/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22282300]

Whose writings will age the best after they die?

[Anonymous No.22282544]

depends on how they die mate innit
want to have another crack at the question?

[Anonymous No.22282625]

sowell was already dated when he wrote his stuff. He's probably the dumbest person that people view as smart bar Jordan Peterson

[Anonymous No.22282637]

>>22282300
Chomskys been defending Epstein so he's done.

[Anonymous No.22282638]

>>22282625
D-did you just say the token black man is dumb????!!!! But I was told he was heckin' based and super smart unlike all those other niggers??

[Anonymous No.22282647]

>>22282625
What about his stuff is dumb? Not disagreeing just curious

[Anonymous No.22282834]

>>22282647
He has no answer, the best he has is that anarfags and socialist trannies thinks he's retareded.

[Anonymous No.22282916]

>>22282637
Libtards are fine with being hypocrites. Chomsky will live on as much as he is now.

[Anonymous No.22282933]

Karl Marx

[Anonymous No.22282937]

>>22282300
They will both be forgotten.

[Anonymous No.22283075]

Probably Chomsky given his major contributions to linguistics and influence on cognitive science, computing, and machine learning. Sowell is just a full time pundit and nobody even remembers the pundits from two decades ago. Seriously, who has read any of Sowell's academic publications? He's a nothing burger and once he bites the dust people will find another super amazing intellectual to lend credit to whatever shitty politics happens to be popular at the time.

[Anonymous No.22283113]

>>22283075
People barely even remember Sowell these days. He used to be all the rage during the Tea Party days and before.

[Anonymous No.22283254]

>>22283075
>Probably Chomsky given his major contributions to linguistics and influence on cognitive science, computing, and machine learning.

His linguistic shit is sorely dated now.

[Anonymous No.22283327]

>>22283254
that doesn’t mean he didn’t revolutionize the field. Freud was wrong about almost everything he said, but he was important at the time and is known as the father of modern psychology

[Anonymous No.22283616]

>>22282834
>>22282625
Fucking hell you don’t know shit about Tom Sowell

[Anonymous No.22284548]

>>22282300
Sowell. Chomsly is a child molesting controlled opposition hack.

[Anonymous No.22284556]

>>22282300
>Whose writings will age the best after they die?
Foucault won Foucault/chomsky 2:0…gee, who?

Foucault's discipline and punish stands as a jacobin screed against the sans coulettes of 1968?

Jee Whoe?

fuck me cunt.

[Anonymous No.22284562]

>>22282300
>defends Cambodian killing fields and genocide in your path
Chomsky is popular solely for his entertainment value, being one of the first to recognize the power of radical language (calling everyone who disagrees with him a Nazi).
He will be remembered in the same way P. T. Barnum is remembered.

[Anonymous No.22284852]

>>22282300

There will always be retarded libertarians screeching about muh free market, whereas Chomsky's particular brand of anti-American leftism died before he did. Now that US imperialism is dressed up in the rainbow flag and kneels for dead black drug dealers, mainstream leftists no longer find it objectionable.

[Anonymous No.22284945]

>>22282300
Gnome Chunky for sure.

[Anonymous No.22284973]

>>22283075
>his major contributions to linguistics and influence on cognitive science, computing, and machine learning
>this is what redditors believe
Chomsky did a lot more than Sowell. But at least Sowell is a little useful as a teacher economics. Everything Chomsky ever wrote was either midwit level or just bullshit.

[Anonymous No.22285220]

>>22283254
Dated? Depends. He's still one of the most important and cited authorities in the field as well as other disciplines. There have always been critiques of Chomsky's theories, but that doesn't make him dated at all. If you study linguistics today, your going to have read Chomsky at some point.

>>22283327
Freud wasn't wrong about everything he said. Sure, modern psychoanalysts have dropped some of his louser theories, but his psychodynamic theory of the psyche and the unconscious are still very relevant.

>>22284973
Chomsky likes to seperate his scientific work from his political views. If you've even been to a public lecture, interview, or ever seen a classroom with Chomsky when the topic is linguistic, he absolutely refuses any political discussion whatseover and doesn't let anyone bring it up. Whereas Sowell shoves his personal biases and political opinions into literally everything. You could probably spend an hour learning lingustics with Chomsky and get a nice run down of the field that's pretty impartial, but within 5 minutes Sowell will spiral off topic into tea party babble.

[Anonymous No.22285273]

>>22283616
>ur wrong
Masterful counter, Sir. Yet another grandiose triumph for you!

[Anonymous No.22285283]

>>22282300
>mention The Gnome
>a lot of people in many fields know who you're talking about
>name Sowell
>recognized only by some marginal freaks with questionable ethics
simple as

[Anonymous No.22286320]

>>22285273
>facetious sarcasm
Shave your neck faggot

[Anonymous No.22286894]

>>22282300
Noam, purely for Manufacturing Consent

[Anonymous No.22286931]

>>22286894
Based, this work is timeless even though it's 35 years old and spends most of it's pages on specific events such as the Vietnam War and other events in South America, the fundamental thrust is so devastating and poignant, it's basically become better and more relevant as time has passed.

[Anonymous No.22286946]

>>22282625
Sowell isn't turbo-genius but Chompers is a verified quack that's almost as wrong as often as Krugman.
>>22286931
All the hippy anti-war types had solid points during Vietnam but in their senescence they've become complacent, or more accurately senile. Awakening to the horror of liberalism's mutation would drive them mad, so they sleep.

[Anonymous No.22286959]

>>22286946
Chomsky definitely has gone senile, but you can't honestly be claiming that the "hippy anti-war types" had any significant impact in shaping our current society? Power is more centralized in the hands of the military industrial complex and the alphabet intelligence agencies than perhaps ever before. Our society is commoditized than perhaps ever before. Our community ties are weaker than perhaps ever before. Neoliberalism neutered the "hippy anti-war types" and used enough of their language to soothe the masses while continuing the same business as before. I guess what I'm saying is we need the awareness present in Manufacturing Consent now more than ever.

[Anonymous No.22286977]

>>22286959
>Power is more centralized in the hands... ties are weaker than perhaps ever before
People should have read Brave New World Revisited. Actually, if people read any sort of intelligent literature then they would have the acuity to comprehend large abstract problems. Then we wouldn't be relying on the dead or senile that grew up before television.
My advice is to brace for impact. All the "boomer" generation advertisement idealism led to no real good, but the smartphone army of the damned will make the boomers look like the philosopher kings of Plato.

[Anonymous No.22286982]

>>22282300
Sowell, Obviously. His heart has always been in the right place. He’s got class.

[Anonymous No.22287072]

>>22284562
I mean I’ll give him that. The Khmer Rouge targeted the right people, namely urbanites and the over educated. We could use that again, only this time stateside. Sure he definitely went overboard but he wasn’t as stupid or insane as people generally thought.

[Anonymous No.22287622]

>>22282300
Sowell has a narrower audience in the U.S. while Chomsky is well known internationally, so Chomsky. Also the biggest political cause for him in his life was East Timor and he was awarded the Order of Timor-Leste for his role in their independence from Indonesia.

[Anonymous No.22287665]

>>22282300
Chomsky's crap will be shilled by lefties ad nauseum while Sowell's work will be buried and labeled as dangerous propaganda.
I really hope it won't be that way though.

[Anonymous No.22287756]

>>22285220
>>22283075
Chomsky definitely contributed more overall, given his contributions to linguistics, cognitive science, and computer science, but that should not overshadow the fact that Chomsky was good buddies with Epstein, and tried to deny and obfuscate the fact in multiple interviews. He is probably a pedo. That being said I do respect his work, and it was very influential on my own intellectual development.

[Anonymous No.22287890]

>>22282638
Sowell isn't dumb, he's fairly basic but "in the land of the blind..." and so on and so forth applies to the realm of the so-called right wing intelligentsia

Nothing he says should be controversial to any honest social scientist which is precisely why all his opponents just hurl insults at him and call him an Uncle Tom. They don't have a useful rebuttal to him because Sowell rarely ventures far into the realm of speculation

[Anonymous No.22288053]

>>22282300
They tackle rather different issues, I find both of their works would be remembered by different people.

[Anonymous No.22288108]

>>22287072
>you have glasses!
>you intelectual
>you die now!
We need you to be killed by a pack of niggers, commie

[Anonymous No.22289495]

>>22287756
Assuming he is a pedo, how does that effect his work? Einstein fucked his cousin, doesn't make him a bad physicist.

[Anonymous No.22289503]

>>22282300
Sowell is basically:
>Ayo republikkkan honky, so I be sayin dat da dems are da real racis, so gibe me dat

[Anonymous No.22289527]

>>22282300
Conservatism is not intellectual in any sense, other than as examples of rhetoric.

Conservatism defends what is, which is impossible to defend when it does not work for anyone but the conservative, making it academically nothing more than propaganda and sophistry.

There is no such thing as a new or innovative conservative argument. There is only grift and con games.

Therefore, Sowell provides nothing to economics other than more fallacies and misdirection, whereas Chomsky actually provided new critiques and arguments as to why Capitalism is destroying the ability of a society to be managed.

Sowell's arguments are nothing more than the tired false comparisons of capitalism with other forms of centralization, and do not in any way address the critiques of capitalism, while Chomsky shows how what we think is going on and what the capitalist say is going on is not actually going on at all, and then goes on to show both logically and evidentially how capital has corrupted social systems.

Sowell will be forgotten.

[Anonymous No.22289530]

>>22287756
More ad hominem from the conservatives.

[Anonymous No.22289728]

>>22289527
>Conservatism defends what is, which is impossible to defend when it does not work for anyone but the conservative, making it academically nothing more than propaganda and sophistry.
>There is no such thing as a new or innovative conservative argument. There is only grift and con games.
this really goes both ways

[Anonymous No.22289730]

>>22289728
i mean just take the whole rainbow stuff, especially as applied to minors, as the most recent issue

[Anonymous No.22289735]

>>22282300
Chomsky because the future of the west is socialist and multiracial

[Anonymous No.22290839]

>>22282625
>Sowell tries to criticize Marx
>He didn't properly understood it in the first place

[Anonymous No.22291857]

>>22282300
Chomsky's linguistic output may be remembered but he's the guy who publishes everything he has on his mind at the moment and doesn't care whether they contradict the stuff he has written earlier if someone points it out he's verbally skilled enough to create some kind of bridge where both contradictory versions are true, but this obviously shows he's not being serious about the subject(or truth) but rather a rhetorician who enjoys academic debate. But you probably are asking about political writings, right?

Chomsky I've read his book on propaganda and honestly it's the typical leftist take on it, there are many like it, this on just has the irony of him sitting in the belly of the beast and pointing his finger at something immaterial rather than, well, the beast, as he was writing it. As such member of propagandist class diverted attention from his kind. Had it been the only such book he could be excused but it's not so I don't think I'd recommend it to someone.

Sowell will be forever constrained by the fact he had to keep the appearance of respectable conservative to the liberals, only allowed to say certain things because of his race. He has some interesting takes here and there, but has to default to the meaningless slogans about the markets and the family values.

I'd say both are a diversion, Sowell is meant to corral the conservative minded into GOP cage, Chomsky is meant to corral leftist minded into being reluctant democrats, just so they don't fall off the orbit and develop radicalism - for instance both sides have their reasons to destroy the predatory education lobby but guess what would both of these old farts say about it.

[Anonymous No.22292029]

>>22283075
>major contributions to linguistics and cogsci
My man everything Chomsky has proposed has turned out to be wrong. He used his shitty pull and academic schmoozing to set research by by decades.

[Anonymous No.22292067]

>>22292029
Let's not forget he had the audacity to defend his relationship with Epstein.

[Anonymous No.22292073]

>>22286977
>My advice is to brace for impact. All the "boomer" generation advertisement idealism led to no real good,

that's the central theme of fear and loathing in las vegas

“We are all wired into a survival trip now. No more of the speed that fueled that 60's. That was the fatal flaw in Tim Leary's trip. He crashed around America selling "consciousness expansion" without ever giving a thought to the grim meat-hook realities that were lying in wait for all the people who took him seriously... All those pathetically eager acid freaks who thought they could buy Peace and Understanding for three bucks a hit. But their loss and failure is ours too. What Leary took down with him was the central illusion of a whole life-style that he helped create... a generation of permanent cripples, failed seekers, who never understood the essential old-mystic fallacy of the Acid Culture: the desperate assumption that somebody... or at least some force - is tending the light at the end of the tunnel.”

[Anonymous No.22292311]

What is the best work of Sowell?

[Anonymous No.22292315]

>>22292311
all eyez on me

[Anonymous No.22292320]

>>22282300
The one who wasn't an associate of Jeffrey Epstein.

[Anonymous No.22292352]

Chomsky said in interviews decades ago that he would support the derailment of trains with weapons going to Vietnam, although he wouldn’t do it.

As an intellectual how do you cross the line between action and support? Should intellectuals abide by the law in order to avoid jail/death? Should intellectuals be aware of their value as a thinking person and not action person?

>>22287622
What was his role exactly? I want to learn so we can emulate his actions.

[Anonymous No.22292583]

>>22290839
>didn't properly understood it

[Anonymous No.22292655]

>>22287756
>contributions to linguistics
he set back the field by decades

[Anonymous No.22292705]

>>22285283
What does ethics have anything to do with making truthful statements?

[Anonymous No.22292710]

>>22282300
Chomsky is a j*w, so he'll be pushed.

[Anonymous No.22292711]

>>22288108
Not even really a communist quite the opposite but you have to give credit where it’s due.

[Anonymous No.22292714]

>>22289530
Yeah I guess it’s wrong to point out hypocrisy since you “people” are unable to do it yourselves

[Anonymous No.22292723]

>>22282300
HATE CHUMPSKY
HATE SOWELL
Both will age poorly. Reddit midwits like Peterson. The dumb persons idea of smart people.

[Anonymous No.22293146]

>>22282300
Sowell.

[Anonymous No.22293288]

>>22282916
Not even a libtard, but caring about hypocrisy is very dumb when it comes to intellectuals. I'll grant that hypocrisy might be a sign of personal moral failure, but it doesn't really have an effect on the thinker's arguments, unless their conclusions explicitly assumed the moral character of the author as a premise (which almost never happens).

[Anonymous No.22293302]

>>22283254
Chomsky, as a linguist, is dated in the same sense that Frege and Newton are dated. People will keep remembering him as a foundational figure, and all the bits he got right will keep being attributed to him. He's not going anywhere.
He might get forgotten as a political scientist, but it is still the case that his works are infinitely more interesting than the ones of Sowell. The amount of cited sources (sources that many times are glossed over by more mainstream political scientists) is enough to warrant some interest in his work. I think people tend to underrate him because they can't read, and think that reading authors they disagree with is a waste of time (since it demands too much effort from them). Those who can read with little effort on the other hand will end up reading lots of stuff they disagree with, and still gain something from those readings (if the books are well crafted, ofc)

[Anonymous No.22293412]

>>22292723
>everyone I don’t like is le dumb person’s idea of le smart person
You’d make a fine redditor

[Anonymous No.22293419]

>>22282300
Reminder that Chomsky avoided debating Milton Friedman, and only starting shit talking him after he died. Chomsky knew Friedman would have cooked him. The linguist daddy is an intellectual charlatan.