The Wrath Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m22791&l=i&size=1&hd=0 Scroll down until you see the headline, "Foreign-policy critic speaks at West Point." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ex_banana-eater Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 The report said that he believes just war theory is not sufficiently explained. I emailed Chomsky a link to The Objective Standard's article "Just War Theory vs American Self Defence" by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein, and linked to the audio lecture by the same name. I'll let you guys know if he responds, but I didn't pose any questions so he probably won't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 Those on the Left who have opposed Noam Chomsky's loyalty to zionism, but still trusted him as an "anti-imperialist intellectual", would have to find for him a new excuse if they would still insist on trusting this zionist bourgeois intellectual. Is this "uruknet" a humor site? It's getting more and more difficult to distinguish leftists from comedians these days... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punk Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 The report said that he believes just war theory is not sufficiently explained. I emailed Chomsky a link to The Objective Standard's article "Just War Theory vs American Self Defence" by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein, and linked to the audio lecture by the same name. I'll let you guys know if he responds, but I didn't pose any questions so he probably won't. I get the impression that Chomsky gets inundated with stuff like that, given his prominence and all the people gunning for him. I doubt he'll respond for the simple reason that if he responded to people like you it would be a full-time job in itself. I do know that Chomsky is not a pacificist, he does believe that violence is legitimate in proper circumstances against proper targets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ex_banana-eater Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 I get the impression that Chomsky gets inundated with stuff like that, given his prominence and all the people gunning for him. I doubt he'll respond for the simple reason that if he responded to people like you it would be a full-time job in itself. He has responded to me and my friends before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted April 24, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 Is this "uruknet" a humor site? It's getting more and more difficult to distinguish leftists from comedians these days... I was a little baffled by that part too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punk Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 He has responded to me and my friends before. Really! I'm impressed with the guy then. I'd probably ignore that sort of stuff for the reasons I gave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ex_banana-eater Posted April 24, 2006 Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 I just got a response back, he said he has had a "deluge of mail" but will read the article when he has time, and thanked me for it. Haha! I'm sure he will be shocked when he reads it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted April 24, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2006 Why would he be shocked? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ex_banana-eater Posted April 25, 2006 Report Share Posted April 25, 2006 Because he might assume a critique of Just War Theory would be pacifistic. I did tell him that it was an article in support of self-defence, but I'm sure he will expect pacifism as that is the only alternative in the culture today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted April 25, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2006 But the title is American Self Defense vs. Just War Theory. That doesn't sound very pacifistic. I didn't realize people like him would actually respond to emails from every-day people. Has anyone here actually met him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted April 25, 2006 Report Share Posted April 25, 2006 Has anyone here actually met him?Yuh. I've been in his office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted April 25, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2006 What's he like in person? I always picture this black aura of evil hanging around him. I'm sure he's very nice in person, but the same is supposedly true of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted April 25, 2006 Report Share Posted April 25, 2006 What's he like in person? I always picture this black aura of evil hanging around him.He's a perfectly normal, likeable person. I disagee with his politics (and I'm not a major fan of his current syntactic theory), but he's not really different from your typical famous intellectual. Comparison to bin Laden or Hussein is totally inappropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted April 25, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2006 I wasn't trying to compare him to them, so I apologize if it came off that way. But I've read accounts by people who have personally met Bin Laden, and they say he is a very soft-spoken, polite man. Soldiers who speak with Saddam often report that he's a just a typical nice guy, in person. I was just making the point that evil people often don't seem evil, in person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaloNoble6 Posted April 25, 2006 Report Share Posted April 25, 2006 Please keep us updated on his thoughts on Yaron's piece! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted April 25, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2006 One thing I find interesting is that, according to that article, he suggested that war with Iran might be justified. Can anyone elaborate on his opinion regarding Iran? I was quite surprised to read that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen_arcade Posted June 2, 2006 Report Share Posted June 2, 2006 "I wasn't trying to compare him to them...I was just making the point that evil people often don't seem evil, in person." Perhaps because brandishing a person "evil" purely because they disagree with you is a broad generalization and tarnishes the integrity your argument? I don't agree with Chomsky on all points but the man obviously can back up everything he says with extremely well-researched, reasoned arguments -- he's been doing it for fifty years. He doesn't just go around indicting people because they hold different opinions from him! Quite the contrary, actually. The very fact that he was invited and chose to accept the invitation to speak at West Point speaks volumes about the organizers at West Point and Chomsky himself. I identify as a leftist, I suppose, but good lord that doesn't mean all people in history who are on the right are -- by definition, because they disagree with me -- "evil" or "morons". Sheesh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted June 2, 2006 Report Share Posted June 2, 2006 Perhaps because brandishing a person "evil" purely because they disagree with you is a broad generalization and tarnishes the integrity your argument?I assume you mean "branding", as opposed to brandishing (which one does with a weapon, for instance). I don't think Moose was claiming that Chomsky is evil because he disagrees with Chomsky, I think that was an independent eveluation, based on other facts. Chomsky is wrong because he is wrong, not because he disagrees with me. Or to put it this way, because he diagrees with me, and because I am right, then he is wrong. And furthermore his political theories are evil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ex_banana-eater Posted June 2, 2006 Report Share Posted June 2, 2006 Please keep us updated on his thoughts on Yaron's piece! He told me he would read it but did not give any feedback. I also did not request any feedback, seeing as how he indicated he is very busy. Chomsky's philosophy has been dealt with by Ayn Rand herself in "The Stimulus and the Response." I believe that Deborah Knapp, an Objectivist intellectual, has also cast doubt on Chomsky's theory about language acquisition/innateness. Moose, think of Chomsky as one of the "Witch Doctors" and Bin Ladin as an "Attila." I can't remember where Ayn Rand elaborated on this. If anyone knows, please post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal Posted June 2, 2006 Report Share Posted June 2, 2006 (edited) Chomsky's philosophy has been dealt with by Ayn Rand herself in "The Stimulus and the Response." I believe that Deborah Knapp, an Objectivist intellectual, has also cast doubt on Chomsky's theory about language acquisition/innateness. Moose, think of Chomsky as one of the "Witch Doctors" and Bin Ladin as an "Attila." I can't remember where Ayn Rand elaborated on this. If anyone knows, please post. Chomsky isnt mentioned in that article, and given that its a prolonged attack on a position he opposed, I'm not sure why it would deal with his philosophy. What is the basis for your claim that he is a "witch-doctor"? Edited June 2, 2006 by Hal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punk Posted June 2, 2006 Report Share Posted June 2, 2006 He told me he would read it but did not give any feedback. I also did not request any feedback, seeing as how he indicated he is very busy. Chomsky's philosophy has been dealt with by Ayn Rand herself in "The Stimulus and the Response." I believe that Deborah Knapp, an Objectivist intellectual, has also cast doubt on Chomsky's theory about language acquisition/innateness. Moose, think of Chomsky as one of the "Witch Doctors" and Bin Ladin as an "Attila." I can't remember where Ayn Rand elaborated on this. If anyone knows, please post. I think Chomsky should be given some credit for the end of BF Skinner and Behaviorism. Whether his particular theory works is neither here nor there. The way the scientific method works means that most every theory is built on the few good bits and pieces of older otherwise failed theories. One particular good that comes out of Chomsky's approach is that words actually *mean* something, and language communicates something, whereas with Skinner we just learned to grunt based on positive feedback, and words don't really mean anything beyond getting that sort of feedback. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaszloWalrus Posted June 3, 2006 Report Share Posted June 3, 2006 The way the scientific method works means that most every theory is built on the few good bits and pieces of older otherwise failed theories. I disagree; you seem to be falling into the Popperian falsification trap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted June 3, 2006 Report Share Posted June 3, 2006 I think Chomsky should be given some credit for the end of BF Skinner and Behaviorism. Whether his particular theory works is neither here nor there.He absolutely deserves huge credit for sinking behaviorism, although the ship is afloat again with a new paint job. But whether his theory works (really, "is correct") is the essential question. There is no serious question that given the known facts of language acquisition and the possible explanations known at the time, his argument for UG was solid-looking, yet basically irresponsible. We now know more than we did then, and things are not as solid as they once seemed. The basic logical flaw in his argument is that it goes through only by dint of other people's unimaginativeness, not because of the overwhelming evidence in support of the theory. That is, we didn't embrace the idea of UG because there is so much evidence for it that we are certain that it's true, but rather we simply couldn't say "Hmmm, interesting problem... I really dunno". So we gave in to the philosophically corrupt principle of accepting uncertain conclusions when there is no better theory on the market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.Courcelle Posted August 20, 2006 Report Share Posted August 20, 2006 (edited) Moose, think of Chomsky as one of the "Witch Doctors" and Bin Ladin as an "Attila." I can't remember where Ayn Rand elaborated on this. If anyone knows, please post. In the For The New Intellectual article. Edited August 20, 2006 by S.Courcelle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.