Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

openculture.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 464 posts

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#21

Post by actionfromafar »

elondaits wrote: post #15
ajuc wrote: post #7

I start to dislike Chomsky more and more. His work in linguistic is over my head, maybe it's true, I can't tell. But whenever I hear him speak outside his niche his points are stupid (like this one) or harmful (like his Ukrainian takes). Everybody sees faces in rocks because we have brains fine-tuned for seeing faces. Does it prove that there's something universal in looking like a face or even worse - being a face?…

Chomsky is one of the most internationally-known intellectuals. Most people in my country (Argentina) know him for that, rather than his work in linguistics. ... So I think it's very unfair to say he's speaking "outside of his niche" here.

I guess one could phrase it like this - his work in linguistics was important and somewhat falsifiable. The rest, not so much.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#22

Post by dgb23 »

eddythompson80 wrote: post #17
ajuc wrote: post #7

I start to dislike Chomsky more and more. His work in linguistic is over my head, maybe it's true, I can't tell. But whenever I hear him speak outside his niche his points are stupid (like this one) or harmful (like his Ukrainian takes). Everybody sees faces in rocks because we have brains fine-tuned for seeing faces. Does it prove that there's something universal in looking like a face or even worse - being a face?…

He’s also a genocide denier.

That's not true.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#23

Post by dsego »

twoodfin wrote: post #14
ajuc wrote: post #7

I start to dislike Chomsky more and more. His work in linguistic is over my head, maybe it's true, I can't tell. But whenever I hear him speak outside his niche his points are stupid (like this one) or harmful (like his Ukrainian takes). Everybody sees faces in rocks because we have brains fine-tuned for seeing faces. Does it prove that there's something universal in looking like a face or even worse - being a face?…

What Chomsky is arguing is that, yes, in an important objective sense there is such a thing as “faciness” that our brains recognize. In the same way, I hope we’d all agree there’s objectively a color red—even accepting that it’s the structure of our optical and neural systems that are the basis for this fact.

Does that relate to Plato's world of ideas?

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#24

Post by roenxi »

jebarker wrote: post #2

I'm not sure I understand the point being made. Chomsky seems to be saying that since we learn the prevalent morality of our culture through sparse data there must be an underlying universal morality. But how does that allow for the fact that different cultures do have different moral codes and that those do change over time?

Possibly the article is poorly written? It doesn't seem to make sense. Either Chomsky is saying something quite academic or the article hasn't captured the point.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#26

Post by ajuc »

twoodfin wrote: post #14
ajuc wrote: post #7

I start to dislike Chomsky more and more. His work in linguistic is over my head, maybe it's true, I can't tell. But whenever I hear him speak outside his niche his points are stupid (like this one) or harmful (like his Ukrainian takes). Everybody sees faces in rocks because we have brains fine-tuned for seeing faces. Does it prove that there's something universal in looking like a face or even worse - being a face?…

What Chomsky is arguing is that, yes, in an important objective sense there is such a thing as “faciness” that our brains recognize. In the same way, I hope we’d all agree there’s objectively a color red—even accepting that it’s the structure of our optical and neural systems that are the basis for this fact.

The only definition is "most people recognize it" and there are people who disagree about it or don't recognize it at all.

How does it differ from something that exists subjectively then?

I'd say arguing that colors are like morality is pro-relativism stance.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#27

Post by dgb23 »

maeln wrote: post #19
ajuc wrote: post #7

I start to dislike Chomsky more and more. His work in linguistic is over my head, maybe it's true, I can't tell. But whenever I hear him speak outside his niche his points are stupid (like this one) or harmful (like his Ukrainian takes). Everybody sees faces in rocks because we have brains fine-tuned for seeing faces. Does it prove that there's something universal in looking like a face or even worse - being a face?…

> But whenever I hear him speak outside his niche his points are stupid (like this one) or harmful (like his Ukrainian takes). Chomsky was always like this. He is an unapologetic hypocrite, constantly criticizing the U.S and "the west" while defending "socialist" country for the exact thing, and often even worse, than he was criticizing the U.S for. Even going as far as denying the existence of genocide during the Yu…

You seem to mix things up?

He has been very critical of "socialist" countries, especially towards their underlying political ideology.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#28

Post by roenxi »

twoodfin wrote: post #14
ajuc wrote: post #7

I start to dislike Chomsky more and more. His work in linguistic is over my head, maybe it's true, I can't tell. But whenever I hear him speak outside his niche his points are stupid (like this one) or harmful (like his Ukrainian takes). Everybody sees faces in rocks because we have brains fine-tuned for seeing faces. Does it prove that there's something universal in looking like a face or even worse - being a face?…

What Chomsky is arguing is that, yes, in an important objective sense there is such a thing as “faciness” that our brains recognize. In the same way, I hope we’d all agree there’s objectively a color red—even accepting that it’s the structure of our optical and neural systems that are the basis for this fact.

> I hope we’d all agree there’s objectively a color red

We don't. For starters there are colourblind people, for seconds there is no specific colour that can be called "red". There is a large and fuzzy category of red-ish colours like blood-red or rose-red.

Even if there is some academic "these light wavelengths are the ones" definition of red that is arbitrary. Aliens might have drawn the lines elsewhere.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#29

Post by dsego »

boffinAudio wrote: post #4

All culture is a lie which only persists in the re-telling. For example - there is no such thing as "Europe", unless enough people get together and agree that this thing that doesn't really exist, does exist and shall be named "Europe". "Europe" isn't a physical element, it isn't a naturally occurring substance - it is instead a human cultural construct which only persists for as long as the word continues to be used…

The word you're looking for is ideology.

https://bigthink.com/the-present/slavoj-zizek-ideology/

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#30

Post by anewhnaccount2 »

ajuc wrote: post #7

I start to dislike Chomsky more and more. His work in linguistic is over my head, maybe it's true, I can't tell. But whenever I hear him speak outside his niche his points are stupid (like this one) or harmful (like his Ukrainian takes). Everybody sees faces in rocks because we have brains fine-tuned for seeing faces. Does it prove that there's something universal in looking like a face or even worse - being a face?…

Since people keep saying he's a genocide denier, I'll drop this link here https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/gsp/vol14/iss1/8/ which explains that it's more a matter of semantics. He hasn't denied mass murders have taken place. He would probably also object to using either "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" since using these words emotively serves to obscure what's really going on.
Post reply on HN