Noam Chomsky: His relevance and sanity

[Joey McGee]

I wonder where Noam Chomsky is on everyone's radar.

Recently he said that the United States and Britain are the greatest evils in the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbkqk5WLbLs&feature=youtu.be&t=8m10s

Chomsky is a believer in the noble savage. He believes that human nature is good and war didn't exist before culture and that if we only took down the state than well-being would flourish because the greedy controllers wouldn't be in the good people's way anymore.

Here is Pinker being nice about why he's crazy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PS6wv3aET8

Here is the lunacy in his own words...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsaIc4J4ThU

Brian Ferguson, the "serious" anthropologist that he cites also thinks that chimp warfare is caused by human influence, basically we stress them out so they go nuts and kill each other.

My theory is that every time you find someone who is very progressive, liberal but completely wrong about foreign policy, religion, legal philosophy, the motivations of anyone but themselves etc, (Say, Glen Greenwald) you will find a Chomsky fan. As Sam Harris put it, he is truly the father of the regressive left. And it really comes down to a belief in the noble savage, which Chomsky completely endorses. So, this belief is basically at the heart of the lunacy you will see for the rest of your life coming from the loony left. Just for your information. Did I get anything wrong?

 

[Joey McGee]

OK probably not the most exciting thread of all time. My basic argument is that Chomsky enables the most base intuitions in the young and the disaffected. This naive notion that all people are basically good, and it's some bad, evil force that holds back the potential of society, and that force is basically the unholy alliance of the US and the UK, and he literally believes this. It's basically just incredibly naive conspiracy theory logic, and because he's seen as smart and successful and understands enough philosophy to baffle brains with ******** he comes across as amazing. I think this is a massive drain on young people that is equally as pernicious as any extreme of the political spectrum. I think it's got serious consequences for young/newly politically interested people. Look at Snowden/Greenwald and the good they did with that stunt...

Anyway sorry if this thread bores you. Here is one thing to make up for it. A piece from yesterday's The Onion on Noam.

http://www.theonion.com/article/noam-chomsky-announces-las-vegas-residency-52508

 

[Ziggurat]

It's a strange view of the world. If we're intrinsically good, then how did it all go so wrong? Why are institutions (corporations, governments, religions) so evil if their constituent parts were individually good? How does that disconnect possibly happen? How can Chomsky possibly reconcile that disconnect?

Contrast that with a more "cynical" view of human nature: we're intrinsically flawed, with both good and evil impulses. It's quite natural, then, that larger institutions should be problematic as well, since they are not intrinsically different from individuals. No disconnect exists.

Oh, and as for the status of early hunter-gatherer humans, why should the absence of war be meaningful? Population levels were too sparse, and resources for non-subsistence activities to scarce, for war to play much of a role.

And as horrific as WW2 was, in terms of per capita death tolls, it simply doesn't compare to some of the ancient Chinese wars.

Lastly, Chomsky's a tool.

 

[Joey McGee]

Contrast that with a more "cynical" view of human nature: we're intrinsically flawed, with both good and evil impulses.

Yes, good and evil impulses. This reminds me, here is a good event on "The Origins of Violence" featuring Pinker and Krauss and other assorted genius boffins on this exact topic where such a viewpoint is put forth by some.

Oh, and as for the status of early hunter-gatherer humans, why should the absence of war be meaningful? Population levels were too sparse, and resources for non-subsistence activities to scarce, for war to play much of a role.

The argument is that there would be less evidence because of the ice age and the "sands of time". Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence and all of that. And also that there wouldn't be "war" exactly but simply conflict of the sort that "war" is a larger example of. Chimp violence and war parties is the perfect model. Hence the push to discredit the idea that they actually do this and the promotion of the idea that it is caused by human influence.

 

[dudalb]

I lost all respect for Chomsky when he whitewashed the Pol Pot regime. That he has the status of a saint with much of more militant left is one reason why I don't like the militant left very much.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

In his many appearances he attempts to do a Hitchens, marshaling a great deal of facts, but viewers can be mislead by all the ones he leaves out in his case. Not honest when it comes to politics. Was an astounding linguist.

But yes, the noble savage idea is hogwash, and makes absolutely no sense for an evolved predator.

 

[Travis]

I interacted with lots of Chomsky fans back in college. Since then? Haven't come across a single one. I tend to think his ideas mostly flourish among those that have just left their home for the first time and found out that Jesus didn't really deliver the Constitution to the apostle Founding Fathers on carved tablets while a booming voice from overhead proclaims America "God's chosen nation". This leaves them drifting and searching for a new truth while also seething from being told lies their whole life.

 

[logger]

I interacted with lots of Chomsky fans back in college. Since then? Haven't come across a single one. I tend to think his ideas mostly flourish among those that have just left their home for the first time and found out that Jesus didn't really deliver the Constitution to the apostle Founding Fathers on carved tablets while a booming voice from overhead proclaims America "God's chosen nation". This leaves them drifting and searching for a new truth while also seething from being told lies their whole life.

Funny that you would equate Chomsky with kids who believe in Jesus, although I'm sure they believe in the devil.

 

[tyr_13]

I lost all respect for Chomsky when he whitewashed the Pol Pot regime. That he has the status of a saint with much of more militant left is one reason why I don't like the militant left very much.

In his many appearances he attempts to do a Hitchens, marshaling a great deal of facts, but viewers can be mislead by all the ones he leaves out in his case. Not honest when it comes to politics. Was an astounding linguist.

But yes, the noble savage idea is hogwash, and makes absolutely no sense for an evolved predator.

I interacted with lots of Chomsky fans back in college. Since then? Haven't come across a single one. I tend to think his ideas mostly flourish among those that have just left their home for the first time and found out that Jesus didn't really deliver the Constitution to the apostle Founding Fathers on carved tablets while a booming voice from overhead proclaims America "God's chosen nation". This leaves them drifting and searching for a new truth while also seething from being told lies their whole life.

I have to echo all this.

Chomsky is very good at saying something that sounds stupid and provocative at first glance, but it's inside a ton of facts and context. It's very dense and constructed in such a way that you really have to dig through to find out what he's saying and meaning.

When you do so, you'll find it's just as or even more stupid and provocative than the first glance made it seem. However, because of the way he constructs his arguments they can be made to seem reasonable and well supported, and even to be made to say the opposite what he's actually saying. The facts he leaves out are always the most important ones.

In other words, I had a lot more respect for him before I started actually reading him. It's entirely possible I've only read the matters I disagree with him on though, so I can't say he's always that way. I don't have that large of a sample size.

 

[Cain]

The overwhelming majority of Chomsky's writings are concerned with U.S. foreign policy. He typically side-steps questions of human nature, often pleading ignorance -- "we just don't know."

And it really comes down to a belief in the noble savage

This sounds like your own hobby-horse.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

As I have mentioned before on a couple occasions, I began to harbor my doubts about Chomsky when he was interviewed about porn and gave a pretty disappointing, almost Christian Conservative (not to mention, factually inaccurate) description of porn. He also used some very poor analogies, comparing porn to the abuse of workers in china and child abuse.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

98% loon, 2% genius.

 

[applecorped]

this'll end well

 

[Joey McGee]

The overwhelming majority of Chomsky's writings are concerned with U.S. foreign policy. He typically side-steps questions of human nature, often pleading ignorance -- "we just don't know."



This sounds like your own hobby-horse.

Watch the Pinker video and tell me that again.

 

[Joey McGee]

But yes, the noble savage idea is hogwash, and makes absolutely no sense for an evolved predator.

To be fair he bases his statements on guys like Ferguson. It's a little much for me to say that he's a loon. He knows more than me... I am just really sure he's wrong. It's more than open to debate though.

I interacted with lots of Chomsky fans back in college. Since then? Haven't come across a single one. I tend to think his ideas mostly flourish among those that have just left their home for the first time and found out that Jesus didn't really deliver the Constitution to the apostle Founding Fathers on carved tablets while a booming voice from overhead proclaims America "God's chosen nation". This leaves them drifting and searching for a new truth while also seething from being told lies their whole life.

Aren't you from Utah? Most of my "circle" is the internet. This biases me in the loon direction. I'm mostly talking about the political debate. He's big enough to take up a lot of oxygen by people I respect, Pinker, Hitchens, Harris for example. It's not who you meet, it's the noise they make. Greenwald...

Chomsky is very good at saying something that sounds stupid and provocative at first glance, but it's inside a ton of facts and context. It's very dense and constructed in such a way that you really have to dig through to find out what he's saying and meaning.

When you do so, you'll find it's just as or even more stupid and provocative than the first glance made it seem. However, because of the way he constructs his arguments they can be made to seem reasonable and well supported, and even to be made to say the opposite what he's actually saying. The facts he leaves out are always the most important ones.

In other words, I had a lot more respect for him before I started actually reading him. It's entirely possible I've only read the matters I disagree with him on though, so I can't say he's always that way. I don't have that large of a sample size.

One the smartest and most considerate things I have read on the internet in a while.

As I have mentioned before on a couple occasions, I began to harbor my doubts about Chomsky when he was interviewed about porn and gave a pretty disappointing, almost Christian Conservative (not to mention, factually inaccurate) description of porn. He also used some very poor analogies, comparing porn to the abuse of workers in china and child abuse.

98% loon, 2% genius.

I'd quibble with your ratio. 7%.

 

[Joey McGee]

To be fair he bases his statements on guys like Ferguson. It's a little much for me to say that he's a loon. He knows more than me... I am just really sure he's wrong. It's more than open to debate though.

I just need to make it absolutely clear that I was referring to Ferguson here. I voted complete loon after all. I am 94% sure Brian is 95% wrong. But I will still be reading his forthcoming book on this subject.

 

[Cain]

Watch the Pinker video and tell me that again.

This sounds like one of your hobby horses, and it's certainly one of Pinker's.

 

[Joey McGee]

OK... what about the video with Krauss when he says it in his own words? Don't make me transcribe it and point out how every word I say makes logical sense. I'll go into his books where he says it too. Don't make me work just because you're not doing your due diligence. How sure are you?

 

[Joey McGee]

Chomsky

"The founder of what is now called "sociobiology" or "evolutionary psychology"-the natural historian and anarchist Peter Kropotkin-concluded from his investigations of animals and human life and society that "mutual aid" was a primary factor in evolution, which tended naturally toward communist anarchism....Of course, Kropotkin is not considered the founding figure of the field and is usually dismissed if mentioned at all, because his quasi-Darwinian speculations led to unwanted conclusions."

Loon.

Please don't try making the argument that because he might say that "we just don't know" you honestly believe that he doesn't really think this in his soul.

 

[Joey McGee]

Like, Pinker and Chomsky are former colleagues/friends that just disagree. They know each other well. I am 99.9% sure Pinker represented him in a way Chomsky would agree with. Steve just isn't that type of guy, to say something he knows his colleague wouldn't agree with, Pinker just doesn't do that. Of course they have talked about this many times. They are non-hostile to this day. Oh and all of Chomsky's output agrees with what I said he really wouldn't argue it either, what's wrong with it?