Noam Chomsky is a mixed bag intellectually, but I like this quotation forwarded to me by Edward Fox:
“There are lots of things I don’t understand — say, the latest debates over whether neutrinos have mass or the way that Fermat’s last theorem was (apparently) proven recently. But from 50 years in this game, I have learned two things: (1) I can ask friends who work in these 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 Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard, Kristeva, etc. — even Foucault, 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 it 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 ‘theory’ that is beyond quantum theory, topology, etc., in depth and profundity; or (b) … I won’t spell it out.” (Source.)
All of which reminds me of this excellent xkcd “Impostor” cartoon:
(Oh yes, and this book.)
This interesting remark (I reserve judgment on Chomsky) about learning about other fields and pastimes is easily satisfied on YouTube. One may hear Andrew Wiles explain how he ‘solved’ the Fermat theorem, or attend the Richard Feynman lectures on quantum mechanics — watch out — Dick Feynman is as much Jewish comedian as scientist. Study oil painting or sculpture. Watch beheadings. Indeed, where else can one find out more about the HICKS BOSON than from our own Stephen Hicks, a prominent feature of this Internet oasis?
A “mixed bag”. Seriously?
A left wing intellectual fraud, most likely.
He just does not like the deconstructionists because they have a better game, have had greater “influence”, if one can call the spread this sort of intellectual posion “influential”, have done even more damage, and print more books.
I have worked in REAL linguistics, we we actually have to do something real. Chomsky’s work, which even those who disagree with his his “political work” tout as a sign of seriousness and dept, is absolutely useless.
It is also philosophically amateurish–“mental organs” indeed. It solve no problem at all, just papers it over with fallacious reasoning and what amounts to cant.
It is little else but bootless abstractions and pseudo-intellectual posturing.
What is truly sad here is that people like this have been taken seriously all these years. Goodness, the damage they have done. It is a intellectual equivalent of child abuse.
Let’s take a look in Chomsky’s mixed bag and see what he actually said.
“Chomsky was also impressed with socialism as practiced in Vietnam. In a speech given in Hanoi on April 13, 1970, and broadcast by Radio Hanoi the next day, Chomsky spoke of his “admiration for the people of Vietnam who have been able to defend themselves against the ferocious attack, and at the same time take great strides forward toward the socialist society.” Chomsky praised the North Vietnamese for their efforts in building material prosperity, social justice, and cultural progress. He also went on to discuss and support the political writing of Le Duan.[31]
In his 1973 book For Reasons of State, Chomsky argues that instead of a capitalist system in which people are “wage slaves” or an authoritarian system in which decisions are made by a centralized committee, a society could function with no paid labor. He argues that a nation’s populace should be free to pursue jobs of their choosing. People will be free to do as they like, and the work they voluntarily choose will be both “rewarding in itself” and “socially useful.” Society would be run under a system of peaceful anarchism, with no state or other authoritarian institutions. Work that was fundamentally distasteful to all, if any existed, would be distributed equally among everyone.[32]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky%27s_political_views#Views_on_socialism_and_communism
And this is his position on the Cambodian genocide.
“In July 1978, Chomsky and his collaborator, Edward S. Herman, jumped into the controversy. Chomsky and Herman reviewed three books about Cambodia. Two of the books by John Barron (and Anthony Paul) and Francois Ponchaud were based on interviews with Cambodian refugees and concluded that the Khmer Rouge had killed or been responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of Cambodians. The third book, by scholars, Gareth Porter and George Hildebrand, described the KR in highly favorable terms. Chomsky and Herman called Barron and Paul’s book “third rate propaganda” and part of a “vast and unprecedented propaganda campaign” against the Khmer Rouge. He said Ponchaud was “worth reading” but unreliable. Chomsky said that refugee stories of KR atrocities should be treated with great “care and caution” as no independent verification was available. By contrast, Chomsky was highly favorable toward the book by Porter and Hildebrand, which portrayed Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge as a “bucolic idyll.” Chomsky also opined that the documentation of Gareth Porter’s book was superior to that of Ponchaud’s — although almost all the references cited by Porter came from Khmer Rouge documents while Poncaud’s came from speaking to Cambodian refugees.[61]
Chomsky and Herman later co-authored a book about Cambodia titled After the Cataclysm (1979), which appeared after the Khmer Rouge regime had been deposed. The book was described by Cambodian scholar Sophal Ear as “one of the most supportive books of the Khmer revolution” in which they “perform what amounts to a defense of the Khmer Rouge cloaked in an attack on the media”.[62] In the book, Chomsky and Herman acknowledged that “The record of atrocities in Cambodia is substantial and often gruesome,” but questioned their scale, which may have been inflated “by a factor of 100”. Khmer Rouge agricultural policies reportedly produced “spectacular” results.” [63]
Contrary to Chomsky and Herman, the reports of massive Khmer Rouge atrocities and starvation in Cambodia proved to be accurate and uninflated. Many deniers or doubters of the Cambodian genocide recanted their previous opinions, but Chomsky continued to insist that his analysis of Cambodia was without error based on the information available to him at the time.[64]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky%27s_political_views#Doubting_genocide_in_Cambodia
Chomsky is loathesome, but Stephen’s point is correct. Chomsky recognized the silliness that is postmodernism and was able to articulate it well and understandably. It is no offence to the truth for a rogue to speak it.
A wonderful quote and glad to see it posted. This isn’t to mitigate what I consider many just criticisms of Chomsky, some ennunciated above.
I don’t insist on limiting contributions to pleasant, well adjusted people but will take a good one from anyone e.g. always loved Marx’s quote about religion being the opiate of the masses. That he cooked up an even worse stuporific is a separate issue.
Pythagoras headed a bizarre and at times violent cult, but we don’t reject his theorem because of it.
I’m trying to recall where I heard it, I think it was either Reason Magazine or an Objectivist publication, but didn’t Chomsky say something along the lines that ‘progressives’ (meaning those on the left) have an obligation to downplay, omit or even deny the atrocities committed by communist regimes, on the grounds that bringing attention to such crimes would give intellectual ammunition to militarists on the ‘Right’, therefor resulting in an escalation of the arms race? I’m pretty sure that’s what he said.
And not a single referenced, direct quote of Chomsky’s supporting your criticisms of him from any of you in the comments. Shameful, really.
Not quite clear what you’re asking for, Sean. That the commenters make their blog comments into more scholarly form?
If so, that’s fine; but why not just ask for a source instead of insulting them?
To insinuate that Chomsky, someone who has vigorously opposed state sanctioned tyranny, perhaps more so than any living intellectual alive would consciously downplay genocidal acts for political gain is indeed shameful. To do so without even a casual reference to your source merits insult.
“mixed bag” intellectually, as opposed to “hot air” types of the objectivist. Yes you found some nice quotes of his, but his ‘anarcho sindicalist” and “liberation socialists” tendencies are s about as far from the fascism of Ayn Rand as anyone can possibly be; ask him (his email is readily available on the MIT website), and see what he has to say about the “objectivist”… you want some learning; you will get some; see how empty objectivist thinking really is…
I’m open to argument, Mickey. So have at it — which important points are hot air and why?
Bob Marks is lost enough, but especially “Hattip” , damn,
what a complete idiot. He should at least first try and make it through a spelling bee in grammar school before making a fool of himself commenting on things that are way beyond him.
Another typical , mindless little imbecile tries to criticize Chomsky but says nothing at all !
I don’t see how he’s a mixed bag, do you mean his political views?
Chomsky’s political views are extremely simple as far as I understand them. According to him, no institution should have authority over somebody by definition without any justification. The burden of proof for the justification is on the institutions and the people who possess the authority and unjustified authority doesn’t need to exist.
If certain people think that it’s justified to have tyranny in every part of their lives, so be it. But the ideology predicts that if they’re well informed then they’d probably only take the kind of authority that can make them happier and safer. With time, the society would get rid of the unjustified kinds of the authority and in the future we’d have the kind of a society that’s as free as it can be. If people think they’re in that kind of a society already, then fine. There’s no forced collectivism or authoritarianism. It doesn’t require an alternative system. State is unjustified according to him, but in the short term, certain parts of it needs to be strengthened so that we don’t end up in a corporate tyranny with enormous income inequality.
So, there are no underlying assumptions that would force collectivism under this ideology like in other left ideologies. It’s centered around working towards the optimal (I guess?) freedom of the individual which is the main thing that separates him from leftist vanguards. Existence of the human nature isn’t denied, people aren’t seen as molds that can be shaped into whatever the molders want.
I didn’t directly quote him, but he thinks in terms of simple principles and I get what he means. I can’t agree or disagree with his political ideas but he’s one of the few people on the left who can criticize capitalism without creeping me out.
The criticisms and out of context Chomsky quotes I’ve seen here are truly closed minded and outlandish…especially in regards to him being a “mixed bag”. I would love to hear some of your own personal stances on state violence, morality, authority, etc. His views really are straight forward and there isn’t really anything “radical” about them.
Hi Cory: When you say “out of context Chomsky quotes I’ve seen here,” it would be helpful to know which quotation you mean and what the proper context for it is. Otherwise, your comment doesn’t really communicate anything to me.
The thing about Cambodia cited above is grossly deceptive — it’s a long standing smear by hawks to discredit one of the most prominent critics of US foreign policy — as should be clear from the amount of editorializing and the total lack of any direct quotes.
He has *never* denied that the Khmer Rouge were abhorrent, all he argued was that Western media ignored what information that was available at the time and simply overstated what was known — it was part of a series of articles he wrote with Herman which argued that the media exaggerates the atrocities of official enemies and underplays those of allies. This isn’t to say they didn’t kill a sickening number of people, rather it’s to understand how media reports on equally horrific atrocities in totally different ways. One example he cites is how US media essentially ignored the East Timor genocide by comparison, committed by a US ally ie Indonesia. Chomsky is a vocal critic of fascism of any kind.
An easy summary is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3IUU59B6lw but everything he cites in this video can of course be easily looked up. An article which cites additional details can be found here https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-01/brull—the-boring-truth-about-chomsky/2779086
I am genuinely confused by the comment by “Hattip” . . .
He stated, “I have worked in REAL linguistics, we we actually have to do something real. Chomsky’s work, which even those who disagree with his his ‘political work’ tout as a sign of seriousness and dept, is absolutely useless.”
I would like to ask that “Hattip” provide his/her full name and the institution at which he/she works in “REAL linguistics” so I can review the work he/she has done, to determine for myself whether it is more useful than the work Chomsky has done in linguistics.
Thanks.
I’m a little late to the debate here but having become familiar with some of Chomsky’s remarks on the obsession with postmodernism in academia, I wholeheartedly agree with him. Why do so many of these thinkers (Foucault?) choose a blunderbuss as their weapon of choice in argument? It scatters shot all around and has no good aim! Stephen Hicks is a voice in the wilderness it seems, and I’m right there with him. Greg