Chomsky is not concerned with arguments against any particular thesis or text of Zizek’s but in sketching out a transcendental portrait of any-French-philosopher whatsoever, a generic conceptual persona that acts as a shadow figure, embodying all the traits of a negative image of thought that Chomsky wishes not so much to analyse as to denounce. His criteria for inclusion in this generic set: I don’t understand it, none of my friends can explain it, I don’t know what to learn so as to be able to understand. There is no understanding it and no path to understanding, no emirically available nor even conceivable pedagogy. One can call this the “No Comprendo” Argument.

There are many possible explanations for this non-understanding. There may be nothing to understand – this is Chomsk’s conclusion. The ideas may just be too difficult. Or the very words and concepts used may belong to a different…

View original post 429 more words

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s