From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Wed Jul 06 2005 - 23:21:14 BST
PART 2 OF 2
> In other words, I want you to stop criticizing things
> you don't know about.
ham:
If you're implying that expressing opinions on polemics that
contradict one's philosophical viewpoint is not allowed in this
forum, then please show me where this is indicated in the charter
rules. Otherwise, I take your admonishment to be little more than
an attempt to stifle free speech when it doesn't support your
particular position.
msh:
Yes, I'm known for shying away from controversy. Look, this is a
philosophy forum built around the ideas of Robert Pirsig. You may
express whatever opinions you like, as long as you are willing to
support them with argument and evidence. Anything less will result
in the list becoming just another internet portal for the expression
of whatever nonsense comes into one's head. But this is just MY
opinion, and is not so succinctly stated in the Charter. My guess is
that if contributors are not held to the standards I've suggested,
the philosophical quality of contributions to the list will quickly
deteriorate to the point where Horse will do something about it.
In the meantime, post what you want, and I'll do the same.
msh continued:
> Chomsky has nothing to propose as a replacement for God, for those
> who require one; this doesn't mean he believes in nothing and has
> nothing to propose. In your opinion, anyone who doesn't believe in
God
> is a nihilist, even if that person believes that all life is
> intrinsically valuable, and that human beings, working and
communicating
> together, rather than in competition, can solve their own problems.
I'm
> sorry, but this just does not come close to matching the
philosophical
> definition of nihilism, which is:
>
> "Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that
> nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with
> extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence.
A
> true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no
> purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. "
ham:
Excellent. I have used that definition also. I doubt that you will
attempt to deny the "extreme pessimism, radical skepticism, and
impulse to destroy" that demonstrate Chomsky's nihilism by this
definition.
msh:
I have already denied them. See comments above, about Chomsky hating
America. Extreme pessimism and radical skepticism are denied by
the fact that he ends nearly every talk with the observation that
progress toward a more moral society is being made every day; though
there are occasional setbacks, things are much better and more open
now than they were, say 35 years ago, when he was active in movement
against the war in Vietnam.
Whatever "impulse to destroy" he has is limited to dismantling
unaccountable hierarchies of financial and military power, which he
sees as obstructive to our progress to a more moral society. This is
nothing more than common sense, getting rid of the bad in order to
try something better. Even if we don't have a perfectly clear idea
of how to handle all the consequences of our actions, this is no
reason to tolerate the existence of what's morally corrupt.. The
abolishment of slavery, for example, resulted in severe economic
problems for plantation owners: things for them didn't get better.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't have freed the slaves. You stop doing
what's morally corrupt, then deal with what ever problems might
result.
ham:
But perhaps you can show me where he has either stated a
positive belief in something other than "democratic socialism"
msh:
Why exclude his belief in democratic socialism? Why not just ask me
to show you where he has stated a positive belief in something other
than things YOU don't have a positive belief in. Good grief.
ham:
or translated his notion of "positive rationalism" into a valuistic
praxis for our times.
msh:
His belief in the ideas of democratic socialism and secular humanism,
along with his belief that it is necessary to dismantle illegitimate
hierarchism of power in order to move past them, all contribute to
the human interaction which allows free people to freely create
their own societies, and, in the process, to become vibrant,
compassionate, and fully-realized human beings. That sounds like a
pretty solid definition of a "valuistic praxis" to me.
ham:
Can you offer any real evidence that Chomsky
"believes that all life is intrinsically valuable, and that human
beings can (collectively!) solve their own problems"?
msh:
This post is rich with such evidence. The very fact that he spends
half is life doing what he does is evidence. However, here's a link
to an interview in which (in the opening paragraphs) he discusses his
reasons for believing that all human beings possess an innate sense
of what is morally right and wrong:
http://www.montrealserai.com/2000_Volume_13/13_3/Article_2.htm
I discovered this interview, new to me, simply by googling a few
keystrokes. The interview ranges over a number of Chomsky's ideas,
and isn't a bad place to start an honest investigation of what he
believes, and why.
ham:
You have voiced strong objection to my characterization of Chomsky as
a nihilist. Can you establish the case for some belief system,
loyalty to some tradition or personage (other than Lenin), and/or
some purpose for man's existence communicated in his vast literary
output that would absolve him of the Nihilism you have so accurately
defined?
msh:
I think Chomsky believes, as do I, that people working together
create their own purposes and, in so doing, define the limits of
their own existence. In fact, I think that he'd agree with RMP, that
the "purpose of life" is to become better human beings.
But, you know, I'm tired of doing your philosophical homework for
you, especially since embedded in your question is the already
debunked notion that Chomsky is a Leninist. It's precisely this kind
of repetitive and evasive bullshit that will keep you spinning on the
Carousel of Faux Philosophy.
If you really want to know what Chomsky thinks, not what you think he
thinks or what someone else tells you thinks, you'll make the effort
to read something he's written, then get back to me for more
discussion.
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 "There is no reason to accept the doctrines crafted to sustain power and privilege, or to believe that we are constrained by mysterious and unknown social laws. These are simply decisions made within institutions that are subject to human will and that must face the test of legitimacy. And if they do not meet the test, they can be replaced by other institutions that are more free and more just, as has happened often in the past." Noam Chomsky "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." Thomas Jefferson The American Declaration of Independence 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 : Wed Jul 06 2005 - 23:22:34 BST