prikryl posted:CHOMSKY: Dialectics is one that I’ve never understood, actually—I’ve just never understood what the word means. Marx doesn’t use it, incidentally, it’s used by Engels.7 And if anybody can tell me what it is, I’ll be happy. I mean, I’ve read all kinds of things which talk about “dialectics”—I haven’t the foggiest idea what it is. It seems to mean something about complexity, or alternative positions, or change, or something. I don’t know.
I’ll tell you the honest truth: I’m kind of simple-minded when it comes to these things. Whenever I hear a four-syllable word I get skeptical, because I want to make sure you can’t say it in monosyllables. Don’t forget, part of the whole intellectual vocation is creating a niche for yourself, and if everybody can understand what you’re talking about, you’ve sort of lost, because then what makes you special? What makes you special has got to be something that you had to work really hard to understand, and you mastered it, and all those guys out there don’t understand it, and then that becomes the basis for your privilege and your power.
MAN: I find it very reinforcing that you don’t understand the word “dialectics, ” it sort of validates me.
CHOMSKY: I’m not saying that it doesn’t have any meaning—you observe people using the term and they look like they’re communicating. But it’s like when I watch people talking Turkish: something’s going on, but I’m not part of it.
Actually, occasionally in interviews I’ve said this about not understanding “dialectics,” and I get long letters back from people saying, “You don’t understand, here’s what ‘dialectical’ is”—and either it’s incomprehensible, or else it’s trivial. So maybe I’ve got a gene missing or something—like people can be tone-deaf, they just can’t hear the music. But everything I encounter in these fields either seems to be sort of interesting, but pretty obvious once you see it—maybe you didn’t see it at first, and somebody had to point it out to you—or else just incomprehensible.
I’m skeptical: I think one has a right to be skeptical when you don’t understand something. I mean, when I look at a page of, say, quantum electrodynamics, I don’t understand a word of it. But I know what I would have to do to get to understand it, and I’m pretty confident that I could get to understand it—I’ve understood other complicated things. So I figure if I bothered to put myself through the discipline, and I studied the early stuff and the later stuff, I’d finally get to the point where I understood it. Or I could go to someone in the Physics Department and say, “Tell me why everybody’s excited about this stuff,” and they could adapt it to my level and tell me how to pursue it further. Maybe I wouldn’t understand it very deeply, or I couldn’t have invented it or something, but I’d at least begin to understand it. On the other hand, when I look at a page of Marxist philosophy or literary theory, I have the feeling that I could stare at it for the rest of my life and I’d never understand it—and I don’t know how to proceed to get to understand it any better, I don’t even know what steps I could take.
I mean, it’s possible that these fields are beyond me, maybe I’m not smart enough or something. But that would have kind of a funny conclusion—it’s nothing to do with me. That would mean that somehow in these domains people have been able to create something that’s more complex than physics and mathematics—because those are subjects I think I could get to understand. And I just don’t believe that, frankly: I don’t believe that literary theorists or Marxian philosophers have advanced to some new intellectual level that transcends century after century of hard intellectual work.
Chomsky is wrong. Marx does use the word "dialectics" throughout his life. I have explained what he meant by this word (at least as it appears in Das Kapital) here:
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_01.htm#Marx-And-DM--11
Chomsky plainly meant "dialectical materialism", a term invented by Dietzgen and Plekhanov, and later used by Engels.
But thanks for that quotation! I hadn't seen it before.
I'll post an even better one soon.
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:Lessons posted:are you from revleft, rosa?
Yes, but I was banned last year -- I have explained why in an earlier post in this thread.
i thought you were unbanned. maybe that was a different rosa.
tpaine posted:it was the rosa from ff4
i got the ff4/ff5 psx disc but i never played either all the way through. which was the one with the job system a la fft? was that 5?
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:You lot seem not to be able to stick to the point!
The rhizzone is an exercise in dialectical forum posting. Just by posting you are participating in dialectics and proving its validity. QED. Choose the red pill. "whoa" - neo
aerdil posted:Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:You lot seem not to be able to stick to the point!
The rhizzone is an exercise in dialectical forum posting. Just by posting you are participating in dialectics and proving its validity. QED. Choose the red pill. "whoa" - neo
Well, I am OK with the classical notion of dialectics (argument, counter argument, etc.), but the Hegelian version seems to me to be about as confused as anything could be. (A bit like some of the characters here, in fact.)
So, I am engaging in the former, but not the latter.
Unless, of course, you can show otherwise (as opposed to merely asserting it).
tpaine posted:Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:aerdil posted:Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:You lot seem not to be able to stick to the point!
The rhizzone is an exercise in dialectical forum posting. Just by posting you are participating in dialectics and proving its validity. QED. Choose the red pill. "whoa" - neo
Well, I am OK with the classical notion of dialectics (argument, counter argument, etc.), but the Hegelian version seems to me to be as confused as anything could be. (A bit like some of the characters here.)
So, I am engaging in the former, but not the latter.
Unless, of course, you can show otherwise (as opposed to merely asserting it).don't tell a 'zoner to show you something DONT TELL A ZONER TO SHOW YOU SOMETHING
Oh dear, sooooh scary! 
Anyway, it's a barefaced lie!
Show me where I have asked someone to show me something.
Go on, I double dog dare you...
Edited by Rosa_Lichtenstein ()
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:tpaine posted:
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:
aerdil posted:
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:
You lot seem not to be able to stick to the point!
The rhizzone is an exercise in dialectical forum posting. Just by posting you are participating in dialectics and proving its validity. QED. Choose the red pill. "whoa" - neo
Well, I am OK with the classical notion of dialectics (argument, counter argument, etc.), but the Hegelian version seems to me to be as confused as anything could be. (A bit like some of the characters here.)
So, I am engaging in the former, but not the latter.
Unless, of course, you can show otherwise (as opposed to merely asserting it).
don't tell a 'zoner to show you something DONT TELL A ZONER TO SHOW YOU SOMETHING
Oh dear, so scary!
I'll try and explain, T isn't doing a great job.
One the one hand we have an interest in politics, philosophy, history. On the other hand we have self-referential schizoid internet humour sensibilities forged by literally years of posting in stupid forums.
synthesize them and you get a deadly new infectious disease: Forum Addicted Intelligence Lowering Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
prikryl posted:CHOMSKY: Dialectics is one that I’ve never understood, actually—I’ve just never understood what the word means. Marx doesn’t use it, incidentally, it’s used by Engels.7 And if anybody can tell me what it is, I’ll be happy. I mean, I’ve read all kinds of things which talk about “dialectics”—I haven’t the foggiest idea what it is. It seems to mean something about complexity, or alternative positions, or change, or something. I don’t know.
I’ll tell you the honest truth: I’m kind of simple-minded when it comes to these things. Whenever I hear a four-syllable word I get skeptical, because I want to make sure you can’t say it in monosyllables. Don’t forget, part of the whole intellectual vocation is creating a niche for yourself, and if everybody can understand what you’re talking about, you’ve sort of lost, because then what makes you special? What makes you special has got to be something that you had to work really hard to understand, and you mastered it, and all those guys out there don’t understand it, and then that becomes the basis for your privilege and your power.
MAN: I find it very reinforcing that you don’t understand the word “dialectics, ” it sort of validates me.
CHOMSKY: I’m not saying that it doesn’t have any meaning—you observe people using the term and they look like they’re communicating. But it’s like when I watch people talking Turkish: something’s going on, but I’m not part of it.
Actually, occasionally in interviews I’ve said this about not understanding “dialectics,” and I get long letters back from people saying, “You don’t understand, here’s what ‘dialectical’ is”—and either it’s incomprehensible, or else it’s trivial. So maybe I’ve got a gene missing or something—like people can be tone-deaf, they just can’t hear the music. But everything I encounter in these fields either seems to be sort of interesting, but pretty obvious once you see it—maybe you didn’t see it at first, and somebody had to point it out to you—or else just incomprehensible.
I’m skeptical: I think one has a right to be skeptical when you don’t understand something. I mean, when I look at a page of, say, quantum electrodynamics, I don’t understand a word of it. But I know what I would have to do to get to understand it, and I’m pretty confident that I could get to understand it—I’ve understood other complicated things. So I figure if I bothered to put myself through the discipline, and I studied the early stuff and the later stuff, I’d finally get to the point where I understood it. Or I could go to someone in the Physics Department and say, “Tell me why everybody’s excited about this stuff,” and they could adapt it to my level and tell me how to pursue it further. Maybe I wouldn’t understand it very deeply, or I couldn’t have invented it or something, but I’d at least begin to understand it. On the other hand, when I look at a page of Marxist philosophy or literary theory, I have the feeling that I could stare at it for the rest of my life and I’d never understand it—and I don’t know how to proceed to get to understand it any better, I don’t even know what steps I could take.
I mean, it’s possible that these fields are beyond me, maybe I’m not smart enough or something. But that would have kind of a funny conclusion—it’s nothing to do with me. That would mean that somehow in these domains people have been able to create something that’s more complex than physics and mathematics—because those are subjects I think I could get to understand. And I just don’t believe that, frankly: I don’t believe that literary theorists or Marxian philosophers have advanced to some new intellectual level that transcends century after century of hard intellectual work.
lmao imagine chomsky tryna read deleuze
deadken posted:lmao imagine chomsky
For content: Lol at Gnome "hegemony, hegemony, hegemoney" Chompsky complaining about four-syllable words
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:littlegreenpills posted:i;d love to ghet to know you better...i have a bottle of blue nun and sme marks and spencers sandwiches. theyre smoked salmon. how bout it. - brad
You lot are a bit desperate.
Why are there so few women here? Maybe because they are frightened of being hit on by a bunch of desperate teenagers.
this is actually true
Ironicwarcriminal posted:Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:tpaine posted:
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:
aerdil posted:
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:
You lot seem not to be able to stick to the point!
The rhizzone is an exercise in dialectical forum posting. Just by posting you are participating in dialectics and proving its validity. QED. Choose the red pill. "whoa" - neo
Well, I am OK with the classical notion of dialectics (argument, counter argument, etc.), but the Hegelian version seems to me to be as confused as anything could be. (A bit like some of the characters here.)
So, I am engaging in the former, but not the latter.
Unless, of course, you can show otherwise (as opposed to merely asserting it).
don't tell a 'zoner to show you something DONT TELL A ZONER TO SHOW YOU SOMETHING
Oh dear, so scary!I'll try and explain, T isn't doing a great job.
One the one hand we have an interest in politics, philosophy, history. On the other hand we have self-referential schizoid internet humour sensibilities forged by literally years of posting in stupid forums.
synthesize them and you get a deadly new infectious disease: Forum Addicted Intelligence Lowering Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
So, let me get this straight: on this supposedly free and easy-going forum, one thing I can't do is ask someone to justify their beliefs/assertions? Even though others have asked this of me...
Seems fair.
Edited by Rosa_Lichtenstein ()
ggw posted:Rosa have you met cycloneboy yet?
Haven't even heard of him/her.
Or is that the idea?
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:Haven't even heard of him/her.
he has a weird fetish for words that have the letter 'A' in them.
Like "asexuality" and "rape" and "masturbation"
He's a weird one... watch out.
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:So, let me get this straight: on this supposedly free and easy-going forum, one thing I can't do is ask someone to justify their beliefs/assertions? Even though others have asked this of me...
Seems fair.
lol yeah you can ask whatever you want but all you'll get in response is a video of a pro wrestler spliced with no no no cat or someone inviting you to take the first train 2 the gulag. its fun!!
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:Er, by the way, can someone explain the title of this Forum? It seems not to make any sense.
Or is that the idea?
deadken posted:Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:So, let me get this straight: on this supposedly free and easy-going forum, one thing I can't do is ask someone to justify their beliefs/assertions? Even though others have asked this of me...
Seems fair.lol yeah you can ask whatever you want but all you'll get in response is a video of a pro wrestler spliced with no no no cat or someone inviting you to take the first train 2 the gulag. its fun!!
just like our founder intended
jools posted:Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:Er, by the way, can someone explain the title of this Forum? It seems not to make any sense.
Or is that the idea?
Ok, thanks!
deadken posted:Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:So, let me get this straight: on this supposedly free and easy-going forum, one thing I can't do is ask someone to justify their beliefs/assertions? Even though others have asked this of me...
Seems fair.lol yeah you can ask whatever you want but all you'll get in response is a video of a pro wrestler spliced with no no no cat or someone inviting you to take the first train 2 the gulag. its fun!!
More like a waste of time...
Anyway, one or two characters here seem not to have taken leave of their senses (yet!), and at least try to argue
Edited by Rosa_Lichtenstein ()
ggw posted:Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:Haven't even heard of him/her.
he has a weird fetish for words that have the letter 'A' in them.
Like "asexuality" and "rape" and "masturbation"
He's a weird one... watch out.
Ok, thanks, but he seems quite normal compared to Mr TPaine-in-the-butt.
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:deadken posted:Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:So, let me get this straight: on this supposedly free and easy-going forum, one thing I can't do is ask someone to justify their beliefs/assertions? Even though others have asked this of me...
Seems fair.lol yeah you can ask whatever you want but all you'll get in response is a video of a pro wrestler spliced with no no no cat or someone inviting you to take the first train 2 the gulag. its fun!!
More like a waste of time...
Anyway, one or two characters here seem not to have taken leave of their senses (yet!), and at least try to argue
everything fun is a waste of time basically
Rosa_Lichtenstein posted:Ok, thanks, but he seems quite normal compared to Mr TPaine-in-the-butt.
