NOAM - CHOMSKY - intellectual or philosopher ??

[MB_722]

oh dear god... at this point you should probably take a shuttle craft to a distant moon so you're safe from everybody on earth

hahaha I knew you would like that one 

[Deicide]

hahaha I knew you would like that one 

 

[pillowtalk]

I already mentioned the problem. Human nature is one made up of inherent self-interest, in our biology and psyches. The kind of collectivism he advocates defies that nature and is incompatible on a large scale.

In your opinion, yes ??

When these models have been implemented & failed, you may commence your gloating from the roof tops !!
Until then you really are a - NO-BODY - when standing next to professor Chompsky.

As for his politics that you find (to use toy words) "a bit screwy" WTF are you on about.

You also continue to sound extremely, arrogant allow me.

Another thing is he is really big on science and biology but ignores many of the premises that one would have to draw from the sciences in his political discourse.

To which I asked "Can you give some examples ??" to which you responded with (by arrogantly expecting every-one to understand your chosen field of study)

I already mentioned the problem. Human nature is one made up of inherent self-interest, in our biology and psyches. The kind of collectivism he advocates defies that nature and is incompatible on a large scale.

But you had failed to make the distinction tixt the two, arrogantly expecting ever-one else to be on the same page as you.
Neither do I agree with your hypothesis, as out-line earlier in this post.

[Deicide]

In your opinion, yes ??

When these models have been implemented & failed, you may commence your gloating from the roof tops !!
Until then you really are a - NO-BODY - when standing next to professor Chompsky.

As for his politics that you find (to use toy words) "a bit screwy" WTF are you on about.

You also continue to sound extremely, arrogant allow me.

To which I asked "Can you give some examples ??" to which you responded with (by arrogantly expecting every-one to understand your chosen field of study)

But you had failed to make the distinction tixt the two, arrogantly expecting ever-one else to be on the same page as you.
Neither do I agree with your hypothesis, as out-line earlier in this post.

If people were not permitted to criticise the prominent, there wouldn't be much criticism, now would there. I am not disputing his fame or his intellect, merely disagreeing with him. It has nothing to do with arrogance. If you disagree with a prominent intellectual, you are 'arrogant'? Strange.

Essentially, the pure democratic model he seems to advocate is tantamount to the classic mob rule in a sports coat that is 'democracy' where 52% make decisions and 48% have to suck it up. I think that a constitutional republic is much better because it is a force of less imposition. What he advocates is a form of collectivism, which I personally don't like but which I also believe does not provide for widescale contentment.

[pillowtalk]

Noam Chompsky

Manufacturing consent.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730&ei=UlkVSvaUBYPV-AbXxKikBA&q=noam+chomsky+media

With-in 20 mins it is fairly clear, that what he is describing is a part of the 'Hegelian Dialectic' at work in the modern societies of the West.

[MB_722]

The Shame of Noam Chomsky & left gatekeepers

[MM2K]

He should have stuck with linguistics and not gone beyond what he is competent in doing.

[Hugo Chavez]

The Shame of Noam Chomsky & left gatekeepers

Noam is right on this.  I have personally never thought Bush had the actual wit or balls to plan this shit.  He's a usefull puppet.  A Manchurian candidate.  Place the right people around him, set the scenario and you have your outcome exactly as planned.  Bush was/is a total dullard.  Not even looking at what I just said, Noam has good reason for not jumping on the Bush/9/11 bandwaggon.  You know the same things have been said of Amy Goodman.  But seriously, if Amy had picked up that ball, she risks a lot and for what?  She has a great respect for what she has focused on through the years.  Why risk losing that and all the good she does in so many other areas to me mocked as another 9/11 nut?  Even more so for Noam, he's in the twilight of a very long and productive career.  Why would he risk that for what he, you and I fully know will never, ever be uncovered as truth.  The things these guys focus on are the things they can tangibly prove.  Jumping on the 9/11 bandwaggon for these two would be an easy in for their harshest opponents.  In their shoes I wouldn't touch it either.  They have their causes, why jeopardize those...  Why would Noam want or need to fill the shoes of Alex Jones and others...  It's a no win on several levels for them.

[Deicide]

Noam is right on this.  I have personally never thought Bush had the actual wit or balls to plan this shit.  He's a usefull puppet.  A Manchurian candidate.  Place the right people around him, set the scenario and you have your outcome exactly as planned.  Bush was/is a total dullard.  Not even looking at what I just said, Noam has good reason for not jumping on the Bush/9/11 bandwaggon.  You know the same things have been said of Amy Goodman.  But seriously, if Amy had picked up that ball, she risks a lot and for what?  She has a great respect for what she has focused on through the years.  Why risk losing that and all the good she does in so many other areas to me mocked as another 9/11 nut?  Even more so for Noam, he's in the twilight of a very long and productive career.  Why would he risk that for what he, you and I fully know will never, ever be uncovered as truth.  The things these guys focus on are the things they can tangibly prove.  Jumping on the 9/11 bandwaggon for these two would be an easy in for their harshest opponents.  In their shoes I wouldn't touch it either.  They have their causes, why jeopardize those...  Why would Noam want or need to fill the shoes of Alex Jones and others...  It's a no win on several levels for them.

And he is right, theoretically you can make a conspiracy theory out of a traffic accident.

[Slapper]

He is too utopian. People are motivated by self-interest and he tries to get round that fact.

I hate to say it dude, but that is not true. Depends on the place and the time. Chomsky's point of view on the subject is like that of anarchical communists: Humans are by nature and generally communal beings (much like the immense majority of lifeforms on this planet) and that in a society stratified by privilege, like ours, it is very difficult to see yourself as part of one (politicians have been able to mold this sense of belonging into patriotism for many years).   

He envisions 'collectivist libertarian' societies and the like which I see as not only unworkable but incompatible with large scale society.

Not true either. What Noam contends is in getting rid of all the overhead layers of government and keep it all at the communal level, with no one above that. Needless to say your "collectivist libertarian" societies have been tried out and worked. Some better than others, but worked. One good example of it are the kibbutz, or what happened in northeastern Spain during their civil war or the collectivism that is ingrained in northern Italian's blood (one of the riches regions in the world). Many part of Asia.

I mean if you use the "large scale society" argument then we can pretty much say that democracy or authoritarian communism or capitalism does not work. I mean, they do work for a couple decades and eventually die out in massacre and revolution. If this is your perception of a workable system then...

Another thing is he is really big on science and biology but ignores many of the premises that one would have to draw from the sciences in his political discourse. Quite good on foreign policy though.

Name some.

You see, to me it's no argument. Unless you can back up what you're saying with facts then your word is basically opinion. And when it comes to opinion 99.99999% of the people will back Noam's.

To me it's no argument: I did a case study on him in graduate school in which we were given an excerpt from one of his books and asked to find misrepresentations, misquotes, mistakes, et cetera. And no one found anything. That is how tight his case is. That is why many sane human beings avoid having to debate him: Because he will demolish you with facts.

I invite ANYONE who agrees or disagrees with his comments to prove him wrong.

[Deicide]

I hate to say it dude, but that is not true. Depends on the place and the time. Chomsky's point of view on the subject is like that of anarchical communists: Humans are by nature and generally communal beings (much like the immense majority of lifeforms on this planet) and that in a society stratified by privilege, like ours, it is very difficult to see yourself as part of one (politicians have been able to mold this sense of belonging into patriotism for many years).   

Not true either. What Noam contends is in getting rid of all the overhead layers of government and keep it all at the communal level, with no one above that. Needless to say your "collectivist libertarian" societies have been tried out and worked. Some better than others, but worked. One good example of it are the kibbutz, or what happened in northeastern Spain during their civil war or the collectivism that is ingrained in northern Italian's blood (one of the riches regions in the world). Many part of Asia.

I mean if you use the "large scale society" argument then we can pretty much say that democracy or authoritarian communism or capitalism does not work. I mean, they do work for a couple decades and eventually die out in massacre and revolution. If this is your perception of a workable system then...

Name some.

You see, to me it's no argument. Unless you can back up what you're saying with facts then your word is basically opinion. And when it comes to opinion 99.99999% of the people will back Noam's.

To me it's no argument: I did a case study on him in graduate school in which we were given an excerpt from one of his books and asked to find misrepresentations, misquotes, mistakes, et cetera. And no one found anything. That is how tight his case is. That is why many sane human beings avoid having to debate him: Because he will demolish you with facts.

I invite ANYONE who agrees or disagrees with his comments to prove him wrong.

Many of my issues with him are limited to linguistic claims, which I could go into, but what would be the point on a politcal board?

Some people are communal. I am not. I am a loner. I have no community and I like my freedom. In the world he envisions I would be forced to give up my ability to make choices about my own life and submit to the will of the mob. I think 'collectivist libertarianism' is an oxymoron. The minute you have to submit your will and choice to a majority and do something you do not want to do is also the minute you have lost your freedom.

[Slapper]

Many of my issues with him are limited to linguistic claims, which I could go into, but what would be the point on a politcal board?

I think you mean to say that you have issues with his theories in linguistics. When you say that your "issues with him are limited to linguistics" gives the false impresion that you are intellectual equals and that you two are actually engaged in some sort of debate. He's the one with the theory. Your part in all this is relegated to interpreting it. When you develop your own theory let us know and please do enlighten us.

Some people are communal. I am not. I am a loner. I have no community and I like my freedom. In the world he envisions I would be forced to give up my ability to make choices about my own life and submit to the will of the mob.

And since when does your commune force you to do things you do not like? What mob are you referring to? The Bush/Cheney mob? I mean, I understand we're all peculiar in our little ways, but no one is talking about sacrificing anything here. When I was in college and my buddies and I went out we always decided what bars to go to. Sometimes I liked the bars sometimes I didn't, but I went anyway because that's where my group of friends, as a whole, wanted to go. I had to sacrifice very little. That's not to say that life is a night at the bar, but you get the point of where I'm trying to get at. Hopefully.

I think 'collectivist libertarianism' is an oxymoron. The minute you have to submit your will and choice to a majority and do something you do not want to do is also the minute you have lost your freedom.

Yes, but it beats having to submit to a minority, which is what you and I do nowadays: I get told what to do at home and I get told what to do at work, with VERY LITTLE freedom in between. What is your point?

[Deicide]

I think you mean to say that you have issues with his theories in linguistics. When you say that your "issues with him are limited to linguistics" gives the false impresion that you are intellectual equals and that you two are actually engaged in some sort of debate. He's the one with the theory. Your part in all this is relegated to interpreting it. When you develop your own theory let us know and please do enlighten us.

And since when does your commune force you to do things you do not like? What mob are you referring to? The Bush/Cheney mob? I mean, I understand we're all peculiar in our little ways, but no one is talking about sacrificing anything here. When I was in college and my buddies and I went out we always decided what bars to go to. Sometimes I liked the bars sometimes I didn't, but I went anyway because that's where my group of friends, as a whole, wanted to go. I had to sacrifice very little. That's not to say that life is a night at the bar, but you get the point of where I'm trying to get at. Hopefully.

Yes, but it beats having to submit to a minority, which is what you and I do nowadays: I get told what to do at home and I get told what to do at work, with VERY LITTLE freedom in between. What is your point?

Give me Ron Paul's vision over Chomsky's any day. As I said I think he is spot on concerning foreign policy. Never claimed to be the intellectual equal of Chomsky but people have a right to criticise theories and ideas.