Comment at the bottom by Noam Chomsky
- Bob Page
xxCraigxx posted:http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/1365-some-bewildered-clarifications
Comment at the bottom by Noam Chomsky
i like how this could have been 4 paragraphs long but instead is unnecessarily a lot longer
I think the quoted passage confirms that my improvised resume of Chomsky's position about Khmer Rouge atrocities (“No, this is Western propaganda. Khmer Rouge are not as horrible as that.”) is a correct one.
but that's not what the quoted passage says at all
babyfinland posted:slavoj zizek cites the wikipedia page on chinese legalism in one of his books to make extended commentary about buddhism
tell us more about zizek on legalism
Lykourgos posted:babyfinland posted:slavoj zizek cites the wikipedia page on chinese legalism in one of his books to make extended commentary about buddhism
tell us more about zizek on legalism
take a midol why dont ya!!!
Lykourgos posted:it was genuine curiosity, I want to know if he embarrasses himself or at least does a half way decent job of describing legalism.
babyfinland posted:Lykourgos posted:it was genuine curiosity, I want to know if he embarrasses himself or at least does a half way decent job of describing legalism.
thanks, for some reason google books is giving me trouble looking at all the pages, but I saw enough to realize that I was right in assuming I really dislike Zizek.
xxCraigxx posted:http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/1365-some-bewildered-clarificationsComment at the bottom by Noam Chomsky
hmm i don't see the chomsky comment
babyfinland posted:Lykourgos posted:it was genuine curiosity, I want to know if he embarrasses himself or at least does a half way decent job of describing legalism.
I should probably explain, too, why I dislike Zizek because of that link. First, I dislike the fact that he blathers on about some 18th and 19th century people like Kant that I don't really care about, and then quotes Wikipedia for ones I do. Second, I think he misunderstands/mistreats the Confucians and legalists.
1. His Wikipedia quote about legalism says "...all are equal in the eyes of the law; the legal system stands even higher than the ruler." This doesn't seem right at all; the ruler is higher than the laws in legalism; the point of the whole system of government is so that the ruler can relax and listen to girls play music. Find me one quote where the emperor is subordinate to the law. Also, people aren't equal in the eyes of the law; they're all subordinate to the law (except the Emperor), but they have distinct positions and have totally different expectations. Legalism is very "corporate" (the word zizek uses to describe one of Confucius' quotes; I've never used the term this way before).
2. He claims that Confucius' statement, "Rulers do not rule and subjects do not serve" is a "good description of a really democratic society, in which the united subjects rule and the nominal rulers serve them." That's not what Confucius is describing at all; I have no idea why Zizek thinks that a disorderly society where people do not perform their role is somehow a great description of a state where "united subjects rule and the nominal ruler serves them." It sounds like a description of negligent elites and chaotic masses.
3. He says some dumb shit about passing salt, apparently claiming that zhengming somehow contradicts Confucian respect for tradition, rituals, and politeness. My understanding of zhengming is that it is important for laying a foundation to combat other philosophical movements, and to engender trust in the people.
Here is a huge chunk from book 22 of Xunzi showing just how detailed the discussion of zhengming became as time went on. He's clearly combating other schools of thought throughout the whole piece, and instructing one on how to lay foundation and clarify terminology so that they are not caught up by confusing statements:
"When all these have been done, we name things accordingly. If things are the same, then we should give them the same name; if they are different, we should give them different names. When a single name is sufficient to convey our meaning, a single name is used; when it is not, we use a compound name. If the single name and the compound name do not conflict, then a general name is used. Although it is the general name, it will not create inconsistencies.
The idea that to avoid confusion one should give each different reality a different name, because on understands the fact that different realities have different names, is no better than assigning all the different objects the same name. Thus, although the myriad things are of multitudinous types, there are occasions when we want to refer to them collectively by name. One thus calls them "things." "Thing" is the name of greatest generality. By extending the process, one makes terms more general names, and from these generalized names one further generalizes until one reaches the point where there are no further generalizations to be drawn, and only then does one stop.
There are other occasions when one wants to refer to things in part, so one refers to them as "birds" or "animals". "Bird" and "animal" are the names of the largest divisions of things. By extending the process, one draws distinctions within these groups, and within these distinctions one draws further distinctions until there are no further distinctions to be made, and only then does on stop.
Names have no intrinsic appropriateness. They are bound to something by agreement in order to name it. The agreement becomes fixed, the custom established, and it is called "appropriate". If a name differs from the agreed name, it is then called "inappropriate".
Names have no intrinsic object. They are bound to some reality by agreement in order to name that object. The object becomes fixed, the custom is established, and it is called the name of that object.
Names do have intrinsic good qualities. When a name is direct, easy, and not at odds with the thing, it is called a "good name".
Things have the same appearance but different locations and things that have different appearances but the same location should be kept distinct. Where the appearance is the same, but they are deemed to have different locations, even though they may properly be conjoined, they are called two objects. Where the appearance undergoes metamorphosis, but there is no distinction in the reality, yet they are deemed different, it is called "transformation". Where there is transformation but no distinction, it is called one object. By this procedure, one examines objects and determines their number. These are the crucial considerations in instituting names. The established names of the Later Kings cannot but be investigated.
"To suffer insult is no disgrace," "the sage does not love himself," "to kill a robber is not to kill a man" - these are examples of errors in the use of names that disorder names. If we test such examples against the purpose of having names and observe which alternative works, we will be able to exclude such statements.
"Mountain and marshes are level," "the essential desires are few," "grain and grass fed animals add nothing to the taste; the great bell adds nothing to the music" - these are examples of errors in the use of objects that disorder names. When we test these statements with the sense - which are the basis for distinguishing the similar from the different - and observe which alternative accords with them, then we will be able to exclude such statements.
"The flying arrow does not pass the pillar," "a white horse is not a horse" - these are examples of errors in the use of names that disorder objects. If we test such cases against the agreed use of names and if we use "what one accepts" to show that "what one rejects" is fallacious, then we can exclude such statements.
As a general principle, all unorthodox explanations and perverse sayings, having been detached from the correct Way and created on individual authority, belong to one of these three categories of error. Thus, because he understands the proper divisions, an enlightened lord does not engage in such debates."
Book 22 (zhengming) is a pretty good read. You'll notice that a lot of the issues have parallels in ancient Greece; compare Hermogenes' comments in Plato's Cratylus to the quote from Xunzi, "Names have no intrinsic object...".
4. Basically, it feels like ancient Chinese people are being dragged into some academic, unrelated discussion by someone who seriously cited Wikipedia. I could go on but whatever. I don't want to talk about zizek anymore.
Panopticon posted:"i AM a real philosopher!" *zizek fondles his nose uncontrollably as it grows to an enormous length and sprouts leaves*
Nice ref. this is from a good ass disney movie about a wooden boy. jizpeppo
