[captZEEbo]

I asked my girlfriend to give some counterarguments to what you've been saying, but unfortunately she doesn't have time to respond to all the criticisms, but here's one from her:

I believe that what Chomsky is talking about is the writings of a group of people who have ensconsed themselves in the academic establishment by applying the label 'postmodern' to themselves while producing worthless drivel.

Postmodernism is a broad term and you're probably thinking of something a somewhat different.

------------Obsurdity as a critique. Don DeLillo. Kurt Vonnegut. Absurdity helps people push themselves to a level outside of power-structured ideology. No label universally fits everything. There is no metanarrative.


Quote:

Quote:
Chomsky's point is that if it can't be explained clearly then it's not worth taking seriously.

do you guys consider that to be a valid criticism?



Yes. By 'clearly' Chomsky means 'intelligibly'. There is no reason to take an unintelligible view seriously. In fact, an unintelligible view is no view at all.


--------------- But the real question becomes "unintelligible as defined by whom??" And hasn't "intelligible" been defined differently over time?? So, then, it seems that the word unintelligible is not a term which can be easily applied or understood. Which historical definition of "unintelligible" do we use? Isn't what is "intelligible" only a reflection of a power structure? so, it seems intelligible or unintelligible a view is worth assessing and considering.