From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sun Jul 03 2005 - 00:24:19 BST
ham:
Now comes the Inquisition:
msh before:
Please provide Chomsky quotes, with references to original texts, in
support of your statement that NC is a nihilist. Where is it that
you believe "Chomsky and his fellow nihilists" would like to take
us? Please develop this idea, and provide textual support for your
position.
ham:
Frankly, I haven't read much of Chomsky, but it's enough to
understand his position as a Leninist anarchist.
msh:
Ok, then you've read enough to conclude that he's a Leninist? Please
provide quotes, with references, from Chomsky's thousands of
interviews, lectures, essays, and books, in support of your position.
ham:
Like most liberals, Chomsky avoids stating his agenda in so many
words; one has to surmise it from his reaction to the comments of
others.
msh says:
Yes, those danged liberals. Maybe you could just read one of his
books or essays, all the way through, and verify his well-documented
research for yourself. Anyway, I don't know that he has an agenda
other than to reveal abuses of power, and to challenge illegitimate
hierarchies of authority. I also seem to recall you once being
insulted by my saying that you have an "agenda" of your own. I also
remember apologizing for saying it.
ham:
I'm sure you know his position on governance and advocation of
"liberal reform" better than I do. But as you've challenged me
specifically on Chomsky's nihilism, I found this Z-net quote from
1998 in response to a question concerning his views on religion:
"How do I define God? I don't. Divinities have been understood in
various ways in the cultural traditions that we know. Take, say, the
core of the established religions today: the Bible. It is basically
polytheistic, with the warrior God demanding of his chosen people
that they not worship the other Gods and destroy those who do -- in
an extremely brutal way, in fact. It would be hard to find a more
genocidal text in the literary canon, or a more violent and
destructive character than the God who was to be worshipped. So
that's one definition. ...
"Looking beyond, we find other conceptions, of many kinds. But I have
nothing to propose. People who find such conceptions important for
themselves have every right to frame them as they like. Personally, I
don't. That's why you haven't found my "thoughts on this [for you]
criticaI question." I have none, because I see no need for them
(apart from the -- often extremely interesting and revealing --
inquiry into human culture and history).
"If you want to use the word "God" to refer to "what you are and what
you want" -- well, that's a terminological decision, not a
substantive one. And a bad terminological decision, I think, for the
reasons just mentioned."
In short, he has no such conception because he sees "no need for
them". That may also be your position, but it's nihilism to me.
msh:
You're equating atheism with nihilism. You need a better dictionary.
Besides, NC doesn't even refer to himself as an atheist. When
asked, he says something like "Well, so far, no one has been able to
explain to me what they mean by 'God.' So I don't even know what it
is I'm supposed to believe in, or not believe in."
ham:
Oh, and there's this more recent comment by Fred Christie, one of
Chomsky's book reviewers:
msh:
Before I comment on the review, let me say that resorting to
secondary opinions, themselves without references to quotes from
primary texts, is an exercise in futility and a sure sign of
intellectual laziness; and, in the case of Chomsky, where thousands
of original texts are available on the internet at the click of a
key, and in books, newspapers, magazines, and academic journals
throughout the world, even laziness is not a sufficient explanation
for one's inability to produce even a single primary reference in
support of one's Chomsky-denigrating opinions.
12:07 PM 10/27/2003, Fred wrote:
The simple fact is Chomsky derides all religious belief. He regards
the faithful as intellectually inferior.
msh says:
In fact, Chomsky has spoken highly of religious people he has
encountered in their struggle against abuses of power, commending
their intelligence, bravery, and dedication.
Fred via Ham:
He believes that the salvation of humanity rests with man.
msh:
This is true. But, since Fred offers no counter-argument or evidence
to prove Chomsky wrong, Fred's evaluation of Chomsky (below) is
worthless, unless you are Fred's mother, maybe.
Fred via Ham:
[Chomsky believes that ] Man and his institutions trump the noblest
aspirations of spirituality clothed in orthodox religion.
Secularism is his god. He describes religion as *dangerous*. Chomsky
is dangerous. He peddles a world view that undermines this country's
foundation.
msh:
How difficult would it be, for someone who has actually read Chomsky,
to provide textual support for these conclusions? I can't tell if
the next sentence is Ham or Fred:
Ham, or Fred:
Chomsky appears to believe that the belief in any supernatural force
is irrational and that those who hold such views are by definition
irrational themselves.
msh says:
Chomsky believes, as do I, that belief in anything that is not
rationally explainable is an irrational belief. But this is a simple
truism. You'll find nothing in Chomsky's writing that indicates
that people who hold irrational beliefs are irrational about
everything in their lives, any more than someone who is sometimes
wrong is wrong about everything.
ham:
Will that hold you for awhile, Mark?
msh:
Uh, you've shown me that you think atheism and nihilism are the same,
which is simply incorrect. Other than that, none of what you've
written answers my original request, which was to tell me in which
direction you think Chomsky is driving us, and to provide quotations
from original works, with references, in support of your opinion,
As for Fred Christie's putative book review, you could have saved a
lot of time just by going to the MOQ archives and pasting any one of
Platt's or Mel's unsupported Chomsky-bashing diatribes. They, and
now you, admit to never having read Chomsky, though all of you are
brimming with opinions regarding the value of his work.
I'll wait for your response, before offering you a pony on the
Carousel of Faux Philosophy. Or would you prefer an elephant? :-)
Peace back at you,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 03 2005 - 00:28:44 BST