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

111–120 of 464 posts

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#111

Post by cmrdporcupine »

boppinz wrote: post #105
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?…

1 - His Ukraine stance is simply that we have had a Cold War paradox in our American minds since the 50s, Russia is both too strong a foe to ignore and a paper tiger working off of shoddy USSR tanks and being beat by some farmers with lock-on missiles. This article helps clarify his points, he absolutely calls Russia's invasion barbaric, but he has always vehemently stated the West's bloodlust and policing has never…

The problem with the Ukraine stuff is that it falls easily into the same crap position as Varoufakis and others on the left which is basically a) some kind of "realism" about what Ukraine should do [basically surrender] and b) gives credence to much of the crap that Lavrov has put out on the public stage about this war being somehow about American imperialism.

Well, duh, everything is about imperialism, but what's missing from Chomsky's analysis is that: Russian imperialism is far far far worse.

I am not so much distressed by Chomsky's position on this issue as that of many of his followers/fans who seem to lack nuance entirely

Lefteast had some good articles on this topic and the crappy role many western "left wing" intellectuals have been playing. I will try to dig them up.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#112

Post by epups »

dotsam wrote: post #94
epups wrote: post #10

There almost certainly isn't a universal moral code. For every abominable act you can think of - murder, slavery, even genocide -, we can find examples of human groups that glorified them, usually by evoking religion, group affiliation or a mix of both.

If there is a universal moral code, we can never know it for certain. Moral knowledge, as well as all other kinds of knowledge, is always open to criticism and being proven wrong. But nevertheless we can make moral progress, just as we make scientific progress. We can find good explanations for why killing and enslaving people is wrong, even whilst we can point to countless examples where killing and enslaving people…

There is a big difference between morality and science though. The physical reality around us does not depend on our opinion of it, and we can design experiments to test it. You cannot "prove wrong" a set of moral rules without agreeing to a set of subjective principles first.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#113

Post by LindeBuzoGray »

maeln wrote: post #66
imjonse wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you cite him exactly on any of your points or are you paraphrasing what you have heard second hand?

You could just go to his wikipedia article. Anyway, he tried to downplay the genocide and the violence committed by the Khmer Rouge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chom... He, in the same fashion, downplayed the bosnian genocide: https://www.dw.com/en/dissident-intellectual-noam-chomsky-at... https://books.google.fr/books?id=7Bl9KT9NME0C&pg=PA142&redir... And said that the Russian was acting…

> he tried to downplay the genocide and the violence committed by the Khmer Rouge

The US carpet bombed Cambodia just like it did Vietnam, and Chomsky condemned this.

This nebulous "Khmer Rouge" you refer to was armed by the US starting in 1979 and even more so in subsequent years. The US worked to put them back in power and put economic, military and diplomatic support behind it. As reported in the New York Times, ABC News at the time. Chomsky was against this.

The US establishment was anti-Khmer Touge until 1979, then began arming and supporting them in 1979. By the late 1990s they began going out of favor in the US establishment. Chomsky's opinion hasn't changed, he was against the US bombing Cambodia during the Vietnam War.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#114

Post by tomjen3 »

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?…

I agree with you. I wish he was a banned subject on hn.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#115

Post by dgb23 »

hotdogscout wrote: post #97
dgb23 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what "genocide denial" means. This was perhaps wrong judgement in hindsight. Calling this or other things "genocide denial" and similarly extreme terms is a common tactic in order to craft an ad-hominem attack to divert from anti-imperialist criticism. I'm in part Bosnian, so American intervention has had a very real impact on my family's well being and even survival. So I'm at least ambivalent if not oppo…

So, based on your views, socialists are incapable of genocide? Since it could be an imperialist smear campaign? Every instance of genocide denial I know of also follows this line of reasoning.

> So, based on your views, socialists are incapable of genocide? Since it could be an imperialist smear campaign?

That doesn't follow does it. Why would you try to assume that I don't understand basic logic?

Whether you live in this or that empire, it's people at the top telling you what to believe, what is right and wrong, while committing the most atrocious crimes.

Socialists are very much capable of genocide and other forms of mass killings. In fact, they seem to typically start with killing other socialists, especially the democratic, libertarian left. That's no coincidence.

> Every instance of genocide denial I know of also follows this line of reasoning.

Genocide denial doesn't _follow_ this line of reasoning. It presents itself as such in order to hide the true intent. It is ultimately a propaganda instrument.

From my understanding, this is not what he did. He openly and repeatedly denounced these regimes. Look at what he actually said and wrote (sensational YT videos don't count). I can't speak for him.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#116

Post by boppinz »

hef19898 wrote: post #104
boppinz wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but that discredits his wide history as a modern intellectual. He did philosophy and linguistics from the start. Like it's fine to not agree with him, but he often offers a great introduction to topics like war and labor organizing for folks. His pop science is at least based on real science and his own reasoning. And who would you suggest instead? If you say anyone before the 1960s but filtered through the…

Personally, I have a peoblem with all those "intelectuals". Most of the time they were never top of the crop in their field to begin with, and then switched over to general intellectualism using top notch rethoric skills. Peterson is living, or already fell off, the extreme end of this spectrum. People like Chomsky occupy places on the same spectrum so. And spare me philosophers.

Laymen need people who can synthesize the works of academics/researchers.

If someone like Chomsky wasn't talking about "faciness" and the ethics of ChatGPT, would anyone really bring that up? In an academic setting or otherwise.

This again also discredits his work as an academic for coining and bringing to light topics like CFGs.

Or in another similar vein: Bill Nye helps to distill scientific concepts for children (and adults too). There is something to be said for him helping to engage some students more in science, AND for whatever interpretation and analysis of Creationism vs. Evolution he did at that debate with Ken Ham, for the lay people. To a degree, it doesn't matter if he got every one of his points 100% logically sound, it can be a springboard that hopefully gives theists some food for thought on why Evolution is the best we empirically have and that the Bible isn't a primary source for citing.

So I again ask who you would rather speak to me about these topics, or am I supposed to just dig through thousands of scholarly articles and hope the ones I discuss and cite have the "correct" opinion and rhetorical skils?

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#117

Post by epups »

LindeBuzoGray wrote: post #110
jebarker wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's obvious that those traits, e.g. not stealing, are universal or part of some fundamental moral grammar. It just means they're common and widespread.

Not stealing, but as I said, stealing from one's friends. Most cultures frown on that.

If you had to qualify it with "most", then it isn't universal. Moreover, I don't think morality is what applies only to your friends.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#118

Post by snowpid »

dgb23 wrote: post #80
snowpid wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

its true. Straight outta wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Noam_Ch...

That's not what "genocide denial" means. This was perhaps wrong judgement in hindsight. Calling this or other things "genocide denial" and similarly extreme terms is a common tactic in order to craft an ad-hominem attack to divert from anti-imperialist criticism. I'm in part Bosnian, so American intervention has had a very real impact on my family's well being and even survival. So I'm at least ambivalent if not oppo…

'I'm in part Bosnian, so American intervention has had a very real impact on my family's well being and even survival. So I'm at least ambivalent if not opposed to some of Chomsky's views on anti-imperialism, even though I respect his principled stance.' That does not matter. It doesnt make your opinion more valid.

'Calling this or other things "genocide denial" and similarly extreme terms is a common tactic in order to craft an ad-hominem attack to divert from anti-imperialist criticism.' It is very normal to judge based on other areas that someone said. He denied the Cambodian genocide and never changed his view since 50 years! What does it say about him? And why is it ad-hominem? Do you even know what does it mean?

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#119

Post by johndhi »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #111
boppinz wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1 - His Ukraine stance is simply that we have had a Cold War paradox in our American minds since the 50s, Russia is both too strong a foe to ignore and a paper tiger working off of shoddy USSR tanks and being beat by some farmers with lock-on missiles. This article helps clarify his points, he absolutely calls Russia's invasion barbaric, but he has always vehemently stated the West's bloodlust and policing has never…

The problem with the Ukraine stuff is that it falls easily into the same crap position as Varoufakis and others on the left which is basically a) some kind of "realism" about what Ukraine should do [basically surrender] and b) gives credence to much of the crap that Lavrov has put out on the public stage about this war being somehow about American imperialism. Well, duh, everything is about imperialism, but what's mi…

Why is Russia's imperialism far far far worse?

What about the us invasion of Iraq is "better" than the Russia invasion of Ukraine?

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#120

Post by BobbyJo »

ajuc wrote: post #92
coldtea wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> without starting out with an inborn sense of grammar I'm not so sure though, because it starts by being fed sentences assembled by people. Sort of how we wouldn't say that a book itself has a "good command of language", but that the writer has one, and put it in the book. So you might need a seed with "an inborn sense of grammar" to create language first and a training corpus second, but once that's available in hu…

> Would an LLM gain a "good command of language" if it was just fed all the taling a human hears and the words it reads in its first 18 years of life? Depends on what its starting weights are ;)

Aaaaaaand we're back to inborn sense.
Post reply on HN