Who was in the wrong here?

>>8642103
Everybody. In the world.

>>8642103
Ideology man.

Chomsky cuts him down to size by identifying his identification of ideologies.
Zizek spergs out over a redacted statement made nearly half a century ago.

>>8642108
That was literally my 'edgy' answer before I saw yours. Zizek's too out there but Chomksky's such a god damn square who never says anything you've never thought yourself

Chomsky. Zizek's has his problems but he is doing what he sets out to do. Chomsky claims to be empirical and isn't.

>>8642103
what was even either's point

File: Sam-Harris-800x430.jpg (62KB, 800x430px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 800x430px

Both. And pic related has been attacked by both and criticized both for their intractability. It seems like all three are in a kind of weird Mexican standoff, in which nobody can concede anything to anyone else or come out of their hidey-holes.

I think that's why Harris is as popular as he is, because he seems the most open to discussion of the positions of the other sides, but he gives the impression of being an unfeeling utilitarian cyborg, which is why there's this impasse. It's all depressing as shit and imho the deadlock just fuels the radical right that both are opposing.

>>8642597
All 3 are crap. They eat crap too. I bet. Take a hidden camera and set it up in their kitchens.

>>8642597
Harris is attractive because he's charismatic and calm. Philosophically he's a dunce. He seriously thinks morals are objective. I mean, god damn.

>>8642103
both are idiots

>>8642608
He's not a dunce. One of his main interests is the concept of religious violence, and he's addressing that by trying to arrive at general conclusions about the nature of faith. From his perspective you can only do that by taking a non-moralistic stance - hence, the 'objective' approach. And he's not going to quote Nietzsche to do this.

Zizek is not going to question Hegel or Lacan any more than Chomsky is going to give up his own theory of language. I don't know if Harris really believes morals can be objectively understood, but he does seem to at least subscribe to the value of trying to talk about them rationally or in a general sense. That's not crazy, and it's definitely not stupid.

Just my two cents. I could be wrong. That's just how I see it.

>>8642597
>It seems like all three are in a kind of weird Mexican standoff, in which nobody can concede anything to anyone else or come out of their hidey-holes.

I love how the Sam Harris shitposters slide him into these discussions as if he is really part of the conversation

They know exactly what they're doing, God bless 'em

>>8642646
Except it turns out you can be totally secular and still a shitty moralist too.

>>8642647
It's the worst on Wikipedia. Meanwhile on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy he's mentioned exactly once.

>(In this respect Hume's “old atheism” is both less dogmatic and more open-minded in attitude and tone than the forms of “new atheism” associated with the likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and others of that school.)

>>8642647
I have no idea what I'm doing. But again, if the question is 'Zizek or Chomsky: who was in the wrong?' it doesn't seem crazy to consider the perspective of a third who has shown that, in some ways, both may be wrong, in some ways - and yet who is not holding all of the answers himself. That was my original point. There's no need to get carried away.

>>8642678
I agree 100%.

>>8642103
what is this even referring to? did they ever have an exchange?

>>8642717
10/10 you maniac autist you