Is Noam Chomsky a "dweeb"?

Is he?


  • Total voters
    50
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh yeah I remember that one. Supposedly an example of a meaningless but grammatically correct sentence.

Trouble is: it's all about eco-communism waiting for its chance to seize power.
 
Of course. All of his work on linguistics is just a clever front to disguise his left wing anarchist agenda.

Or at least that's what I've been told, because I've never read anything but his works on linguistics, so I don't know what all the fuss is about.
 
Even completely ignoring his politics and contributions to philosophy, he's likely the single most influential living person in the field of linguistics.
But how could impeccable qualifications and international renown in an esoteric academic field like linguistics possibly compare to completely baseless charges that he is a proselytizing self-righteous pseudo-intellectual, much like so many of his critics? After all, he is supposedly a dweeb instead of a jock.
 
But how could impeccable qualifications and international renown in an esoteric academic field like linguistics possibly compare to completely baseless charges that he is a proselytizing self-righteous pseudo-intellectual, much like so many of his critics?
The two are not mutually exclusive.
 
I'm sure you can provide numerous examples of internationally renown proselytizing self-righteous pseudo-intellectual authorities in linguistics.
 
What makes any academic field a distinguished one? And what does that have to do with this topic?
 
@Formaldehyde, I'm not certain how you intend to prove Noam Chomsky is not as I said, "exceedingly self-righteous" by providing a quote from one of his works where he is... exceedingly self-righteous.
 
What makes any academic field a distinguished one?
Because you specified linguistics. Unless there was some peculiar quality that meant linguists can not be internationally renown[sic] proselytizing self-righteous psuedo-intellectual authorities, that would be an unnecessary qualification.
 
I think he is largely irrelevant outside of linguistics ;). So I went ahead and voted for the joke option.
 
I think he is largely irrelevant outside of linguistics ;). So I went ahead and voted for the joke option.

Plenty of people have been inspired by the...decidedly nontraditional way he approaches analyzing foreign affairs, America's use of power, the media in ostensibly democratic societies, and intellectual cowardice of all kinds.

I mean, he misses the mark on the details of plenty of things, but a Chomsky book (like Towards a New Cold War or whatever you can dig up on chomsky.info) can be a good beginner's lesson in challenging your worldviews. It was for me, and I didn't suddenly become a libertarian socialist like Chomsky.

Since his materials are so easy to access (relatively speaking) and he is so widely known, this makes him more relevant than other dudes & dudettes who are basically smarter Chomskys.

imo
 
But how could impeccable qualifications and international renown in an esoteric academic field like linguistics possibly compare to completely baseless charges that he is a proselytizing self-righteous pseudo-intellectual, much like so many of his critics?

tl;dr: He's a world-famous linguist! No, he's not a pseudo-intellectual, his opponents are! That's that.

<snip>
 
depends, is Chomsky a friend or a foe of the US government?

I for one, think he is usually a worthy victim :P
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom