Best arguments against post-modernism?

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Chomsky's point is that if it can't be explained clearly then it's not worth taking seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]do you guys consider that to be a valid criticism?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is valid criticism if it ultimately mean that whatever theory you propose is obfuscated by trying to cover your back from 'everything', a typical postmodernistic fallacy - but it isn't the postmodernistic ideal.

The postmodernistic ideal is more of accepting that your truths are often ultimately subjective, sometimes simple and may not always cover reality very well.

Chomsky is ultimately a structuralist (the belief that you can learn about a system through studying its structures and the relationship between them), something which is often rejected by postmodernists because whatever structures you perceive may be a subjective perception. (For instance if we as 'westerners' study some unique Papa Ny Guinea culture, we may see structures that aren't there, miss structures that are there) So it should be noted that he has some 'beef' with them.