Aaron Swartz: The Book That Changed My Life • Hacker News Board

Re: Aaron Swartz: The Book That Changed My Life

#181

Post by Volpe » Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 10:37 AM UTC

bromang wrote: post #148

Volpe wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chomsky does round up a lot of criticisms and put them in one place. I'm not sure what 'ideology' you are referring to, unless you view 'reason' as an 'ideology'. But perhaps I am missing some over arching agenda Chomsky has... ? They ARE strawmen arguments because they present partially related items as reasons for chomsky being wrong. If Chomsky is cherry picking, then the way to respond is to bring ALL the informa…

"unless you view 'reason' as an 'ideology'." hah. talk about an inability to self-examine...

So what is the ideology?

Are you perhaps being counter constructive by just attacking me, rather than my argument.

Feels good, but gets us no where.

Re: Aaron Swartz: The Book That Changed My Life

#182

Post by podperson » Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 3:59 PM UTC

flyinRyan wrote: post #162

podperson wrote: post #36

I love Manufacturing Consent (the documentary) and it inspired me to read some of Chomsky's books on politics and see him live. It didn't change my life though. In general, I think the fundamental problem with Chomsky's compelling and very well buttressed description of The Way Things Work [in the US(1)] is that it really doesn't offer much hope. (This actually comes up towards the end of the movie, and his answer --…

>In general, I think the fundamental problem... is that it really doesn't offer much hope. Do you mean to say this is why some people so strongly dislike Chomsky?

I think most people don't like Chomsky because he tells uncomfortable truths.

Re: Aaron Swartz: The Book That Changed My Life

#183

Post by podperson » Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 4:04 PM UTC

obstacle1 wrote: post #117

podperson wrote: post #36

I love Manufacturing Consent (the documentary) and it inspired me to read some of Chomsky's books on politics and see him live. It didn't change my life though. In general, I think the fundamental problem with Chomsky's compelling and very well buttressed description of The Way Things Work [in the US(1)] is that it really doesn't offer much hope. (This actually comes up towards the end of the movie, and his answer --…

I am unclear on how your "fundamental problem" is a problem. I was not aware that when making arguments that offering hope was a prerequisite for validity or truth. Because if that is not the case, then offering no hope is not a fundamental problem.

You're right that I haven't expressed myself clearly.

The terms "manufacturing consent", "necessary distraction" etc. are taken from a political science treatise arguing that for a democracy to be a world power it must essentially distract the great unwashed from the political process so that the smart people can run things correctly. Chomsky's aim is to expose the workings of this process (and no, he's not a conspiracy theorist -- he's simply pointing out naturally emergent behaviors of large institutions) arguing that if only the great unwashed were aware of what's going on they'd suddenly start participating and everything would be better.

But as the discussion proceeds, it really seems to be arguing that people are stupid and uninformed and like it that way, and when presented with this argument, Chomsky makes the claim that no they're smart because they can learn to talk -- which I think is weak. (It's like arguing that basketball players must be good at physics.) This leaves the original thesis -- that people are stupid and ignorant and like it that way -- essentially standing, and thus argues in favor of the entire political philosophy he's trying to take down.

And that's a fundamental problem with Chomsky's political philosophy, but not with his observations. (Much as Marx was a great social critic, but his remedies weren't much use.)