"Chomsky’s work is indeed a case study on an epic scale, for it demonstrates how worthless this kind of critique is and how much it affirms the very things it aims to condemn."
…
"The entire science of political economy is entirely superfluous if producing goods and investing money, distributing products and selling them for money are to be regarded as the same thing; if one doesn’t see any need to explain the fact that in capitalist society, production and consumption are a matter of making and having money, and are thus subordinated to the purpose of accumulating money. If one abstracts from everything that makes a capitalist society a capitalist society, then theory really is a waste of time"
…
"No matter how much you might get accustomed to how Chomsky can only judge political rule by imagining himself as a superordinate licensing authority, and how he can only imagine criticizing a ruling authority by revoking its imagined license to rule, it is hard to get used to the fact that even in this imaginary realm in which the moral value of ruling authorities gets judged, the logic of the lesser evil is supposed to apply. Chomsky simply ignores the real relationship between the private power of capital and the political power of the bourgeois state — even though he himself mentions that states' traditionally have been defenders of private power.' (Interview with Znet Germany, May 18, 2005) He overlooks the fact that the exclusion of the workers from the means of production and their dependence on owners of capital — though both are occasionally mentioned in his writings — are based entirely on the state’s enforcement of private property. And although we have just learned that private corporate interests dominate in and with actually existing democracy, the efforts of major corporations to monopolize the political power in society is supposed to turn this same democratic system into a means to prevent such a coup. That alleviates democracy of its lack of legitimacy, and obligates all true anarchists to engage in the struggle for 'state authority' — especially since the corporations are only attacking it because of the aid it provides to upstanding enemies of the state"
…
"or all the pages Chomsky writes about this propaganda, he boils it all down to a single finding: the media cover the lies of the rulers instead of exposing them and reporting about their dirty deeds in an unbiased and honest way. Since the masses are not able to recognize, challenge, and overcome illegitimate rule on their own, since according to Chomsky they cannot know any better, the intellectuals are left to save the day:
''
'It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak truth and to expose lies. This, at least, may seem enough of a truism to pass over without comment. Not so, however. For the modern intellectual, it is not at all obvious … Intellectuals are in a position to expose the lies of governments, to analyze actions according to their causes and motives and often hidden intentions. In the Western world, at least, they have the power that comes from political liberty, from access to information and freedom of expression. For a muh privileged minority, Western democracy provides the leisure, the facilities, and the training to seek the truth lying hidden behind the veil of distortion and misrepresentation, ideology and class interest, through which the events of current history are presented to us.' (The Responsibility of Intellectuals)''
…
"Just like every moralist with a mission, Chomsky views his own actions as the exemplary fulfillment of a duty that others have as well; and like every disappointed moralist, he asks himself why so few take up the crusade of enlightenment and follow him. When these intellectuals not only fail to uncover what Chomsky regards as the scandal of modern society — the obvious gap between the promise and the reality of democracy, between the noble ideals of American world order and its terrorist practices — but also contribute to the lies of those in power, then for Chomsky it is obvious that they only do this against better knowledge. Chomsky does not concern himself for a moment with their reasons for collaborating with the rulers, rather he does what he does best: he uncovers yet another gap between the actual purpose and the actual act — and he asks himself why these intellectuals have betrayed their true task of serving the masses."
Noam Chomsky: Leftist Scum
…
"Who would ever want to be against Americanism? Anarchists perhaps? Oh, but they are merely opposed to state power. When Chomsky declares Americanism to be an 'empty concept' and regards slogans like 'Support the troops!' as meaningless, then this time Chomsky’s the one doing the lying: these terms and slogans are not at all empty for him; he looks past the nationalism so obviously contained in these phrases because he regards patriotism from below as a morally valuable virtue. After all, it is the 'concrete and vital possibility' of solidarity, it is the consciousness of the great collective against the particular interests of the powerful. If the people’s love for 'America' and its boys in uniform includes the rejection of strikes and support for wars that only serve the powerful, then that is a violation of this innocent love of country. On the one hand, Chomsky fails to recognize the fact that a feeling of the national 'we' represents a bond between rulers and ruled. Patriotism is nothing but the loyalty of the masses to their rulers. Chomsky can only explain their support for power, brought about by their patriotic convictions, as the result of a big deception on the part of the rulers and their lackeys in the press. On the other hand, the reason that Chomsky misses this fact only proves that his whole sense of responsibility as an anarchist enlightener, who is constantly exposing the supposed unity between rulers and ruled as a lie, represents nothing but the ideal essence of this national 'we' — the ideal of a true unity between rulers and ruled."
…
"That’s quite a trajectory — from a decisive no to rule per se to a healthy yes to rule for us: this anarchist can’t see the unconditional will to rule at work when separatist nationalists seek to dismantle the state. Rather he finds the narrow-minded, ethnic character of these collectives fascinating, since evil rulers are thus cut back to what they have always promised anarchists, i.e., a cute little 'form of organization' which reflects the genuine human need for harmony between rulers and ruled.
No wonder this radical critic of power is so popular."
Why are analyticals such pussies?
why are continentalists such faggots?
Within a state system, yes, but what if there is no state? Which leads to:
I don't believe it is "nothing but." It would almost be nice if it were, as "patriotism" would fade away when trust in the visible ruling part of government, the politicians, had also faded. It would bring an end to a large amount of manipulation/propaganda and promote political realism in a good way.
People will feel loyalty to groups and cultures and peoples that they identify with and that promise a society that they feel secure in if under threat from a hostile one. It doesn't have to be exactly yours, but it has to offer you something.
bump
...
Gegenstandpunkt? More like Kleinbürgerstandpunkt.
>When the working day is done, it is quite common for everyday heroes of economic competition to recast their efforts to cope with the demands of getting by as more or less successful attempts at self-fulfillment, insisting that when they go to work and when they spend their free time, they are living out their own freedom
What does it tell you about what kind of position in society the families have that these wankers come from that they write such a thing? What is common in the real world is that people see only their time outside of their job as when they are free, where they follow their interests and develop their personalities. Your time outside of your job is literally called Freizeit in German. What is also common is hackneyed propaganda with the content of what Kleinbürgerstandpunkt assumes to be the content of the prole soul, having never met a prole in life. But that stuff is just a bit too stupid frankly, even for us stupid proles. Maybe they should interact with us before they write about us. How about that?
The critique contradicts itself. First, they accuse Chomsky of only having the anarcho-noobist position against capitalism, that is that it's bad because there are powerful bad people who are doing bad stuff because they are bad.
>The interpretation Chomsky employs to present this situation to the masses takes the despotism of capital and subtracts the capitalist purpose of this form of rule…
But then they quote Chomsky saying this:
But this isn't good enuff for proper Marxolologists like Kleinbürgerstandpunkt, so they criticize Chomsky viciously for not making a hundred hair-splitting differentiations in every fucking five-minute interview he has appeared in. The rest of the essay is a mix of dishonesty and so much autism that it makes me doubt they are functionally literate.
Chomsky: "The essence of anarchism is the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met."
Autistenstandpunkt: But in reality those in power have the power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, no shit. Are you guys actually arguing with anybody here?
>The very way that Chomsky points out that one mustn’t fall for the lies spread by those in charge demonstrates that he himself falls for the lie that the actual purpose of US foreign policy is to realize these higher values
It doesn't demonstrate that. What he is doing is called internal critique. (At this point in the text I came to believe these guys literally do have autism.)
The quality of the Gegenstandpups-Gruppe's writing style matches the content. Truly the kind of theory I want to read in a dark and stormy night.
>Patriotism is nothing but the loyalty of the masses to their rulers.
Q: How does this definition work with anti-colonial struggles? A: Whoopsie. The Gegenstandcrackers didn't even think about that.
Of course, these special snowflakes also need to show the world how oh-so unique and daring they are by shitting on majority-decision making, like all the other special snowflake intellectuals, from Bob Black to Hans-Hermann Hoppe. The only way to fix these theoretical wizards is giving them a good dose of hard physical work. Luckily, I'm not an anarchist so I don't have a philosophical problem with giving them the cure.
That is complete bullshit. Many of us think that their career is what gives meaning to their lives, and is how they express themselves. And in a twisted way it is somewhat true, we are just that much more alienated. What is not true however is that leisure time is in reality much "freer" than work. It is often called "idle time". We "pass the time" until we go to work the next day. The more capitalism develops the more this is the case. We don't do activities for the content of those activities, we do them with our sights set at finishing them, at some distant goal which they are merely a tool of.
I don't see how the two quotes offered are at odds.
Everything past that point is strawmen
...
What's your job?
Read the article. First quote is criticizing Chomsky for having the view that capitalism is bad because of bad people in power doing bad things, right after that they quote Chomsky having a systematic view, which they "counter" by saying that weeeelll that doesn't really count, as it isn't systematic enough for us.
Deal with what is argued or fuck off. Since you have trouble with reading comprehension, let me number the claims for you, so you don't miss them:
1. Chomsky, stating a wish for what he wants the world to be like, says he wants that "the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met."
Gegenstandpunkt spastics: "The real world isn't like that! That's a fallacy!!1! Checkmate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nigger."
2. "The very way that Chomsky points out that one mustn’t fall for the lies spread by those in charge demonstrates that he himself falls for the lie that the actual purpose of US foreign policy is to realize these higher values" - the writers claim. That claim is a non sequitur. When you point out a gap between the talk of some actor and the actions of that same actor, does it imply that you are a fan that actor or were a fan at any point, that you do believe the honest intentions of that actor or did believe them at any point? No, and claiming that would be a non sequitur. For doing internal critique you just try out a bunch of assumption and look where they lead you, you don't need to actually believe in them.
3. "On the one hand, Chomsky puts his finger…" Writing style is shit. You really want to dispute that point? And this writing style is an indicator of shitty thinking.
4. "Patriotism is nothing but the loyalty of the masses to their rulers." This statement doesn't make sense when you are ruled by a foreign power. How could the patriotism of anti-colonial struggle mean loyalty to rulers, when those who rule you are in another country? Even aside from that, there is a modern liberal patriotism that doesn't hinge on attachment to any personalities, but institutions and constitutions. (And if your counter to that is that they didn't mean what they said, that brings us back to the point that the writing style of your favourite petit-bourg autistic sectlet is shit.)
I like how you conveniently left out the 95% of the paragraph where I explain my case. And you say I'm the one dodging arguments.
No it doesn't.
"The interpretation Chomsky employs to present this situation to the masses takes the despotism of capital and subtracts the capitalist purpose of this form of rule"
I don't see how you are getting that from that quote, but it doesn't matter, because they clarify in the next paragraph anyway:
"However, Chomsky does not mean to say that the moral perversion he regards as the essence of capitalism merely results from the personal vices of capitalists. Instead he claims that the objective social relations prevailing in capitalist society are what cause the rich and powerful to violate reason and human decency in their quest to secure their rule"
The paragraph responding to the quote you supplied:
"It is obvious that Chomsky is attempting to criticize the capitalist system as a whole; instead of merely moralistically lamenting this cruel world and calling for a better one, he seeks to identify a constraint that must be abolished in the interest of establishing a more rational society. However, what is also obvious is the place where Chomsky seeks this constraint: not in the economic matter with which the agents of the capitalist system struggle to cope, but in the egotistical manner in which the dominant agents deal with the private power of money and in the use that they make of it. When it comes to the objective purpose of a company like General Electric, he discovers a conflict between the mere self-interest of the company on the one hand, and both basic and loftier needs on the other. He regards the decision-makers as being systematically forced to place the company’s particular self-interest over the needs of the community; and yet behind this systematic compulsion lies nothing but the personal interest of the company owners, who determine the services their C.E.O. must provide for them."
Explain how you get that from what they are saying.
And it isn't. Care to argue that it is?
>The very way that Chomsky points out that one mustn’t fall for the lies spread by those in charge demonstrates that he himself falls for the lie that the actual purpose of US foreign policy is to realize these higher values
That isn't ad hominem, it is a part of the explanation as to why his critique is useless and actually affirms what it seeks to criticize, it is a device to transition to further investigation into Chomsky's thought and critique of capitalism, which is the topic of the article. They aren't just saying "he doesn't follow his own advice, therefore discard his advice".
That entire fucking section is about how that isn't what is going on!
They aren't just asserting shit out of the blue! Read the fucking context!
keking what?
>"Patriotism is nothing but the loyalty of the masses to their rulers"
What in the actual fuck do you think national liberation is? It is overthrowing foreign capital in favor of developing national capital.
Your case rests on speculation about what people think.
Yes it does. You have trouble with reading comprehension.
The problem with you lot is that you are not familiar with Chomsky, you have trouble parsing complicated arguments and building mental models of other people (as in having autism, and I literally mean that, not as a meme insult), and when all else fails you go back to the "argument" that you know what this or that person or people in general really think.
"Why doesn't Chomsky in this random article about US foreign policy doesn't also criticize all other countries in the world and capitalism and btw capitalism was an improvement over feudalism tbh fam so he should also write that and say that in every interview wahawwahwah." - you.
The libcom theorist doesn't know what non sequitur means.
On the one hand, I point with my middle finger to the sky; on the other hand, I rest my face.
If they throw out their old rulers, why do you refer to that with the term loyalty, genius?
You are a waste of time.
...
why are you so bad at this
...
This is the stupidest thing I ever heard, what else could be more relevant? The main problem with analytic philosophers is precisely that they think concepts are eternal and precisely defined, and don't realize the blindingly obvious historical situatedness of philosophy itself.
Wew
Wow autistic computer man who fetishizes basic logic can't even into logic. Let's just like naturalize epistemology lmao. Philosophy's dead anyway we're just here to nitpick scientists who don't care.
On the other hand let's listen to what this crypto-Marxist foppish French bohemian's rambling about
retard
Try again.
What's the truth value of propositions about quantum mechanics, by the way, seeing as you're insistent on being a techno-scientific handmaiden? Can you underpin mathematics with it, even arithmetic? Wow, it's almost like you've just fucked around elaborating formal classical logic derived from natural language for no real reason, seeing as mathematical logic already has it covered well in advance of anything you've managed to come up with, within the domain of the purposes you judge as valid.
I know, let's imagine possible worlds as a way to get around these quandaries we've created in temporal logic by arguing from hypothetical viewpoints we've named but no one holds, while not even being able to handle dialethia, and only just realizing Leibniz explosion doesn't necessarily follow. Your system is laughably basic, what results has it even given us of any value since Godel, Turing and Tarski? I mean Quine btfo naive empiricism in about a paragraph how long ago?
Quantum mechanics? Literally wtf are you talking about?
Well I clearly do understand it. Do you not understand how it is difficult (impossible) to describe quantum mechanics using binary truth-valued logic? Analytics tend to be highly scientistic so I find this amusing and ironic.
This sentence is too vague. Describe what? It is not impossible to make statements about quantum mechanics that are either true or false.
The smug pseudointellectualism levels are off the charts.
I suggest you look into it more closely. You mad a dig at my boy Nietzsche so you had this coming tbh
A.k.a. "I don't actually know enough about it to support my assertions but I'll back out of the conversation now and pretend to let you off the hook."
lmao second result on google look at the first line of the abstract iopscience.iop.org
incompatible with classical logic, it is argued here that the gap is not as great as it seems. Any classical, discrete, time reversible system can be naturally described using a quantum Hilbert space, operators, and a Schr¨odinger equation.
I don't get your point.
While t' Hooft's speculative article suggests there may be a way out, this line accurately describes the consensus opinion that REMAINS the consensus opinion on the incompatibility that has been around since QM's inception. wew
Any by consensus opinion I mean correct fact. What else would you like to nitpick?
Any more questions?
Are you trolling me?
Haha, this is mathematical logic, which I already said was superior. Nice try though.
BTW it's not only a fact, it was a large fundamental motivating factor behind quantum mechanics original formulation and the Copenhagen interpretation. It's funny to me that an analytic who thinks they're too intellectual for continental philosophy cos it's not sciencey enough doesn't know basic facts around the total inadequacy of his discipline to assign truth to statements at the most fundamental, and ultimately universally applicable physical description of the world.
It's analytically true. :^)
Non sequitur.
You still have not provided evidence of this statement.
Why?
Why don't you throw out a few more baseless accusations and fail to justify any of your assertions a few more times and see just how humiliated I will be?
If you don't feel embarrassed by using "non sequitur" like that and your essential ignorance, as if the word of a nobel laureate was not enough, and demanding to be educated like a petulant child, I guess you're probably an idiot.
how did you get to quantum mechanics
I used it like that because it literally did not follow. The statement does not even make sense as QM is completely describable in classical mathematics and that is grounded in classical logic. Stay triggered, tho.
What, that paper you linked me that shows how what you've been claiming this whole time might not be true?
ROFL
Analytic philosophy -> DUDE SCIENCE LMAO -> quantum mechanics is sciency and shit, what if nothing is true??? THE CAT IS ALIVE AND DEAD AT THE SAME TIME #stonedoffmyass
I wish I were joking.
You're a lolcow at this point.
I should make Bingo cards, you smug jackoffs are so predictable at this point.
Care to explain what you think Godel's (forgot about Tarksi?) result showed with regards to grounding mathematics in classical logic?
That no system with a finite set of axioms can prove all truths about all relations between an infinite set of numbers.
And why do you think Russel and everyone else abandoned Hilbert's program after said result?
Can you explain to me how Hilbert's program is relevant to the validity of classical mathematics, much less quantum mechanics?
Why do you think being purposefully disingenuous, if you indeed do know what you're talking about, is conducive to a debate? It's irritating and useless. You could be more forthright about these issues, as if there was an uncontroversial resolution, which you know is not true. It makes me want to mock and belittle you, rather than engage with you.
Hilbert's program =/= validity of classical mathematics.
ZFC, quantum logic, category theory, all of that, is mathematical logic. Are you suggesting your field regularly utilizes mathematical logic, rather than classical and variants like modal and temporal?
Which post are you replying to?
The last one. You can largely found mathematics on ZFC + classical logic. But you can't found it on classical logic, nor is it normally considered possible to talk about QM with it. I don't see much work in ZFC in analytic papers, and don't recall any significant recent (last 50 years) results either.
As far as I'm aware, classical mathematics is entirely logically deducible from ZFC axioms.
I have never needed to use anything else, I know of no reason why it would be required, and in fact I can't really think of any branch of physics at all that uses something else.
What I want to know, is if you're of the opinion that philosophy not almost entirely dealing with making up "logically possible" viewpoints then arguing for/against them within empty formal systems is "dude weed lmao"-tier, and you are a true intellectual because of it while everyone else is "smug", the whole program being a perverse kind of fetishism/scholasticism to me, why didn't you just become a mathematician?
So was t' Hooft just pulling it out of his ass when he called them "generally considered fundamentally incompatible"? If you have resolved this issue, I shouldn't need to tell you, it would be a big deal.
Can you phrase the question again in a way that's not a massive run-on sentence?
Reading further into the article you linked, it seems he means it as something that is oft-repeated, basically a meme.
No it wouldn't.
I thought it was uncontroversial among logicians and physicists. Here is a classic paper:
suppes-corpus.stanford.edu
This is closer to my own view on Copenhagen:
plato.stanford.edu
A semi-Kantian approach, in that the results of measurements are unintelligible in the framework of classical physics which is related to classical logic much more directly, and the interpretation was related to being able to translate the results of the experiments.
There are numerous other areas of physics where it's difficult for classical logic to work as well, requiring modifications at the very least. How about the truth values of statements about the simultaneity of events for example?
Sorry didn't finish that sentence: "translate" the results of experiments into something more graspable by the mind, so scientists could communicate them between each other.
Define "classical physics". Any new discovery of the underpinning of QM is new physics by definition.
More…couth explanations are possible though. Look up pilot wave theory.
Interpreting observations is not exactly the same as finding underlying explanations. Read that paper. It basically says quantum logic is a set of useful tools for describing emergent behaviors of a system describable in classical logic.
True propositions cannot be made about simultaneity in the traditional sense as the concept is incoherent.
I'm aware of pilot wave, it isn't exactly well received in the mainstream though. The overwhelmingly prevalent view is indeterminacy is hard coded.
Classical physics is basically any non-quantum physical theory according to the definition.
I'd agree with this, however this is a problem I have with analytic philosophy. It tends to focus a lot on the underlying formalism of natural language. While it is true there is nothing strictly irrational in physics if you use the correct mathematical formalism, this has not much to do with natural language. It is possible to talk about a simultaneous event in natural language because it makes sense for us to do so in most of the contexts that it is spoken. No one does coordinate transforms for the inertial frames then implicitly appends these to their propositional statements about simultaneity in their day to day life. So I don't understand what the general applicability of this whole approach to philosophy is?
Analytic philosophy while useful, just seems to miss the point. It views big questions as irrelevant mysticism or something. Which to me are the only real questions to me, not riddles about truth values in ordinary speech. It circles around logical puzzles and problem solving. Why? Wittgenstein himself abandoned the Tractatus.
Not him but I rather interested in how analytic philosophy originated and thrives on a certain anglo-american liberalism, is analytic philosophy a fundamentally bourgeois way of doing philosophy? Explain why the Analytic Marxists turned out to be liberals in the end.
No.
So what I'm saying is, it's not possible to assign a strict truth value to (probably the majority) statements that are perfectly valid within natural language. If all statements about simultaneity are incoherent, are they meaningless? Of course not. So what is with this obsession with the symmetry between natural language and symbolic formalisms? If there is not much of an isomorphism, then isn't it more equivalent pure mathematics, rather than supposedly the only right way of doing philosophy?
I'd argue to an extent that it is though, but there's no way to make such an argument from within analytic philosophy, which is not the same as saying logic is bourgeois. It's just needlessly limiting and I can't understand what the impetus is. Not saying a lot of conty isn't absolute drivel either haha.
Anyway thanks for a decent discussion towards the end. Sorry for being a dick.
In the colloquial sense, you could interpret simultaneous as "we couldn't tell which happened first" or somesuch.
Extreme rigor is the price of questing for absolute truth.
What do you mean by "big questions"? Usually things regarded as mysticism are vague, unjustified, or obscurantist. Beyond that, you can pretty much talk about anything you want.
One thing is, precise thinking and ability to evaluate the justification for your beliefs is a valuable skill in the first place. You can skip out of a lot of ideology if you can do this. Additionally, the ability to make qualified statements can save a ton of time wasted in arguments.
Sure you can, as long as you can explain what makes you believe this.
Nice response. I'll leave it there after this one point.
But no one actually does this, and fewer are aware of relativity, let alone before it was conceived of. Are all these statements meaningless, or is the meaning of these propositions not related to their scientific accuracy, their truth value? In a sense I'd argue they are both true and false depending on context. Analytic philosophy seems inclined to resolve problems like this by appending to the propositions, which seems kind of ad hoc to say the least. Also relativity of simultaneity is only valid with certain assumptions derived from empirical experience such as an absolute speed limit, it's not true in all possible worlds as such.
What was this thread about again?
Is a thing true in spite of no one being aware of it? In a sense claims of fact are necessarily claims of experience, so "these happened at the same time" is equivalent to "these appeared to me to happen at the same time".
I would say the problem is English is too vague to elaborate precisely what someone means by this statement, at least such a statement as anyone could be bothered to say in casual conversation. Seems to me it would be trivially easy to deduce what is trying to be said in almost any case, given sufficient knowledge of the speaker (they experience time like a human, use common english expressions, and aren't some weird space alien).
Is a world without it logically possible? Sure.
Some autistic leftcom screeching about how leftists who disagree with him are literally hitler.
Patriotism is loyalty to the elite acting as a nation. It's much better to make the lower class believe they're actively supporting the collective will of the people, their culture, and nation, when in reality they're just advancing the agenda of the bourgeoisie.
what do they mean by institution?
youtube.com
A bunch of post-leftists, Israeli Nihilists and "left-wing" nationalists are cursing (as in hexing) Saint Noam. Will hard materialism protect him, Holla Forums?
But from these identical discontented ones comes a reasoning somewhat as follows: It need not make any difference to the “good citizens” who protects them and their principles, whether an absolute king or a constitutional one, a republic, if only they are protected. And what is their principle, whose protector they always “love”? Not that of labor; not that of birth either. But, that of mediocrity, of the golden mean: a little birth and a little labor, i. e., an interest-bearing possession. Possession is here the fixed, the given, inherited (birth); interest-drawing is the exertion about it (labor); laboring capital, therefore. Only no immoderation, no ultra, no radicalism! Right of birth certainly, but only hereditary possessions; labor certainly, yet little or none at all of one’s own, but labor of capital and of the — subject laborers.
...
No.
Yes.
Not him, but isn't this kind of the point. That you can't articulate things properly in language like you can in mathematics? And what if you can't deduce it?
There is no post-left, only left and pre-left.
I've been called a post-left nationalist and I like Noam. It's almost like you don't have to kneejerk hate someone for not edging your exact ideology (to completion?) throughout their entire lifespan
Me again. So why not phenomenology? Epoche too mystical, too similar to introspection? Would you really suggest Husserl was sloppy and unrigorous? Methodology is a legitimate core to philosophy, I'd argue analytic is methodological in its own way.
Maybe the 'divide' is not """bourgeois""", as if the French don't indulge themselves like the goddamned nobility, but more about national character. :^) Prioritizing syntax or semantics, both with pitfalls, time to sublimate this aporia and get over the perplexity of language altogether somehow imho.