I don't find that argument convincing. Chomsky makes it clear that if he was interested in understanding something, in this case C, he would make an honest effort at finding the people and resources necessary to reach that goal.
Continental philosophy and postmodern thought fall reasonably within the domain of Chomsky's interests. If a man of his knowledge and reputation cannot parse the arguments being made then really what is the utility of those arguments.
It would be one thing if Chomsky was rejecting the arguments being made. Instead he is basically saying there is no argument.
Continental philosophy and postmodern thought fall reasonably within the domain of Chomsky's interests. If a man of his knowledge and reputation cannot parse the arguments being made then really what is the utility of those arguments.
It would be one thing if Chomsky was rejecting the arguments being made. Instead he is basically saying there is no argument.