Lectures on Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit (JM Bernstein)

"The greatness of his thought, like few other philosophers of the continental tradition, is so dangerous to the currently dominant analytic philosophy (devoid of any purpose and apologetic for the status quo... what Georg Lukacs would call "reified" philosophy)"

Oh, you mean the currently dominant analytic philosophy of which Chomsky is among the greatest living representatives? Is that the sort of philosophy "devoid of any purpose and apologetic for the status quo" that you have in mind?

It is a bizarre quote, probably taken from the lecture course, not the words of the torrent sharer. I'm downloading it myself, but am skeptical that I'll find it of any use.

Chomsky's political ideals, as well as his vast knowledge of foreign policy-of which we all love so much-don't have a great deal to do with his work in linguistics, which might be said to be related to analytic philosophy proper (he actually admits this himself in one of the movies about him, either Distorted Morality or Power and Terror, in response to a question). But the contributions of analytic philosophy are scarcely calling the status quo into question, at least not in the way much of continental philosophy does. If it does, its in an indirect way because all philosophy, on both sides of this schism, forces one to think beyond their immediacy (think John Searle). Analytic philosophy assumes and works within the very categories that lead to repression and oppression.

"Analytic philosophy assumes and works within the very categories that lead to repression and oppression."

What an idiotic statement. Presumably, then, Chomsky is like some sort of Pushme-Pullyou working against himself. On the one hand (according to you) he is a leftist critic of the status quo. On the other, he's "working in categories that lead to repression and oppression." It must be very confusing for him.

Unless, of course, you're the one who is confused...

“currently dominant philosophy� - what, dominant? Yes, exactly, you are proving the point, it in no concrete way calls into question the arbitrarity of things like private property for example, into question, at least not in a philosophical level. These are conservative times, and they are accompanied by a conservative philosophy. This is not to say that there are not some very progressive philosophy professors, many are; but that they end up undercutting a great deal of their political ideals by thinking in concepts grounded in a conservative and stultifying philosophy.

But, to explain my contempt for analytic philosophy, I have the unfortunate pleasure of having gone to what was the best school for analytic philosophy in the country, but is now supposedly ranked #2 or 3 or something... the fact that there is a ranking system that faculty and students alike pay avid attention to should hint that somethings wrong. The very same students who would talk about the department and themselves in such a competitive and prideful manner interestingly enough would consider themselves liberal and lefty (but also liberterian), yet they all hate each other and compete, raising hands, sneering at one another when their peers get the right answer. The grad students are fighting for grants, trying to undermine one another because, of course, there are only a limited number of jobs out there, and so they compromise themselves, speak within the dominant discourse because to stray too much is financially risky. Don't dare drift to continental philosophy if you live in the USA, you won't get a job... shut down your mind and accept this “currently dominant� paradigm, that doesn't call capitalist thought into question- private property, rabid individualism, selfish human nature...

Perhaps my experience of analytic philosophy was just a unique one... but i rather doubt it. Analytic philosophy is tied to the total context in which it is enmeshed, no matter what the philosophers say about being able to logically transcend any bias, with their pseudo-scientific methods/abstract deductive logic which they impose on what is really a complex totality.

by the way, is someone trying to unmask me, with the topic about marcuse's mediocre one dimensional man? - nice and subtle strategy, but maybe not enough...

"What an idiotic statement. Presumably, then, Chomsky is like some sort of Pushme-Pullyou working against himself. On the one hand (according to you) he is a leftist critic of the status quo. On the other, he's "working in categories that lead to repression and oppression." It must be very confusing for him."

It isn't confusing for him at all. He draws a distinction between the two spheres, a) political and b) his linguistical sphere, which you classify under the rubric of philosophy. Chomsky, in his own words, after being asked what the relation of his political thought/commentary is to that of his linguistical pioneering, he said there really isn't any. I would argue that there are connections in thought, but not less pronounced. It seems Chomsky has done a good job of keeping them conceptually distinct in his mind.

But, I wasn't criticizing his political ideals, in fact i have great affinity with them. What I am criticizing is any attempt of conflating analytic philosophy with anything resembling revolutionary, and thinking that the pure methods of the former can ever lead to such a situation. Analytic philosophy pressupposes the prison walls that it must then work within. When really, I believe, at least as continental is concerned, it calls into question that there are any walls and if there are if they were subjectively constituted, not objectively there.

I'll end with a quote of Levinas's that I just encountered the other night. I think its a very telling criticism of the scientific method and thus also how this method replicates and is strengthened in the field of analytic philosophy:

"The problem of correspondence between thing and thought presupposes a free activity of thought and its isolation in relation to the object"

“currently dominant philosophy� - what, dominant? Yes, exactly, you are proving the point, it in no concrete way calls into question the arbitrarity of things like private property for example, into question, at least not in a philosophical level. These are conservative times, and they are accompanied by a conservative philosophy. This is not to say that there are not some very progressive philosophy professors, many are; but that they end up undercutting a great deal of their political ideals by thinking in concepts grounded in a conservative and stultifying philosophy.

But, to explain my contempt for analytic philosophy, I have the unfortunate pleasure of having gone to what was the best school for analytic philosophy in the country, but is now supposedly ranked #2 or 3 or something... the fact that there is a ranking system that faculty and students alike pay avid attention to should hint that somethings wrong. The very same students who would talk about the department and themselves in such a competitive and prideful manner interestingly enough would consider themselves liberal and lefty (but also liberterian), yet they all hate each other and compete, raising hands, sneering at one another when their peers get the right answer. The grad students are fighting for grants, trying to undermine one another because, of course, there are only a limited number of jobs out there, and so they compromise themselves, speak within the dominant discourse because to stray too much is financially risky. Don't dare drift to continental philosophy if you live in the USA, you won't get a job... shut down your mind and accept this “currently dominant� paradigm, that doesn't call capitalist thought into question- private property, rabid individualism, selfish human nature...

Perhaps my experience of analytic philosophy was just a unique one... but i rather doubt it. Analytic philosophy is tied to the total context in which it is enmeshed, no matter what the philosophers say about being able to logically transcend any bias, with their pseudo-scientific methods/abstract deductive logic which they impose on what is really a complex totality.

by the way, is someone trying to unmask me, with the topic about marcuse's mediocre one dimensional man? - nice and subtle strategy, but maybe not enough...