Org Mobile Site
Thread: Noam Chomsky
I just watched a few tapes my buddy had of Noam Chomsky. One was called Rebel with a Cause, and the other was Chomsky on Charlie Rose. It's not the first time I've seen Chomsky, but it brought back fond memories for this insanely intelligent and insightful person.
I'm curious why some people hate him so much. Not just hate, but bitter seething contempt. Chomsky espouses freedom of speech, thought, and information at every turn, and does it as eloquently as any man alive. Yet the right wing, who use the word freedom to name everything from their military operations to their french fries (Operation Freedom Fries?) can't stand the guy because he exercises the rights they say everyone across the planet should have.
Is it that he's wrong, or just that the right believe in freedom, but just not for him?
I'm curious why some people hate him so much. Not just hate, but bitter seething contempt. Chomsky espouses freedom of speech, thought, and information at every turn, and does it as eloquently as any man alive. Yet the right wing, who use the word freedom to name everything from their military operations to their french fries (Operation Freedom Fries?) can't stand the guy because he exercises the rights they say everyone across the planet should have.
Is it that he's wrong, or just that the right believe in freedom, but just not for him?
Read two of his books, Rogue states and the Fatefull Triangle, didn't seem that bad to me but I am not that informed.
edit, come to think of it, did got pwned here a few times when I used him as a refefrence.
edit, come to think of it, did got pwned here a few times when I used him as a refefrence.
You mean the guy that thinks the NFL is part of a "bread and circuses" conspiracy? That the federal government actively supports it because it helps keep the population passive? Or that if we stop "committing terrorism" that others will follow suit? That Noam Chomsky?
Brilliant within his own walls and very, very academic. Far too many of his insights are useless outside his own world or without his particular definitions.
I haven't heard much about this guy in years. I prefer to focus on those who advance our knowledge of the sciences and better life as a whole. I (third time
) am very right wing but don't use the word hate to describe him. Not sure where you're getting that from.
Brilliant within his own walls and very, very academic. Far too many of his insights are useless outside his own world or without his particular definitions.
I haven't heard much about this guy in years. I prefer to focus on those who advance our knowledge of the sciences and better life as a whole. I (third time
) am very right wing but don't use the word hate to describe him. Not sure where you're getting that from.Hah! Chomsky! A girl I know quite well studied at MIT last year, for her Ph.D. She's a linguist, and very leftwing. Extremely bright too.
Naturally, she was really excited about working with Chomsky, which she did for a full semester. Boy, was that a dissapointment...
Apparantly, in his daily life, mr. Chomsky is of a completely unagreeable character, insufferable even. A tyrant for his underlings. Worst of all, rude to the supporting staff, the cleaners and such.
Since I disagree with both her and Chomsky about both politics and linguistics, their little conflict of characters is an endless source of amusement to me. I can tease her for it till her grave, and well intend to.
Naturally, she was really excited about working with Chomsky, which she did for a full semester. Boy, was that a dissapointment...
Apparantly, in his daily life, mr. Chomsky is of a completely unagreeable character, insufferable even. A tyrant for his underlings. Worst of all, rude to the supporting staff, the cleaners and such.
Since I disagree with both her and Chomsky about both politics and linguistics, their little conflict of characters is an endless source of amusement to me. I can tease her for it till her grave, and well intend to.
Louis:
Where does Chomsky fall short in your assessment? Note: I myself take a largely Habermasian view of communicative interaction and meaning.
On other levels:
Chomsky is a bright fellow, clearly embracing of the political "left" in his outlook on events. His commentary on foreign affairs and government are criticisms he is perfectly entitled to make, but would carry less weight with me than would commentary by Kissinger or Powell. On the other side of the coin, I'd listen to and consider Chomsky's comments on Saussure and Language more carefully than I would those of Powell or Kissinger. Similarly, Michael Jackson's comments on pop music and dance are based on an informed perspective. I would not nominate him for SecDef.
Where does Chomsky fall short in your assessment? Note: I myself take a largely Habermasian view of communicative interaction and meaning.
On other levels:
Chomsky is a bright fellow, clearly embracing of the political "left" in his outlook on events. His commentary on foreign affairs and government are criticisms he is perfectly entitled to make, but would carry less weight with me than would commentary by Kissinger or Powell. On the other side of the coin, I'd listen to and consider Chomsky's comments on Saussure and Language more carefully than I would those of Powell or Kissinger. Similarly, Michael Jackson's comments on pop music and dance are based on an informed perspective. I would not nominate him for SecDef.
Originally Posted by :
I'm curious why some people hate him so much.
Because simply, he is a very intelligent man whose critiques of the American system, foreign policy and leaders is so biting and true it is hard for those who disagree with him to accept anything he says. It just turns into blind hatred.I'm curious why some people hate him so much.
I have a problem with his views on cognition and language acquisition. Besides that, I've never met the guy, but the whole of the field of Linguistics is so largely full of Chomsky's worshippers that I've developed a contempt for him that manifests itself not unlike the way I laugh when I watch Oderus beat Jesus at basketball.
I'm currently reading through Failed States and finding it quite eye-openning. I don't agree with every conclusion he makes, though I do find myself believing a lot of his conclusions. I have also read What We Say Goes, which is a series of interviews with him. I am also working my way through Interventions, a series of short essays by him. All of them I have found quite cutting in their criticisms and often well-supported. However, some of his conclusions are a little bit spurious.
A genius he certainly is, both in linguistics and in his (abstract) political views. But his genius doesn't necessarily lay in being right: it's to be found in presenting strongly a vision of his own, one which people can disagree with with equal strength. It's the ease one can disagree with him which makes him an attractive target, and people often aim to score points by denouncing his well-publicized views without actually stating their own with equal clarity. That's always the easier way.
Edit: for example, it's easier to denounce someone as un-American than to define exactly what is American.
Edit: for example, it's easier to denounce someone as un-American than to define exactly what is American.
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S:
A genius he certainly is, both in linguistics and in his (abstract) political views. But his genius doesn't necessarily lay in being right: it's to be found in presenting strongly a vision of his own, one which people can disagree with with equal strength. It's the ease one can disagree with him which makes him an attractive target, and people often aim to score points by denouncing his well-publicized views without actually stating their own with equal clarity. That's always the easier way.
Edit: for example, it's easier to denounce someone as un-American than to define exactly what is American.
Freedom hater!A genius he certainly is, both in linguistics and in his (abstract) political views. But his genius doesn't necessarily lay in being right: it's to be found in presenting strongly a vision of his own, one which people can disagree with with equal strength. It's the ease one can disagree with him which makes him an attractive target, and people often aim to score points by denouncing his well-publicized views without actually stating their own with equal clarity. That's always the easier way.
Edit: for example, it's easier to denounce someone as un-American than to define exactly what is American.
(well stated)
Originally Posted by JAG:
Because simply, he is a very intelligent man whose critiques of the American system, foreign policy and leaders is so biting and true it is hard for those who disagree with him to accept anything he says. It just turns into blind hatred.
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, its JAG!!! Missed you old friend, hugged any child molestors lately?Because simply, he is a very intelligent man whose critiques of the American system, foreign policy and leaders is so biting and true it is hard for those who disagree with him to accept anything he says. It just turns into blind hatred.
When are you coming to the States to see some Civil War Sites, the offer's still out for free room and board at Casa' Dev Dave...Of, Chomsky sucks ball sack and is a hypocrit, Beirut, my lovable tree chopping wannabe hippy.
I forgot to say that if anyone wants some free Chomsky stuff (Interviews and the like... i think there might even be a couple of books), you should go here:
http://www.chomsky.info/
http://www.chomsky.info/
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave:
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, its JAG!!! Missed you old friend, hugged any child molestors lately? When are you coming to the States to see some Civil War Sites, the offer's still out for free room and board at Casa' Dev Dave...
Of, Chomsky sucks ball sack and is a hypocrit, Beirut, my lovable tree chopping wannabe hippy.
SPELLING! Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, its JAG!!! Missed you old friend, hugged any child molestors lately?
When are you coming to the States to see some Civil War Sites, the offer's still out for free room and board at Casa' Dev Dave...Of, Chomsky sucks ball sack and is a hypocrit, Beirut, my lovable tree chopping wannabe hippy.
Originally Posted by Vladimir:
SPELLING!
All Capitals! SPELLING!
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly:
All Capitals!
I WANT TO USE THE SAME SMILEY!!!!All Capitals!
Now that the fraternal spam fritters have been shared with a returning comrade, perhaps we can return to the topic, gentlemen?
Originally Posted by CountArach:
I'm currently reading through Failed States and finding it quite eye-openning. I don't agree with every conclusion he makes, though I do find myself believing a lot of his conclusions. I have also read What We Say Goes, which is a series of interviews with him. I am also working my way through Interventions, a series of short essays by him. All of them I have found quite cutting in their criticisms and often well-supported. However, some of his conclusions are a little bit spurious.
Can't shake the feeling that he is wrapping the math around an assumption but it's up for others to denounce it. It's good reading regardless, steamroller arguing that never misses a beat. Keep thinking so bloody what but if you know where he is comming from it's hard not to apreciate.I'm currently reading through Failed States and finding it quite eye-openning. I don't agree with every conclusion he makes, though I do find myself believing a lot of his conclusions. I have also read What We Say Goes, which is a series of interviews with him. I am also working my way through Interventions, a series of short essays by him. All of them I have found quite cutting in their criticisms and often well-supported. However, some of his conclusions are a little bit spurious.
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave:
Of, Chomsky sucks ball sack and is a hypocrit, Beirut, my lovable tree chopping wannabe hippy.
Why is Chomsky a hippo-kryt? He says everyone has the right to express themselves and everyone should look deeper into the meaning of government and corporate actions to see what lies below and what presents a threat to personal freedom.Of, Chomsky sucks ball sack and is a hypocrit, Beirut, my lovable tree chopping wannabe hippy.
Honestly, of all the people on this forum, you exercise the most freedom in your self-expression, and you blow like a hurricane if any Mod challenges your right to express yourself as freely as you feel you have the right. That makes you more Chomsky-esque than all of us.
"Dave and Chomsky sitting in a tree... bashing all authority... first comes freedom... then comes dissent... then comes Dave & Chomsky sharing the rent." Any idealist that doesn't sell his house to start a school in Africa is a hypocrite in my humble opinion, that is not idealism it is perfectionism and perfectionists tend to look for the highest building that needs an additional floor. Perfectly fine to call him a hpyocrite, he is enjoying the freedom that allows him to critisise it, if it gets any better then that let me know and I'll move there.
who is noah chomsky?
Originally Posted by KrooK:
who is noah chomsky?
Wiki Linkwho is noah chomsky?
Originally Posted by :
...an American linguist, philosopher, political activist, author, and lecturer. He is an Institute Professor and professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
His political views often conflict with the views of those in (US) power....an American linguist, philosopher, political activist, author, and lecturer. He is an Institute Professor and professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Originally Posted by KukriKhan:
His political views often conflict with the views of those in (US) power.
And everywhere else apart from Venezuela His political views often conflict with the views of those in (US) power.
So is he one of those guys that sits in a uni his whole life drowned in books and admiring students? Who never really does anything?
Why doesn't he enter politics?
Because TBO Uni is not the real world and you can always tell when a person has spent their whole life in one, something my IR lecturer despised.
I have met a few like that, they seem very smart, but usually out of touch with "things".
Why doesn't he enter politics?
Because TBO Uni is not the real world and you can always tell when a person has spent their whole life in one, something my IR lecturer despised.
I have met a few like that, they seem very smart, but usually out of touch with "things".
Actually he does travel the world and give lectures. He writes a tonne of open letters to politicians and meets a great deal of world leaders (I believe he recently met one of the leaders of Hezbollah). He has also travelled to Beirut, Lebanon and a lot of other hot spots in the world, getting to know people and talking to experts.
Might want to look up the life of Keynes. Having something worth saying and being a politician don't necessarily (some would leave that previous word out...) equate.
Originally Posted by Vladimir:
Brilliant within his own walls and very, very academic. Far too many of his insights are useless outside his own world or without his particular definitions.
Well said. And it explains much of the hatred. Chomsky expresses his political views in the same academic style and with the same apparent authority as his linguistic theories. He is an egg-head par excellence, and a sizeable part of the American right-wing hates anyone with a working brain and above average vocabulary.Brilliant within his own walls and very, very academic. Far too many of his insights are useless outside his own world or without his particular definitions.
Chomsky is also an idiot who has obviously never born responsibility for anything beside his books, his yacht and a couple of research programs.
Originally Posted by Adrian II:
Chomsky is also an idiot who has obviously never born responsibility for anything beside his books, his yacht and a couple of research programs.
My dearest Adrian II, what else would you have him bear responsibility for?Chomsky is also an idiot who has obviously never born responsibility for anything beside his books, his yacht and a couple of research programs.
If a man writes something, especially a dissenting opinion, signs his name to it, publishes it, and backs it up even when the heat turns up on him, that is a worthy endeavor.
.
I'm not putting quotes in my signature though.
.
Originally Posted by Adrian II:
a sizeable part of the American right-wing hates anyone with a working brain and above average vocabulary.
Now, this one is signature-worthy. a sizeable part of the American right-wing hates anyone with a working brain and above average vocabulary.
I'm not putting quotes in my signature though. Originally Posted by Beirut:
If a man writes something, especially a dissenting opinion, signs his name to it, publishes it, and backs it up even when the heat turns up on him, that is a worthy endeavor.
Or death warrant - in the case of Turkey. If a man writes something, especially a dissenting opinion, signs his name to it, publishes it, and backs it up even when the heat turns up on him, that is a worthy endeavor.
.
Well if they don't report bad post after that they must be stupid indeed. Or a bit tired.
Originally Posted by Beirut:
If a man writes something, especially a dissenting opinion, signs his name to it, publishes it, and backs it up even when the heat turns up on him, that is a worthy endeavor.
A dissenting opinion is easy if one doesn't have to carry the weight of consequences, and thus far the consequences have been rather good for Chomsky.If a man writes something, especially a dissenting opinion, signs his name to it, publishes it, and backs it up even when the heat turns up on him, that is a worthy endeavor.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO