where his sympathies lie). When you accuse one country of empirialism, colonialism, slavery, racism, exploition etc he always emphasizes the eveil done by one country ahile th other country is a blank slate, devoid of agency and its own demons.
And this is what most people take out of it I fear. One side is evil and has all the power while the other is a victim, blameless and powerless.

When I listen to lectures or words I get a bit paranoid. It seems destructive. Even nihilistic.
But I agree some of his stuff is good and useful

Judith Butler

...

Veeky Forums: The Post

>Or to put it in other words; he does not have a philosophy, a way to make meaning out of the randomness, to me he does not even seem to have a coherent idea of what politics should look like

He is advocates personally for anarcho-syndacalism, but at the same time he knows that for an opinion, to be reasonable, has to be unbiased. He never talks about events in the world from a Marxist point of view, instead simply states those facts that show the pitfalls of the system, indipendently from your original opinion.

When Chomsky states the fact about, for example, the Vietnam war, what he thinks is that showing evident signs of violent imperialism will be enough to show the public what US is really about.

>But he seldom if ever states his intentions (so you don't know where his sympathies lie).
I don't want to assume anything about you, but are you thinking about his debate with Sam Harris? Because that's bullshit.
He has written numerous books not only on those facts, but also on the intentions on those facts.
Personally Chomsky doesn't ever accuse anyone personally, evil is not a word that he will ever use to individuate politicians. Instead he will simply show you why what they did is wrong, and what their original assumptions are.
To say that Chomsky doesn't care about intentions is laughable (but I won't blame you, you've already admitted that you haven't read his books, at least you've been honest on this). He has written lots of books on exactly this subject. The problem was that Sam Harris hasn't read any of those, and based his whole debate on a collection of Chomsky's short essays about 9/11 and a single video on the internet.

>When you accuse one country of empirialism, colonialism, slavery, racism, exploition etc he always emphasizes the eveil done by one country ahile th other country is a blank slate, devoid of agency and its own demons.

Again, not true. If you read his books or listen to his longer lectures you'll find out that he has a pretty clear idea of what was happening.
It usually doesn't happen, but Chomsky literally read anything relevant there is on the subject before writing anything. If you don't trust me pick any of his books and then read the sources at the end. They're always monumental.
He's an historian first, a critic second. Books like the Fateful Triangle are cornerstones of entire political study fields.

>One side is evil and has all the power while the other is a victim, blameless and powerless.
But in most of the crimes denounced by Chomsky this was exactly the case. I mean, looking back at the Vietnam War one may ask himself why didn't the entire population revolt at such an unjust war (why they didn't is clearly explained in his books on propaganda, wich, again, are not just random pop-sociology but actual academical works that are still studied thoroughly to this day).
Chomsky is probably one of the most unbiased intellectuals out there, not even academia ever corrupted him.

>saying milo non ironically
top kek, my dude
step it up your game

>Peterson is a meme, no philosopher take him seriously and his stances have been stated and examined countless times by smarter people.
How is this different than Chomsky, exactly?

chomsky has actually contributed prolifically to his field, where he is taken seriously.

Chomsky is actually studied in a plethora of academic fields (both in Linguistics and political studies, I'm also sure that there are tons of branches of philosophy in wich his books are required readings), Peterson just teach some classes.

This. Chomsky is an academic. Jordan Peterson is a teacher.

i'm going to say no here
meillassoux is good, but not great, though

>molyneux

Reasonably spicy, I laughed.

It was a joke, right.

Right?

Meta irony is the only thing worse than stale memes

get the fuck out redditor

>Are there any great thinkers alive today?
me

More like Judith Cuckler

Universal Grammar is a meme that is not taken seriously.

Putnam isn't alive

it was a pretty big deal when he first published about it

...

That post was bait or a joke and you're stupid.

Holy fuck stop promoting people who happen to have a fuck ton of YouTube videos available and actually engage with academia if you're seriously looking for "great thinkers." Saul fucking Kripke is still alive for Christ's sake, and for you meme lords who can't stomach having an autist as a messiah (ironically, of course), there's BTFO's public inty's like Cornel West still bringing that Black Prophetic Fire to local C-SPAN interviews near you which, let's be real here, provides more substance than half the names mentioned on here.

What original ideas has Milo come up with?

>Is Peterson a legitimate thinker or just a meme?
Not even Chomsky-tier, and that says something
>Americas
>Philosophy
Hahahahahahaha

>Milo
>ideas

my diary is the only seriously indispensable modern work, desu

cognitive dissonance

Calling Trump "Daddy"

lol

In 1998, Denis Dutton's journal Philosophy and Literature awarded Butler first prize in its fourth annual "Bad Writing Competition," which set out to "celebrate bad writing from the most stylistically lamentable passages found in scholarly books and articles." Her unwitting entry, which ran in a 1997 issue of the scholarly journal Diacritics, ran thusly:

“The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.”

>Jorge Mario Bergoglio

>pope
>thinker

Pick one please

>Subcomandante Marcos
loooooooooooool

your list missed el chapo too, fuckface.

This is not true at all. Even Chomsky's most adamant detractors accept Universal Grammar as a veritable tautology. See for example "The Structure of Unscientific Revolutions," an extreme critique of Chomsky's "Minimalist Program."

long live putnam

...

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pilger
Not a philosopher but.....

...

Chomsky talks like he's faring out of his face. I can't take him seriously.

> These are all memes and frauds.
Nod an arugmen :DDD

Thomas Picketty, Habermas, Chomsky maybe Naomi Klein.

Neoliberalism has eroded the authority of, and respect for, the public intellectual.

Thanks for the reply.
I'm not referring to the Harris debate concerning intentions. Although after living in a cocoon for a while I'm trying to turn a bit to politics again and Harris' podcast is a good stepping stone, but by no means do I consider Harris the endgame. He does come across a a scrupulous, modest thinker with integrity but his scope is limited.

I don't really believe in good intentions myself. Most people, like me, know him from his public appearances, not his books. The problem I have with these is that Chomsky's emphasis on the West being the bad guy hence polarising the public and Westerners turning in on themselves and forgetting the big picture. Something which is happening enough already because of postmodernism, post colonialism, second world war, etc.

You describe him as an important political thinker. What book would you recommend me as an in introduction to his overall thinking/philosophy/political theory?

>He often talks like he is reading from a histroy book (event by event)
because he is explaining how things moved from a to b to c
>he is very one sided (very black and white)
You're right, we need a nuanced consideration of the good intentions of murder and destruction
>and is very western centric in his thinking (history and thought is created by the west).
He is focused on what his country has done first and foremost

>chomsky
>original
Pick one. He is overrated and talks far too slowly to be taken seriously

...

But he didn't
Chomsky destroyed him
>Now lets discuss Sudan seriously....
>N-no, Chomsky, Bad! We have to discuss this perfectly constructed what-if scenario I have designed to prove me thesis that if you have good intentions then negative consequences are okay. No bully, pls.

he continues to influence sciences

Why are you so upset? He is an incoherent, rambling old kook.

Name a contribution of his from the last 5 years

>Unfortunately I don't have a concrete example
so, its just feels?
>The problem I have with it is that there is no coherence. Which is normal as normal life and history is inherently incoherent.
What?
>But what I expect of an intellectual (one is often referred to as #1 public intellectual) is to make sense of the nonsense and he is not one to do that.
You have agreed it talks clearly and plainly, so why dont you give it a go too?
>The black and white and western thinking I mostly mean his solipsistic criticism of the USA
He is a citizen of the USA and his duty is to the USA
Further we are not talking about Micronesia. America wields enormous power over the world and uses it to benefit an elite few and visit misery upon many to do so.
>But he seldom if ever states his intentions (so you don't know where his sympathies lie).
Opposition to violence, to interventions. Support for victims.
This empty complaining.
>When you accuse one country of empirialism, colonialism, slavery, racism, exploition etc he always emphasizes the eveil done by one country ahile th other country is a blank slate, devoid of agency and its own demons.
Because what that country does is not his focus
What we see is the tried and true nationalist reaction to criticism to furiously cry "what about that country" desperately trying to deflect attention from their own crimes, they will even convince themselves of the righteousness of their hypocrisy and shed real tears for the victims - while minimizing their own.

>to me he does not even seem to have a coherent idea of what politics should look like (I have not read his books)
Well you answered that one dickhead

We could talk about his book on lit

a lot of advances in Neurobiology are drawing directly upon his work, and he has been cowriting papers with the leaders in the field

Habermas

triggerered

>because he is explaining how things moved from a to b to c
We're talking in circles here. What are you trying to say.
>You're right, we need a nuanced consideration of the good intentions of murder and destruction
I did not use the argument 'good intentions', don't assume I did. I used the word intentions in connection to Chomsky's motives, not the USA.
>and is very western centric in his thinking (history and thought is created by the west).
Exactly. That's why I call him USA centric and therefore he has a limited scope, or in other words is creating a black and white canvas of perpetrators and victims.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very interested how he makes USA power politics transparant. I'm concerned it is one dimensional. It's like clickbait. Who cares about the power play of the United arabian Emirates or Luxemburg?

>and is very western centric in his thinking (history and thought is created by the west).
was meant to be
>He is focused on what his country has done first and foremost

>Trump
I voted for the guy and even I know he doesn't think. He's a doer not a thinker.

if you don't wnt to reply seriously to my post please don't reply at all

>Why is Chomsky considered great?
Because he was a jew and the common consensus on who is great and who is not is shaped by those who control the media and forms of communication, which are all coincidentally jews.

It's almost as though oy vey jews control the world!

>Exactly. That's why I call him USA centric and therefore he has a limited scope, or in other words is creating a black and white canvas of perpetrators and victims.
If you are only looking at what you responsible for, you have a limited scope.
If you only looking at what your country has done, you are creating a black and white canvas of perpetrators and victims

T. Statist Apologist

Go home Sam

Cite Chomsky appearing in the popular mainstream press you fool
The man is kept well away from it except the occasional lying vilification

>Cite Chomsky appearing in the popular mainstream press you fool
wikipedia

or should I say kikepedia

They create a popular image for him by making him appear disliked by the "mainstream" and then popularize him using other jewish owned publications and websites.

Yes, Moldbug

>It's almost as though

nice. it was definitely the media that chose to put everyone on to Chomsky that makes sense.

Most Jews today in the media are on the far-right, if you watch Fox/CNN/MSNBC you see guys like Alan Dershowitz instead of people like Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein
Since the 60s mainstream Jewish groups in America have been becoming more radicalised and try to shutdown anyone who they consider anti-Israel

he's more of a grabber

In 2013 and 2015 he published two very important and influential papers in linguistics called Problems of Projection. These papers make proposals for a simplification of syntactic theory using the labelling algorithm in structure-building.

In 2015 he published a controversial book about the evolution of language, defending a lewontonian stance.

Other than that, he's published things which are slight modifications or clarifications of past proposals of his.