>
> By the way the charge of anti-theoretical or empiricist bias against Chomsky would essentially be correct had it come from almost anyone aside from Zizek. Chomsky is pretty much spot on in his political analysis. All of Zizek's earlier comments were either completely
> wrong (as in the eg. perfectly pointed out by Dennis P) or a stupid lazy carictures.
> Chomsky's anti-theoretical and ahistorical bias come out when dealing with 'deeper' issues like the ontological 'nature' of individuals, groups and society and the deeper structures and origins of ideology. If you stick to his political writings it doesnt come out.
>
fwiw:
at least from a philosophical perspective, it seems a bit of a stretch to relate chomsky to empiricism (innate structures and so on...). there is an interesting book: challenges to empiricism, with an essay by chomsky outlining some of his ideas, if i remember right...
http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=0915144905
--ravi
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- man is said to be a rational animal. i do not know why he has not been defined as an affective or feeling animal. more often i have seen a cat reason than laugh or weep. perhaps it weeps or laughs inwardly - but then perhaps, also inwardly, the crab resolves equations of the 2nd degree. -- alasdair macintyre.