logout
help
framed forum
go pro
subscriptions
account
create thread
PhilosophyGround >> Noam Chomsky
| 5/17/05 4:15 PM | |
sanguine cynic
Edited: 17-May-05 Member Since: 06/13/2004 Posts: 439 |
Anyone a fan of Chomsky, what do current people in the know think of him. |
| 5/17/05 11:02 PM | |
|
Yougottawanna
Edited: 17-May-05 Member Since: 09/21/2001 Posts: 12846 |
Most people say his linguistic theories are good, but his politics are bad. But I read a little bit of his linguistic stuff in a class and never really bought it. Maybe I just don't get it. And his politics seem a little out there. Unscientific, in a way. |
| 5/21/05 2:47 PM | |
vermonter
22 
Edited: 21-May-05 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 4658 |
I like his linguistics stuff, or at least the foundation it provides. -doug- |
| 6/13/05 10:17 PM | |
|
ICTimer
1
Edited: 13-Jun-05 Member Since: 05/20/2005 Posts: 3 |
His linguistic theories have been questioned, though, to be plagiarism, which is a very serious charge in my eyes. I think he sorts facts the way he wants to in order to prove his beliefs, basically. |
| 6/13/05 11:55 PM | |
|
martial_shadow
1
Edited: 13-Jun-05 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 5509 |
while I enjoyed manufacturing consent, I have found 99% of the stuff he writes about specific situations (eg: Cold War, War on Terror, WWII, MidEast, etc.) to be so far from any reality I have read about or experienced. |
| 6/24/05 12:40 AM | |
|
FiatLux
Edited: 24-Jun-05 Member Since: 03/12/2002 Posts: 3481 |
his stuff on terrorism is really bad |
| 8/31/05 5:18 PM | |
|
hekster
Edited: 31-Aug-05 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 4604 |
He is really fixated with legality and the hypocracy of the United States. He makes alot of valid points about U.S. policy, but has no coherent politics that brings it together. The people that read him annoy me, alot of times, because they only read Chomsky. Which is antithetical to his arguments about information control and the media. I advocate more sources of information and as many independent media outlets as possible, and on that we agree. The blogging thing is great IMO. |
| 9/13/05 5:18 PM | |
|
poobear
Edited: 13-Sep-05 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 13412 |
"Plus his other stuff gives you a real different view to looking at power structures in the world and how one is ruled. " He does bring up facts that are not often aired in the US. Perhaps martial_shadow disagrees about his views on the middle east (just guessing) but I can tell you that he's pretty accurate on South America and the carribean. Part of the problem is that Chomsky has a view of things markedly skewed form his opponents. For example, he views any kind of covert op that involves harming civilians even as an accepted risk as terrorism. He views aiding and abetting terrorism as terrorism. At least, that's what how I'm reading his book, 'Culture of Terrorism', just starting with it. You tell people, "Hey, you live in a terrorist state" and they'll think you're nuts. Talk about secret service dirty tricks, and some will admit to that, but they won't call that "terrorism". It's cool, it's "covert ops", it's James Bond. It's a somewhat nationalist perspective that "we're always the good guys". Chomsky doesn't have this. If this was the McCarthy years, he'd probably have gotten "accidentally" shanked in prison. But I don't just read Chomsky. As for his linguistics studies, did some in 4th year in uni, learned from this Russian prof with an accent as thick as treacle, not a very good textbook either. But what I can remember was a neat way to build parsing algorithms. |
| 9/13/05 8:30 PM | |
|
martial_shadow
1
Edited: 13-Sep-05 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 6204 |
I don't just disagree with how he views the Middle East, I disagree with how he views most political power structures post-WWII. and to repeat, I do like his manufacturing consent. |
| 9/14/05 7:09 AM | |
|
Subadie
Edited: 22-Sep-05 05:50 PM Member Since: 10/09/2004 Posts: 221 |
I've read only a little, but it seems to me that his linguistic theories have some connection to his philosophical views. As the 60s progressed, and the ideas of praxis caught on in linguistic analysis and critical theory, he sort of got the idea that prevailing paradigms are supported by the language structure in ways more so than by reality. That is, the actions taken by the government are supported by the language which is used. When the language itself is analyzed, the logical fallacies inherent in such a system become apparent and the ability to support a course of action commonly accepted as appropriate become impossible to justify So of course you can disagree with his politics and think its crazy, but I think it is important to read his political books in conjunction with his philosophical books, as his political books maybe his applied philosophy. By the way, I'm no Fox News fan, but I think his political books are too far out. |
| 9/24/05 2:19 AM | |
|
FiatLux
Edited: 24-Sep-05 Member Since: 03/12/2002 Posts: 3757 |
"but I can tell you that he's pretty accurate on South America and the carribean." Id be interested in reading what he has said on the subject. Where is his work on these topics? What sort of book is 'Culture of Terrorism'? Im curious now... |
| 10/13/06 3:24 PM | |
|
bleier
16
Edited: 13-Oct-06 Member Since: 05/13/2005 Posts: 111 |
Chomsky is perhaps the most careful and methodical political thinker alive. His examples are factual and contextually relevant and his conclusions are carefully constructed, unlike those of his critics, whose accusations read like a encyclopedia of logical fallacies. He is a living example of what an academic should be. 99% of academics, however, are not. The common vitriolic response to his work should be indication enough that he hits to the bone. |
| 11/3/06 7:25 AM | |
|
Subadie
Edited: 03-Nov-06 Member Since: 10/09/2004 Posts: 594 |
I agree with bleier and Jason. The vitriolic response to his work indicates that he sometimes hits the bone AND that he's nuts ! |
| 11/3/06 1:02 PM | |
|
bleier
16
Edited: 03-Nov-06 Member Since: 05/13/2005 Posts: 128 |
It's the worst combination of attacks... to both the bone and the nuts. |
| 11/10/06 5:26 AM | |
|
effertime
2
Edited: 10-Nov-06 Member Since: 04/15/2006 Posts: 51 |
bleier- I couldnt have said it better. Most disagree with Subadie that his linguistic work and his political positions/writings are linked (including Chomsky himself). This seems to be the question that all who interview him ask without fail. The reason he is such a valuable political thinker is that he's one of only a few that use the scientific method when discussing any particular issue. Relevant facts are used, conclusions are drawn, etc. Its pretty darn refreshing to read his books. Also, he has a memory like a steel trap. He can quote news articles printed in the NYTimes from the 1940's, off the cuff :-) That definitly adds to his effectiveness when debating anything in print. |
| 11/20/06 1:11 PM | |
|
Dogbert
Edited: 20-Nov-06 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 15354 |
There was some overlap in his review of Skinner's "Beyond Freedom and Dignity" between politics and philosophy. |
| 11/21/06 6:09 PM | |
|
FudoMyoo
Edited: 21-Nov-06 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 13423 |
"The reason he is such a valuable political thinker is that he's one of only a few that use the scientific method when discussing any particular issue. Relevant facts are used, conclusions are drawn, etc. Its pretty darn refreshing to read his books." when it comes to what facts that will be considered relevant, it is very much a matter of values and political bias, and not very scientific. |
| 11/24/06 4:52 AM | |
|
effertime
2
Edited: 24-Nov-06 Member Since: 04/15/2006 Posts: 65 |
I think its Chomsky's approach to the evidence in question that makes his analysis "scientific", as opposed to his personal values or political bias. |
| 12/23/06 3:54 PM | |
|
fishyfish
Edited: 23-Dec-06 Member Since: 06/28/2003 Posts: 3445 |
"That is, the actions taken by the government are supported by the language which is used. When the language itself is analyzed, the logical fallacies inherent in such a system become apparent and the ability to support a course of action commonly accepted as appropriate become impossible to justify" correct. our "culture" is still very unaware of how people in power use language to CONFUSE truth rather than help reveal it, so as to stay in and increase their power over others, and get away with their crimes, for their own selfish benefit. |
| 5/16/07 11:54 AM | |
|
jkrewko
Edited: 16-May-07 Member Since: 06/28/2005 Posts: 348 |
chomsky= backed by this guy im kinda of dumb when it comes to linguistics but his south american/indochina critiques are pretty legit. |
| 12/7/07 4:54 PM | |
|
Matthew Battle
Edited: 07-Dec-07 Member Since: 05/31/2007 Posts: 4460 |
I'm a nuthugger, I won't lie. |
| 12/13/07 1:32 AM | |
|
Jenny Wishbone
Edited: 13-Dec-07 01:38 AM Member Since: 09/05/2007 Posts: 131 |
From: Yougottawanna Date: 05/17/05 11:01 PM "Most people say his linguistic theories are good, but his politics are bad. But I read a little bit of his linguistic stuff in a class and never really bought it. Maybe I just don't get it. And his politics seem a little out there. Unscientific, in a way." Who are these most people you refer to? Politics seems outside the realm of science. Do you mean the data he presents on political topics is gathered in an "unscientific" way? |
| 12/14/07 4:15 PM | |
|
bleier
16
Edited: 14-Dec-07 Member Since: 05/13/2005 Posts: 672 |
Ask any academic in any discipline how many linguists they can name... Chomsky is usually at the top and often the only one. Also is the most cited academic period. Probably the most influential/impactful thinker in the century. And that's outside his politics. |
| 3/6/08 12:39 AM | |
|
baxter stockman
Edited: 06-Mar-08 Member Since: 10/17/2007 Posts: 1888 |
what i like about chomsky is that he doesn't cut anyone slack. he's not the "liberal" his opponents have in mind when they apply the label, because he doesn't necessarily defend the strict antitheses/counterparts of the policies or parties he's critiquing. that is, he doesn't excuse palestine when lambasting isreal. matters, insofar as is possible, are analyzed on their own merits. where blame overlaps, the thesis divides, academically necessary notation is provided, and the matter at hand continues. also, as someone who's read a fair amount of academic material over he last 8 years, i'd suck the guys dick for writing so well. he's one of the ONLY academic writers i've ever seen who can make all of the interior qualifying statements that are necessary in that kind of work and still sound clear and direct, even conversational. i don't always agree with his political presuppositions, but i do think that if everyone discussed politics the way he does we'd have a better political world. in fact, it's just dawned on me that this is the same thing i like about obama. |
| 3/13/08 3:54 PM | |
|
thesleeper
Edited: 13-Mar-08 Member Since: 08/31/2007 Posts: 779 |
Factually speaking, he screws up when he talks about politics. There is an entire academic level book devoted to his inaccuracies in representing his positions (The Anti-Chomsky reader). I prefer Chalmers Johnson or Negri and Hardt for my leftist critiques. http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/01/0081346 Chalmers Johnson The CIA is prohibited from writing an NIE on the United States, and so I have here attempted to do so myself, using the standard format for such estimates. I have some personal knowledge of NIEs because from 1967 to 1973 I served as an outside consultant to the CIA's Office of National Estimates. I was one of about a dozen so-called experts invited to read draft NIEs in order to provide quality control and prevent bureaucratic logrolling. KEY JUDGMENTSThe United States remains, for the moment, the most powerful nation in history, but it faces a violent contradiction between its long republican tradition and its more recent imperial ambitions. The fate of previous democratic empires suggests that such a conflict is unsustainable and will be resolved in one of two ways. Rome attempted to keep its empire and lost its democracy. Britain chose to remain democratic and in the process let go its empire. Intentionally or not, the people of the United States already are well embarked upon the course of non-democratic empire. |
Reply Post
You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.
