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

The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

nybooks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 63 posts

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#31

Post by keiferski »

SilverElfin wrote: post #25
keiferski wrote: post #20

Chomsky basically says that intellectuals have a responsibility to expose the lies said by those in power. Hard to argue with, but maybe kind of a platitude. I think I’d answer this question differently in 2026. The responsibility of intellectuals to society at large today, in an era overwhelmed with information, propaganda, immensely complex issues, etc. is – communicate the issues of the day in a way that is clear…

I agree with your suggestion, but I wonder if it is enough. Look at what happened today. Moments after the shooting, there was a coordinated campaign to flood the zone with misinformation. Twitter accounts for Trump, DHS (Kristi Noem), Vance, Miller all said someone tried to assassinate ICE officers and was shot in self defense. This was completely the opposite of what happened and given how quickly they put out thes…

I would describe events like that as:

battles of will where one side seeks to defeat the other in toto, not actually arrive at a solution that overcomes the conflict.

The deeper issue is immigration policy, which is a topic that displays the pattern I mentioned: no real attempt to solve the issue by addressing both sides/various parties, and instead boils it into an us-them struggle of political wills.

The responsibility of intellectuals in this case should be IMO to clearly analyze the immigration debate and discuss the benefits, downsides, likely consequences etc. of various actions.

But we don’t get that. Instead everyone just has an opinion already formed, including the intellectuals. And unfortunately unbiased rational approaches seem to lose (in money, attention) to the loud and opinionated.

So as the problem gets more complicated, people get further and further away from actually solving it.

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#32

Post by [deleted] »

smitty1e wrote: post #30
keiferski wrote: post #20

Chomsky basically says that intellectuals have a responsibility to expose the lies said by those in power. Hard to argue with, but maybe kind of a platitude. I think I’d answer this question differently in 2026. The responsibility of intellectuals to society at large today, in an era overwhelmed with information, propaganda, immensely complex issues, etc. is – communicate the issues of the day in a way that is clear…

The article was hilarious to me. To whom are we responsible? And who manages the "truth" supply? If we're assuming a postmodern stance that there is no objective truth, or even a utilitarian stance that truth is a consensus, then life is reduced to some extended chemical reaction, and there is no difference between a Stalin and a Mother Theresa. If one posits some religious definition of an objective truth, then at l…

[deleted]

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#33

Post by godelski »

glitchc wrote: post #18
droopyEyelids wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes sense if you are ok with your life making the world a worse place. Other people want to try and make it nicer.

Get off your high horse. This person bled for their country and once their service ended, was discarded without a second thought. They are entitled to feel the way they feel and have earned the privilege to voice their outrage. It is our duty to listen.

Their service is commendable and I'll even go so far to say that they were betrayed. But I still don't agree. We all have a duty. Being betrayed gives you every right to be angry, but it is what you do with that anger that matters. Do you use it as an excuse to be self centered or do you recognize that if you're betrayed so have others. That those that betrayed you can only do so because you do not band together. That you do not use your anger to band together and tell them to fuck off. To make them fuck off.

I'm personally very anti war. But I also am very dissatisfied with how we treat our veterans. To send them to, as Hawkeye says: "worse than hell", and then just abandon them?! That's a high moral sin. Outright unconscionable. But recognize they can only get away with this because we let them. I'm not okay with it, are you?

It isn't our duty to listen and do nothing. It is our duty to get mad and do something. Which is exactly what Droopy said

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#34

Post by godelski »

SilverElfin wrote: post #25
keiferski wrote: post #20

Chomsky basically says that intellectuals have a responsibility to expose the lies said by those in power. Hard to argue with, but maybe kind of a platitude. I think I’d answer this question differently in 2026. The responsibility of intellectuals to society at large today, in an era overwhelmed with information, propaganda, immensely complex issues, etc. is – communicate the issues of the day in a way that is clear…

I agree with your suggestion, but I wonder if it is enough. Look at what happened today. Moments after the shooting, there was a coordinated campaign to flood the zone with misinformation. Twitter accounts for Trump, DHS (Kristi Noem), Vance, Miller all said someone tried to assassinate ICE officers and was shot in self defense. This was completely the opposite of what happened and given how quickly they put out thes…

You're right, but also we shouldn't make it easy.

The reason exterminate always go after academics is because they make things harder. The vast majority of academics could make more money than they do as a professor. The authoritarian relies on the religious nature of followers and it's harder for those followers to have faith when it's constantly being questioned. It's why your mental model of an authoritarian regime is where people are afraid to speak freely.

You're right that the strategy is to confuse and overload. It's difficult to counter and I think you're exactly right to say "enough". We need to adapt to this strategy too. I think it's important to remember that truth has a lower bound in complexity but lies don't. They have an advantage because they can sell simplicity. We have the disadvantage when we try to educate. But what we need to do is remind people of how complex reality is while not making them feel dumb for not knowing. It's not easy. Even the biggest meathead who is as anti academic as they come will feel offended if you call them (or imply they're) stupid (are you offended if they call you weak?). We need a culture shift to accept not knowing things and that not knowing things doesn't make one stupid. I have a fucking PhD and I'm dumb as shit. There's so much I don't know about my own field, let alone all the others. I've put in a lot of hard work to be "smart", but the smartest people I know say "I don't know" and that's often the most interesting thing you can hear.

It's no easy task to solve. Don't forget, we're a species that would rather invent imaginary invisible wizards than admit we don't know. We're infinitely curious but also afraid of the unknown.

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#35

Post by wafflemaker »

godelski wrote: post #22
hekkle wrote: post #11

I would say that one has as much responsibility to society, as that society accepts for the individual. As a previously homeless veteran, I'd say that is zero. Why should intellectuals, or in fact anyone have any duty to help a system that doesn't help them? Now I know a lot of people will grandstand and say that if people just started taking on responsibility, then that would improve the system so that it would help…

This only results in a race to the bottom. A self fulfilling prophecy. The unfortunate truth is that if you want the world to be better you need to be better to it than it is to you. It's the only way that can even work. You can just do nothing and things will get better when others do more than they get, but by you doing nothing you've just shifted your burden to others. The burden of each individual is small. Almos…

Beautifully said.

I'd add a quote from the beginning of a famous sci-fi*:

You have to create Good out of Evil, because there is nothing else to create it from.

Roadside Picnic by Boris and Arkady Strugatsky, famous Russian anti-system science-fiction brother duo. Their other notable book is Snail on a Slope.

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#36

Post by antman »

hekkle wrote: post #11

I would say that one has as much responsibility to society, as that society accepts for the individual. As a previously homeless veteran, I'd say that is zero. Why should intellectuals, or in fact anyone have any duty to help a system that doesn't help them? Now I know a lot of people will grandstand and say that if people just started taking on responsibility, then that would improve the system so that it would help…

They are helping society not the system. They might fight the system. There is no ignoring, thats supporting the system. There is no silence, the system can produce fake intellectuals. There is no hiding, the system must pursue the individuals because its the ideas that need dying. The intellectuals are pursued even after death.

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#37

Post by smitty1e »

smitty1e wrote: post #30
keiferski wrote: post #20

Chomsky basically says that intellectuals have a responsibility to expose the lies said by those in power. Hard to argue with, but maybe kind of a platitude. I think I’d answer this question differently in 2026. The responsibility of intellectuals to society at large today, in an era overwhelmed with information, propaganda, immensely complex issues, etc. is – communicate the issues of the day in a way that is clear…

The article was hilarious to me. To whom are we responsible? And who manages the "truth" supply? If we're assuming a postmodern stance that there is no objective truth, or even a utilitarian stance that truth is a consensus, then life is reduced to some extended chemical reaction, and there is no difference between a Stalin and a Mother Theresa. If one posits some religious definition of an objective truth, then at l…

Saw the link to the full article below.

Chomsky never gets around to a teleological argument as to why US intervention in Vietnam was wrong; it's all so much quoting and puffery.

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#38

Post by tvink »

smitty1e wrote: post #30
keiferski wrote: post #20

Chomsky basically says that intellectuals have a responsibility to expose the lies said by those in power. Hard to argue with, but maybe kind of a platitude. I think I’d answer this question differently in 2026. The responsibility of intellectuals to society at large today, in an era overwhelmed with information, propaganda, immensely complex issues, etc. is – communicate the issues of the day in a way that is clear…

The article was hilarious to me. To whom are we responsible? And who manages the "truth" supply? If we're assuming a postmodern stance that there is no objective truth, or even a utilitarian stance that truth is a consensus, then life is reduced to some extended chemical reaction, and there is no difference between a Stalin and a Mother Theresa. If one posits some religious definition of an objective truth, then at l…

utilitarianism is when you add up the suffering. stalin made number go up, mother teresa made number go down. these are also not the only options.

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#39

Post by Joel_Mckay »

keiferski wrote: post #20

Chomsky basically says that intellectuals have a responsibility to expose the lies said by those in power. Hard to argue with, but maybe kind of a platitude. I think I’d answer this question differently in 2026. The responsibility of intellectuals to society at large today, in an era overwhelmed with information, propaganda, immensely complex issues, etc. is – communicate the issues of the day in a way that is clear…

Sycophantic idealism mixed with political Brand analytical-blindness is incompatible with functional democratic processes. Verifiable facts are the core responsibility of the Scientific process, and a lot of people still fail that minimal standard.

https://mchankins.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/still-not-signifi...

Modern corruption is just unsustainable populist negligence, that coincidentally also collapsed many empires in history. Suggesting Academic bureaucracy is a functional Meritocracy is naive wishful thinking, and ignores why these structures usually still degenerate to merge with poorly obfuscated despotic movements.

"Despotism" (1946)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaWSqboZr1w

Have a great day, =3

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#40

Post by geist67 »

smitty1e wrote: post #37
smitty1e wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article was hilarious to me. To whom are we responsible? And who manages the "truth" supply? If we're assuming a postmodern stance that there is no objective truth, or even a utilitarian stance that truth is a consensus, then life is reduced to some extended chemical reaction, and there is no difference between a Stalin and a Mother Theresa. If one posits some religious definition of an objective truth, then at l…

Saw the link to the full article below. Chomsky never gets around to a teleological argument as to why US intervention in Vietnam was wrong; it's all so much quoting and puffery.

US involvement was unnecessary in Vietnam because unlike the Koreans, communist Vietnam hated China, and was in no danger of being their ally (puppet.)

Mcnamara actually explained this at some point. That’s why we are allies with Vietnam today and not North Korea.

Post reply on HN