6 ms·

Hmm, what should I get from that debate? I just re-read the transcript [1], and seems they just had a minor disagreement over the notion of justice. (And a coup

Hmm, what should I get from that debate? I just re-read the transcript [1], and seems they just had a minor disagreement over the notion of justice. (And a couple other little "differences" which we could consider clarifications.) I currently don't see why it's so heavily cited; some others (not you) seem to consider it some legendary heavyweight fight in the history of philosophy. But it was just... an interview. As for his disagreements with certain philosophers... he makes a cogent point, that perhaps he simply doesn't understand it, but much of it seems to him written in a kind of gibberish, which can understandably lead to a lot of mistakes. [2] Imagine if I wrote hopefully useful code, but it was extremely hard to read and poorly documented... What properties would we expect that code to have? [1] http://www.chomsky.info/debates/1971xxxx.htm http://www.chomsky.info/debates/1971xxxx.htm [2] http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/chomsky-on-postmodernism.html http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/chomsky-on-pos...

steveklabnik 13y ago
It's of particular interest to me because it really strongly illustrates the gulf between the two. It's a pretty solid introduction to both of their positions, and goes in interesting places. > Imagine if I wrote hopefully useful code, but it was extremely hard to read > and poorly documented... What properties would we expect that code to have? This is not the right analogy. The right analogy is a C programmer looking at some Haskell code, and complaining that they don't understand where memory is allocated, where the pointers are. I mean, after all, who can get real work done without pointers? Let's examine his essay, but substituting in Haskell and C... actually, wait a minute. I know I've heard this before... ah yes, here: http://byfat.xxx/chomsky http://byfat.xxx/chomsky Okay, so that's only kinda what I'm saying... what would you think about this paragraph? > But from 50 years in this programming game, I have learned two things: (1) > I can ask friends who work in object oriented areas to explain it to me at > a level that I can understand, and they can do so, without particular > difficulty; (2) if I'm interested, I can proceed to learn more so that I > will come to understand it. Now functors, arrows, hylomorphisms, monads, > etc. --- even first-class functions, whom I knew and liked, and who was > somewhat different from the rest --- write things that I also don't > understand, but (1) and (2) don't hold: no one who says they do understand > can explain monads to me and I haven't a clue as to how to proceed to > overcome my failures. That leaves one of two possibilities: (a) some new > advance in intellectual life has been made, perhaps some sudden genetic > mutation, which has created a form of "programming paradigm" that is beyond procedural > programming, structured programming, etc., in depth and profundity; or > (b) ... I won't spell it out. You'd probably say "seriously, stop being an idiot. Haskell is hard, and strange, and weird, but it has value. If you like C just keep on writing C, no need to be such a jerk about it. But Haskell is for doing different kinds of programming than C."
- tunixman 13y ago
  The most helpful monad tutorial http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/write_some_fucking_code.html http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/write_some_fucking_co...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- calibraxis 13y ago
  Let's not take one throwaway analogy I made (to help illustrate someone's point), and base an entire post on highly leaky programming analogies. Why not actually help us understand the useful aspects of continental philosophy? I cited explanations, not shaky analogies. (I'm sorry for using an illustrative analogy, because they serve as good rhetorical targets.) Why not pick a technology made by a charlatan, and see how it sounds? You're after all assuming that the philosophy he criticizes is Haskell. What if instead, it's some closed source, obfuscated "artificial intelligence" snakeoil which barely even compiles? And why pick that one particular paragraph? How about the one where he mentions meeting some luminaries he criticizes, like Foucault, Derrida, and Kristeva? Does the aggressively ignorant C programmer go so far as meeting the Haskell implementors, trying to understand their perspectives? Does anyone go around citing the ignorant C programmer's debate with a famous Haskell implementor, where they mostly agree? What about when he requests these philosophers "to do what people in physics, math, biology, linguistics, and other fields are happy to do when someone asks them, seriously, what are the principles of their theories, on what evidence are they based, what do they explain that wasn't already obvious, etc. These are fair requests for anyone to make." Does anyone think Haskellers don't do this? Then as programmers, we need to focus some efforts on that. Because in the software world, that's a sign of charlatans!
  - steveklabnik 13y ago
    > Why not actually help us understand the useful aspects of continental philosophy? Sorry, I thought you were trying to understand what Chomsky is saying here, not get an introduction yourself. > You're after all assuming that the philosophy he criticizes is Haskell. I'm not assuming; I've read most of these people, or at least have a basic grasp of their ideas. > And why pick that one particular paragraph? I thought it was the one that was most illustrative. > How about the one where he mentions meeting some luminaries he criticizes, like Foucault, Derrida, and Kristeva? Uhhh I replaced "Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard, Kristeva, etc. --- even Foucault," with "functors, arrows, hylomorphisms, monads, etc. --- even first-class functions". I'm not sure how I could more directly engage there. > What about when he requests these philosophers [explain themselves] They do. There is a wealth of introductory literature. I think you're taking Chomsky too literally here; this is rhetoric. As an incredibly simple, basic introduction, here's an eight minute video on postmodernism and Community http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YanhEVEgkYI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YanhEVEgkYI And here's a 5 minute introduction to Zizek, who Chomsky has been reviving this spat with in the press as of late: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZDNhKBxgTw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZDNhKBxgTw

steveklabnik 13y ago

It's of particular interest to me because it really strongly illustrates the gulf between the two. It's a pretty solid introduction to both of their positions, and goes in interesting places. > Imagine if I wrote hopefully useful code, but it was extremely hard to read > and poorly documented... What properties would we expect that code to have? This is not the right analogy. The right analogy is a C programmer looking at some Haskell code, and complaining that they don't understand where memory is allocated, where the pointers are. I mean, after all, who can get real work done without pointers? Let's examine his essay, but substituting in Haskell and C... actually, wait a minute. I know I've heard this before... ah yes, here: http://byfat.xxx/chomsky http://byfat.xxx/chomsky Okay, so that's only kinda what I'm saying... what would you think about this paragraph? > But from 50 years in this programming game, I have learned two things: (1) > I can ask friends who work in object oriented areas to explain it to me at > a level that I can understand, and they can do so, without particular > difficulty; (2) if I'm interested, I can proceed to learn more so that I > will come to understand it. Now functors, arrows, hylomorphisms, monads, > etc. --- even first-class functions, whom I knew and liked, and who was > somewhat different from the rest --- write things that I also don't > understand, but (1) and (2) don't hold: no one who says they do understand > can explain monads to me and I haven't a clue as to how to proceed to > overcome my failures. That leaves one of two possibilities: (a) some new > advance in intellectual life has been made, perhaps some sudden genetic > mutation, which has created a form of "programming paradigm" that is beyond procedural > programming, structured programming, etc., in depth and profundity; or > (b) ... I won't spell it out. You'd probably say "seriously, stop being an idiot. Haskell is hard, and strange, and weird, but it has value. If you like C just keep on writing C, no need to be such a jerk about it. But Haskell is for doing different kinds of programming than C."

tunixman 13y ago
The most helpful monad tutorial http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/write_some_fucking_code.html http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2013/write_some_fucking_co...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
calibraxis 13y ago
Let's not take one throwaway analogy I made (to help illustrate someone's point), and base an entire post on highly leaky programming analogies. Why not actually help us understand the useful aspects of continental philosophy? I cited explanations, not shaky analogies. (I'm sorry for using an illustrative analogy, because they serve as good rhetorical targets.) Why not pick a technology made by a charlatan, and see how it sounds? You're after all assuming that the philosophy he criticizes is Haskell. What if instead, it's some closed source, obfuscated "artificial intelligence" snakeoil which barely even compiles? And why pick that one particular paragraph? How about the one where he mentions meeting some luminaries he criticizes, like Foucault, Derrida, and Kristeva? Does the aggressively ignorant C programmer go so far as meeting the Haskell implementors, trying to understand their perspectives? Does anyone go around citing the ignorant C programmer's debate with a famous Haskell implementor, where they mostly agree? What about when he requests these philosophers "to do what people in physics, math, biology, linguistics, and other fields are happy to do when someone asks them, seriously, what are the principles of their theories, on what evidence are they based, what do they explain that wasn't already obvious, etc. These are fair requests for anyone to make." Does anyone think Haskellers don't do this? Then as programmers, we need to focus some efforts on that. Because in the software world, that's a sign of charlatans!
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  > Why not actually help us understand the useful aspects of continental philosophy? Sorry, I thought you were trying to understand what Chomsky is saying here, not get an introduction yourself. > You're after all assuming that the philosophy he criticizes is Haskell. I'm not assuming; I've read most of these people, or at least have a basic grasp of their ideas. > And why pick that one particular paragraph? I thought it was the one that was most illustrative. > How about the one where he mentions meeting some luminaries he criticizes, like Foucault, Derrida, and Kristeva? Uhhh I replaced "Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard, Kristeva, etc. --- even Foucault," with "functors, arrows, hylomorphisms, monads, etc. --- even first-class functions". I'm not sure how I could more directly engage there. > What about when he requests these philosophers [explain themselves] They do. There is a wealth of introductory literature. I think you're taking Chomsky too literally here; this is rhetoric. As an incredibly simple, basic introduction, here's an eight minute video on postmodernism and Community http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YanhEVEgkYI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YanhEVEgkYI And here's a 5 minute introduction to Zizek, who Chomsky has been reviving this spat with in the press as of late: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZDNhKBxgTw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZDNhKBxgTw