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

41–50 of 63 posts

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#41

Post by [deleted] »

keiferski wrote: post #31
SilverElfin wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 responsibi…

[deleted]

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#42

Post by datsci_est_2015 »

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…

Yet, we are bombarded with easily-falsifiable claims (“assassin”) by government officials and ridiculously-framed accounts (“officer-involved shooting”) from certain news outlets.

This sort of contrarianism is especially grating given the amount of distancing from social responsibility occurs here as a forum of what should be mostly intellectuals.

Put differently, intellectuals and technologists wield more power to enact both positive and negative change than the average citizens in a democratic society. I would agree with Chomsky that there is some relationship to exposing truth in an information-based society.

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#43

Post by smitty1e »

tvink wrote: post #38
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…

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.

Nevertheless, whoever controls the definition of "suffering" is powerful.

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#44

Post by godelski »

rented_mule wrote: post #29
godelski wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The bar to clear isn't the lowest one set. That mentality is exactly what a race to the bottom is

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#45

Post by datsci_est_2015 »

godelski wrote: post #34
SilverElfin wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 regim…

> But what we need to do is remind people of how complex reality is while not making them feel dumb for not knowing.

Well-said, even if the sentiment is in-and-of itself somehow condescending. No way around it, really.

To be fair, as well, there are an enormous number of people who do this already. They are educators, they are docents, they are civil servants. They quietly perform this task day in and out without much recognition or fanfare.

The demonization of these people can’t be ignored, either. It’s as if their services run counter to the interests of those who put so much money and effort into that demonization…

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#46

Post by datsci_est_2015 »

keiferski wrote: post #31
SilverElfin wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 responsibi…

Unfortunately the well was poisoned for this debate when the Republican Party enacted a decades-long campaign of obstructionism and propaganda. No doubt, there are individuals who must be absolutely giddy with excitement that the very “crisis” that they managed to manufacture (both literally through legislative obstructionism, and figuratively through media capture and propaganda) is now the perfect excuse to grab power to enact an authoritarian regressive agenda instead of slowly sliding more progressive due to demographic drift.

So, basically, my point is beware getting dragged into debates that clearly only benefit specific parties with specific agendas without first asking yourself more critical questions about the bigger picture.

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#47

Post by godelski »

datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #45
godelski wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 regim…

> But what we need to do is remind people of how complex reality is while not making them feel dumb for not knowing. Well-said, even if the sentiment is in-and-of itself somehow condescending. No way around it, really. To be fair, as well, there are an enormous number of people who do this already. They are educators, they are docents, they are civil servants. They quietly perform this task day in and out without muc…

In a complex world the little things matter. We feel unimportant because we're little. But also remember one person cutting you off on your way to work can ruin your whole day. But similarly one person giving you a smile can turn it around. The little things matter because all the big things are made of a thousand small things. That's why it's so important. I'm not asking everyone to go do big things. I'm asking people to do little things. You have to treat people the way you wish they treated you, even when they don't. Do they deserve it? No. But do you?

A thing I've learned is that often when people are mad they're not mad at you. Maybe you're part of it, but usually you're just at the end of some long chain. It's easier to respond to anger when you realize this.

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#48

Post by bbwbsb »

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…

Responsibility is to those that give status. Duty of the pro-social sort is what you buy status (regard) with.

Neither subjective or consensus accounts of truth (neither of which correspond with postmodernism or utilitarianism in the way you imply) are obviously inconsistent. Philosophers would not bother talking about them if that were the case.

Funnily enough, I can't tell which of Stalin and Mother Theresa you are worried will be confused with the other, given that many people have opposite ideas of which was moral and which was immoral.

Modern religions define objective morality, not objective truth (excluding metaphysical assertions, which are not what one usually means by truth).

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#49

Post by armchairhacker »

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…

Truth exists and matters. Even for far-away events like news, where "truth" is impossible to prove beyond doubt like hard science. Even for informally-defined concepts like justice, where "truth" is ambiguous and partly subjective. There are answers for the former that are more probable, and for the latter that resonate with more people, and those tend to correlate with the answers that are more conducive to whatever goals one has (even greed), and especially (utilitarian) long-term human prosperity.

The truth is unfathomably complex yet coherent. White lies lead to bigger lies that eventually unravel, because the implications of a lie are more lies. Sometimes even lies that seem like they'd never "blow up in your face", because humans aren't perfect. Some obvious lies one can accept and pretend are the truth, and it does work...until it doesn't, because those lies have implications that can't be accepted.

Unfortunately it can take a long time, until the lie no longer matters and/or the liar is dead. But truth practically always wins in the long-term, even historically for the losers (yes it's impossible to disprove that people and groups have been erased, and random nobodies are forgotten; but today we can even read burnt scrolls and know lots about the "Lost Colony" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roanoke_Colony)). More importantly, I believe truth wins more often and faster than most people argue, to the point where one should generally assume it matters. Though I can't prove it, like the events/concepts I'm describing, assume otherwise at your own loss...

---

Related to the recent ICE shooting: even some conservatives oppose the MAGA narrative, look at https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/. Others will never defy MAGA, but they aren't the majority; Trump won but with barely over 50%. Truth exists and matters.

Re: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967)

#50

Post by armchairhacker »

datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #46
keiferski wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 responsibi…

Unfortunately the well was poisoned for this debate when the Republican Party enacted a decades-long campaign of obstructionism and propaganda. No doubt, there are individuals who must be absolutely giddy with excitement that the very “crisis” that they managed to manufacture (both literally through legislative obstructionism, and figuratively through media capture and propaganda) is now the perfect excuse to grab po…

I think reasonable immigration debate would benefit the left, or at least the anti-right.

Many people want deportations but don’t like how Trump is doing them. And he doesn’t seem to be going after employers, which would be more effective.

In fact, I think the lack of debate is really hurting today's left.

Post reply on HN