From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed May 05 2004 - 15:48:37 BST
Hi Mark H,
> It wasn't my intention to evoke another mindless diatribe against one of
> the great thinkers of the 20th century.
You brought up Chomsky and added an arguable assertion, not me.
> Certainly you can agree or
> disagree with Chomksy, but to attack him ad hominem, and dismiss him as if
> he were some school child who hadn't done his homework makes you look
> ridiculous. Too bad.
By your lights I'm in good company because no one looks more ridiculous
than Chomsky when he asserts that America is "a leading terrorist state."
Too bad, indeed.
> What's ironic about your attack is that Chomsky certainly agrees that all
> belief systems are necessarily based on uncertain premises. Below is his
> recent response to a statement that science had proved the impossibility of
> resurrection:
>
>
> **** BEGIN CHOMSKY
> Within the framework of our scientific knowledge,
> resurrection is next to impossible. But those who believe
> in resurrection wouldn't contest that. Their point is that
> science provides only limited understanding of reality, and
> there's no way to argue against that conviction.
Pirsig agrees that science provides only a limited understanding of
reality and argues convincingly for that conviction. As I said, Chomsky
should read and try to absorb ZMM and Lila. One of the greatest thinkers
of the 20th century might learn something. :-)
> My own feeling is that it's not wise to hold irrational
> beliefs.
No belief is more irrational than Chomsky's that there's moral equivalence
between the terrorists who attacked on 9-11 and the U.S.
> We all do so, necessarily, but we should always
> be willing to face challenges to them and revise them if we
> cannot meet those challenges. Religious beliefs don't have
> that property: they are held whatever the facts.
Note the irony. Chomsky holds so-called 'facts' higher than religious
beliefs even though 'facts' (like religious beliefs) arise from a belief
system based on uncertain premises--a 'fact' Chomsky concedes.
> That's
> not unique to religion. Unfortunately, it's a large
> component of the intellectual culture, at the "highest
> level" -- what Hans Morgenthau, the founder of realist
> international relations theory, called "our conformist
> subservience to those in power." It's enough to read the
> morning's newspaper or intellectual journals to find plenty
> of examples, which in my opinion at least, are far more
> dangerous than belief in resurrection.
What's sauce for the goose . . . Many consider Chomsky's views far more
dangerous than belief in resurrection.
Best,
Platt
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 May 05 2004 - 15:47:30 BST