I'm seeing this guy being described as an intellectual everywhere all of a sudden. Is he worth reading?

I'm seeing this guy being described as an intellectual everywhere all of a sudden. Is he worth reading?

He is literally the most infleuntial intellectual of the last century (he is the most cited author of the XX century when it comes to academic journals and books) and some lf his books have been required readings in certain fields for decades bow.
What do you think?

way too mainstream op

>all of a sudden
maybe you just have been dormant, harnessing some ultimate saiyan power

Can you provide his name for people who suffer facial recognition problems?

Noam Chomsky
also check this out

Noam Chomsky

A guy whose whole linguistic and political theory has been disproven and cast in the shadows everywhere except in the US...

Explain

Linguistically he's every bit as influential as ever.

Regarding his political work he's always been a controversial figure.

> persee.fr/doc/lgge_0458-726x_1994_num_28_114_1675

Look up Silvain Auroux

> "Chomsky a cru écrire un nouveau chapitre de la philosophie rationaliste. [...] Descartes notait que 'la raison est un instrument universel qui peut servir en toutes sortes de rencontres.' Selon Chomsky, il en va de même de la compétence linguistique."

Chomsky thought he had written a new chapter of the rationalist philosophy. [...] Descartes pointed that 'reason is a universal instrument that can be used in multiples purposes'. In Chomsky's opinion, it is the same for linguistics.

> "D'une certaine façon, la réduction des règles grammaticales à des algorithmes confirme l'intuition des classiques concernant l'importance de l'arithmétique dans les activités rationnelles. Toutefois, c'est jouer sur les mots que de parler d'invention ou de création. [...] Mettez un ordinateur dans une cave, programmez-le pour construire la suite infinie des entiers, revenez dans mille milliards d'années, il n'aura toujours pas produit un nombre irrationnel."

In some sense, reducing grammatical rules to algorithms confirms the Classics' intuition with regards to the importance of arithmetic in rational activities. It’s a wordplay, however, that is to talk about invention or creation. […] Put a computer in a cave. Program it so as to construct an infinite sequence of integers. When you come back after a thousand billion years, it will not have produced an irrational number.

Chomsky has always faced a strongly skeptical French academia that rejects his rather universalist and natural theories about linguistics. Saying that he’s every bit as influential as ever is proof of your Anglo-Saxon-centric academic baggade.

>Non anglosphere academia
>Mattering

Pick one

> French central role in social science
> Your opinion

Pick one, pleb.

I'll pick my opinion thanks

Chomsky comes from a more pragmatic school of thought (hell, Russell is one of his idola to this day) and has always had no patience with certain brands of continental philosophy? Os he wrong in this? No, it's just a different approach (which is much more common in Anglo speaking countries) and should not be criticized in itself (although its results can and have to be evaluated and analyzed critically).

Chomsky's bet is a certain faith in certain strains of rationalism and philosophical common sense: he puts it as its foundation and start his work from there (and anyone who has read his epistemological works may know that he has pjt lots of rigorous and structured thought into this very first choice).

Are you referring to the fact that some of his theories in generative linguistics would require, to be proved, very unethical experiments? Because most of his theories do not need said experiments, only certain statements on human nature and the inherent humanity of language (which are not the foundation for his much more complex systems of generative grammar, whoch are still used and studied to this day). Also he has never dropped the files, and in fact he is still very active: his last major paper was published in 2015.
He is still respected as a linguist, in fact he is a key figure of the field: at best you can say that his first major works are a bit too vague dor the current standard, but this is natural, considering that they were just the starting point for academia, and that since then these theories have been refined and subjected to ulterior sophistication by a very active academic community.

He may be controversial, but some of his works are still required reading in polsci-related fields, and have been so for decades. People tend to underrate his competence in these fields, and I honestly don't know why. Their sources are enciclopedic, they're read and discussed costantly by academics, and generally speaking there have been very few blunders and "mistakes" in Chomsky's career: most of what he said turned out to be perfectly true and accurate.
My speculation is that this stems from the fact that he is surprisingly apolitical in his works: everyone knows that he is an anarcho-syndacalist, but this virtually never emerges from what he writes, unless his political leanings are its actual subject. Imho this happens because he has no delusion in seeing such a society forming in his lifetime and in this century: I've heard him recently saying exactly this, can't remember where, though.

There are zero arguments in the excerpts you posted. What is that guy even trying to say?

Sure, just be sure to stay away from his deluded politics though.

his political writing is dogshit but his linguistic work is passable, although obsolete now.

ultimately he's a non-entity to true academics and intellectuals and more of a cheerleader for undergrads who collect howard zinn books and hate america.

Essential reading for America-haters

Among ALL living academics he is literally the most quoted by academics in academic journals. Not only he is relevant: he has been THE most relevant academic of the last 50 years.

>/pol/tards on suicide watch

Wish he would take the redpill and start fighting for the white race

>most quoted
quoting someone in a paper doesn't make them relevant. this statistic gets thrown around a lot by dilettantes who don't understand 2 things

1) quoting someone isn't the same as endorsing them
2) he is famous for debunking skinner's behaviorism. this has been useful to cite in papers on a variety of subjects. also his fame for his anti america work has increased his influence among undergrads who write the majority of these "academic" papers

I don't understand why someone would wasn't a US shill would consider him controversial. He actually takes time to form criticisms of nearly every government/international organization on the planet and his US/Israel criticisms are most sour simply because their crimes are some of the worst and are always the most hypocritical.

>Marx, Lenin, Shakespeare, Aristotle, the Bible, Plato, Freud, Chomsky, Hegel and Cicero.

You're right, Chomsky is irrelevant.

I see your reading comprehension is as good as your debate skills.

carry on then proud knight of truth,

onward towards glorious anarcho syndicalism!

What I'm saying is you can make the same argument for anyone on that list and you would be laughed out of the room.

freud, marx and chomsky are jewish hacks who don't belong in the same sentence with the others

Okay Adolf, but they're certainly relevant.

not for long if myself and Trump have anything to say about it.

You're not allowed to say his name on Earth Day.

>t. shitposter who as never read freud, marx, or chomsky

I mostly just read him because he went to my high school. I tell myself this is for networking purposes.

You have to understand that coming from a city of violence and ignorance, being associated in any way with intellectual figures is cause for celebration.

Just read everything with a grain of salt, and remember his contribution to the sciences is superior to his contribution to philosophy or politics.

That he doesn't understand Chomsky?

This is what baffles me the most. Chomsky might be an hypocritical anarchist and hate america and so on, it still doesn't change the fact that the stuff he exposes in his political books is pretty much common sense for anyone not currently living or being paid by the US

>all of a sudden

He's wrote perhaps the most important linguistics of the last century, but most of his other stuff can be dropped desu

His linguistic theories were disproven rather quickly

>disproven
Generative and universal grammar aren't "disproven", but there's plenty of postmodernists and contis who don't take it up. I don't think it's solid science, especially something as complex as the philosophy of language, but his concepts shouldn't be completely thrown out the window.

>Chomsky
>all of a sudden

kys my man.

I know shit about linguistics, my absolute kryptonite, but my gf graduated in it and she and all of her friends seem to have a lot of respect for his theories while completely disagreeing with him. It's amazing how this becomes "he's been completely disproven and is a joke in his field" in the minds of some people.

DUDE COLOURLESS GREEN IDEAS SLEEP FURIOUSLY LMAO

God bless you

There's no proof for universal grammar
You're right, tecnically it's not "disproven". It's just yet to be proven.
Linguistics major here
I feel like the respect for him comes from the fact that he contributed a lot to modern linguistics and was one of integral players in bringing linguistics into the modern day

Thanks user senpai

>quoting someone in a paper doesn't make them relevant.

Yes, it does. It's literally what relevant means. It's not a qualitative statement, rather it is a statement on the presence of his works in the philosophical global discourse. And apparently he is literally the most present, or relevant, one.

>1) quoting someone isn't the same as endorsing them

This has nothing to do with the actual quality and relevance of his works. People don't randomly disagree with insignificant theories and then publish shit on actual peer reviewed journals. People don't do it with hacks such as Sam Harris: it's too easy and no one is really listening to him anyway, it's not like he is influencing the field in any concievable way. This, instead, happens with Chomsky. Even if you disagree you will still be dealing with actual, solid, valid arguments that actually deserve a response. And this is the worst case scenario, the scenario you've conjure din which academics actually hate collectively Chomsky, which is not true (unless you're willing to downsize your imagined crowd).

2) he is famous for debunking skinner's behaviorism. this has been useful to cite in papers on a variety of subjects. also his fame for his anti america work has increased his influence among undergrads who write the majority of these "academic" paper

You're quoting these facts as some sort of flaw, while conflating his entire work to blind anti-americanism. Too bad that he is not really dishonest as a thinker: I don't think it's fair to just say "he is a bad intellectual", dismissjng everything he has done. He is not nearly on the level of inconsistency required to make such a gross generalization.

tl;dr: stop blindly hating people you disagree with and start considering other point of views: you clearly don't know anything about your "enemies"

If nothing, Manufacturing Consent will be remembered and read and reread for a very long time.

This