[lbo-talk] The postmodern prince

[Michael Dawson -PSU]

> To clarify: he sounds as if he's operating on the basis of not very
> sophisticated criticisms of philosophical naturalism.

Two points:

1. This reply exhibits exactly the habit Chomsky attacks:  Truth/theoretical
power requires "sophistication."

2. What the heck are you even saying?  What is it that Chomsky doesn't
understand, that you do?  You disagree with him about what social theory is
and how it works.  I would be shocked, however, if you could out-debate Noam
Chomsky on any area touching upon this issue.  Chomsky is pretty close to
being a philosophical naturalist, to the extent that means "looking at
reality is not super-complicated" or "reality tells us a great deal."  Are
you accusing Chomsky of being a naive empiricist?