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

21–30 of 63 posts

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#21

Post by praptak »

127 wrote: post #6

Responsibility of intellectuals, or wise men/women, has always been to guide the tribe towards security, happiness and prosperity. Not to sow dissent inside the tribe by moralizing, while completely ignoring all the ills in other tribes. So called "intellectuals" who do it just to further their own selfish goals, should not be awarded high ranking positions.

How far are you prepared to go with the "loyalty to the tribe" argument? If your "tribe" is 1942 Germany and you know about the ongoing Holocaust, does your line of thinking imply that you should keep quiet about it? You know, not to sow dissent by moralizing.

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#22

Post by godelski »

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. Almost insignificant even. It's not hard to be kinder to others than they are to you. But the burden accumulates and compounds. You don't have to pick up the slack, but you do need to do your part. The future is made by all of us

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#24

Post by jeezfrk »

hekkle wrote: post #17
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.

Of course, anyone always has the option to volunteer to make the world a better place; but the idea that anyone has a responsibility, or moral obligation to help a society that is actively hostile towards them is insanity.

The important point is what a deserter would use as logic when asked "What if everyone gave up and only responded to selfish fear?"

Then, sir, it would be foolhardy to contribute any part to that service because soon it will all collapse.

That's, in a historically commonplace fashioned see today, is what the top 10% are doing when seeing the top 1% abdicate all responsibility.

Low or no taxes? Sounds good ... but it's going to burn down soon.

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#25

Post by SilverElfin »

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 these messages, they had no way of knowing either.

They simply put it out there because no matter what, this is what they will say in response to an ICE shooting. It is a way of confusing the messaging and preventing their supporters from being convinced by anyone else or any evidence. Once their base form that initial opinion, it is very hard to change their mind. So will intellectually actually reach those people effectively?

Remember, this base has been told to distrust the academics and distrust science and distrust the news media.

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#26

Post by godelski »

Paracompact wrote: post #19
hekkle wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, anyone always has the option to volunteer to make the world a better place; but the idea that anyone has a responsibility, or moral obligation to help a society that is actively hostile towards them is insanity.

I feel people failed you in your situation. They had an obligation to help you, and they did not.

I'll add that this is the whole purpose of a society. The social contract is that of a coalition. Our combined utility is greater than the sum of our individual utility.

To not have an obligation to society is to be a drain on it. Even if you don't recognize it you still get a lot of benefit from society. It could be better. It should be better. But that will never happen if you never put in your part.

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#27

Post by 0928374082 »

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…

> I'd say that is zero.

That's your society, not all societies. People, veterans or not, aren't homeless in mine.

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#28

Post by roenxi »

127 wrote: post #6

Responsibility of intellectuals, or wise men/women, has always been to guide the tribe towards security, happiness and prosperity. Not to sow dissent inside the tribe by moralizing, while completely ignoring all the ills in other tribes. So called "intellectuals" who do it just to further their own selfish goals, should not be awarded high ranking positions.

One of the major lessons of the 1900s is that the moral ills of your own tribe are more important than the problems other people might have. You don't live in some other country, you live in your own. Local concerns are by far the #1 issue.

Even in the 2000s, one of the most ironic outcomes is that US hegemony forced a bunch of countries into really dominant regional positions (thinking especially of Japan, China and Germany) because they had nothing else to do but fix their own internal problems and it turns out that is a dominant strategy over militarism. Moral positions like peace, law, consistency and fairness aren't vague nice-to-haves, they are principles that lead to better outcomes for the people who stick with them.

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#29

Post by rented_mule »

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…

> you need to be better to it than it is to you

If the person you are responding to hasn't screwed society over, then it sounds like they have easily cleared that bar, even by doing nothing.

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#30

Post by smitty1e »

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 least there is a definition to measure against beside "Do as thou wilt".

I'm not a huge Chomsky fan anyway. Despite his appeal to truth, he tends to ring false for me.

Post reply on HN