Noam Chomsky versus Slavoj Žižek

Slavoj Zizek and Noam ChomskyHoewel ik zelf denk dat qua onderwerpen Kritische Massa heel vrij, ruim en liberaal is, vallen soap series er normaliter toch buiten. Edoch.

Op 10 juli postte ik [Ctrl-P] Noam Chomsky Slams Žižek and Lacan: Empty ‘Posturing’. Vandaag zag ik op de excellente website Open Culture (een van mijn favorieten in wording) dat het intellectuele haantjesgevecht verdergaat.

Noma Chomsky is een taalkundige streep politiek activist die zijn schijnbaar aangeboren kritieken en commentaren op de VS en het kapitalisme uitsmeert in eindeloze boomstructuren. Slavoj Žižek is… tja. Wat is die man? Ik kan niets boeienders bedenken dan dat je de naam Žižek uitspreekt met iets dat lijkt op de laatste klank in garage en dat het grappig wordt wanneer je dat verschillende malen snel achter elkaar probeert te doen. Verder heeft die man een hoog Geert Hoste-gehalte: weinig te melden en toch volle zalen trekken.

Mijn voorkeur? Ik ben niet in staat om al te veel zinnige commentaren te geven, maar ik hoop wel dat de Noam die Žižek een goeie djoef ep z’n mulle of iets in zijn radijzen gaat geven.

Voor mensen die nu pas overschakelen, herpost ik de eerste clip.

1. Noam Chomsky Slams Žižek and Lacan: Empty ‘Posturing’

2. Slavoj Žižek Responds to Noam Chomsky: ‘I Don’t Know a Guy Who Was So Often Empirically Wrong’

[Žižek:] What is that about, again, the academy and Chomsky and so on? Well with all deep respect that I do have for Chomsky, my first point is that Chomsky, who always emphasizes how one has to be empirical, accurate, not just some crazy Lacanian speculations and so on… well I don’t think I know a guy who was so often empirically wrong in his descriptions in his whatever! Let’s look… I remember when he defended this demonstration of Khmer Rouge. And he wrote a couple of texts claiming: No, this is Western propaganda. Khmer Rouge are not as horrible as that.” And when later he was compelled to admit that Khmer Rouge were not the nicest guys in the Universe and so on, his defense was quite shocking for me. It was that “No, with the data that we had at that point, I was right. At that point we didn’t yet know enough, so… you know.” But I totally reject this line of reasoning.

Het vervolg kan u hier verder lezen of beluisteren.

3. Noam Chomsky Calls Postmodern Critiques of Science Over-Inflated “Polysyllabic Truisms”

Dit fragment uit 2010 komt een vijfdelig intreview, de zogenaamde Chomsky Sessions. Het eerste deel vindt u hier.

4. The Feud Continues: Noam Chomsky Responds to Žižek, Describes Remarks as ‘Sheer Fantasy’

I had read it, with some interest, hoping to learn something from it, and given the title, to find some errors that should be corrected — of course they exist in virtually anything that reaches print, even technical scholarly monographs, as one can see by reading reviews in professional journals. And when I find them or am informed about them I correct them. But not here. Žižek finds nothing, literally nothing, that is empirically wrong. That’s hardly a surprise. Anyone who claims to find empirical errors, and is minimally serious, will at the very least provide a few particles of evidence — some quotes, references, at least something. But there is nothing here — which, I’m afraid, doesn’t surprise me either. I’ve come across instances of Žižek’s concept of empirical fact and reasoned argument.

Moest u zich nog op deze pagina bevinden, dan kan u hier klikken om verder te lezen.


Update 26 juli 2013

5. Slavoj Žižek Publishes a Very Clearly Written Essay-Length Response to Chomsky’s “Brutal” Criticisms

To avoid a misunderstanding, I am not advocating here the “postmodern” idea that our theories are just stories we are telling each other, stories which cannot be grounded in facts; I am also not advocating a purely neutral unbiased view. My point is that the plurality of stories and biases is itself grounded in our real struggles. With regard to Chomsky, I claim that his bias sometimes leads him to selections of facts and conclusions which obfuscate the complex reality he is trying to analyze.

Consequently, what today, in the predominant Western public speech, the “Human Rights of the Third World suffering victims” effectively mean is the right of the Western powers themselves to intervene—politically, economically, culturally, militarily—in the Third World countries of their choice on behalf of the defense of Human Rights. My disagreement with Chomsky’s political analyses lies elsewhere: his neglect of how ideology works, as well as the problematic nature of his biased dealing with facts which often leads him to do what he accuses his opponents of doing.

Lees hier verder.