Mickey Z
Cool Observer
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Noam Chomsky says:
a useful quote, as I think it shows some of the weakness in Chomsky’s thought.
There’s weakness in several areas, in my opinion, but I’ve always been interested in how people disagree with Chomsky.
some questions regarding this line.
Where does he place his linguistics, a scientific study, in all of this?
where does he stop his unquestioned faith in enlightenment thought? is it just psychology?
the novel, in my opinion, certainly reveals a lot about social conditions. it would be interesting to see how chomsky attempts to balance this assertion, with his traditional studies of social relations.
on a somewhat related note, chomsky had a very interesting debate on the issue of power with the french social theorist michel foucault back in the early 70s. you can get a transcript on the internet, but i still have not found anyone that could get the video of it. it was on a dutch television channel.Posted by mike on from Dublin 03/11 at 10:12 AMI had a great opportunity on C-Span to address your point. I was asked about Chomsky, Zinn, and others tacitly approving a vote for Kerry as a vote against Bush. I replied that it’s empowering to disagree with someone form whom yu have learned a lot. Years ago, I tended to rely too much on Chomsky. Now, I think I have a healthy balance.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from 03/11 at 01:19 PMmike - the foucault discussion is included on a dvd/vhs release from zeitgeist video callled manufacturing consent (noam chomsky and the media), by mark achbar & peter wintonick.
I like this quote, I wasn’t quite able to figure out your disagreement with it, but it certainly is true that we can learn more about ourselves from an insightful novelist than some scientist or PHD in psychology.
Posted by James on from Puerto Rico 03/11 at 01:57 PMLet me clarify, I don’t necessarily disagree with this quote. In fact, I love it because it forces the reader to re-consider the worship of corporate science.
Posted by Mickey Z. on from 03/11 at 02:03 PMI wasn’t sure what mike’s disagreement with it was....
Posted by James on from Puerto Rico 03/11 at 02:30 PMunfortunately, there is only a clip of the chomsky-foucault debate on the video manufacturing consent
Posted by kim on from 03/11 at 03:22 PMI always felt Chomsky wanted people to think for themselves and not follow someone blindly— him or anyone else. I love this quote because it sets up the dicotomy perfectly for me. A scientist takes a part of a whole and analyses it and then claims it represents the whole. It is linear and reductionist. Whereas a novelist creates a world in which you have to engage your heart and accept the chaos to understand the characters and the relationships. It is wholistic and non-linear, except for the reading part that is.
Posted by Rhondda on from Canada 03/11 at 03:47 PMRhondda makes a good point. The real insight in the original quote about novelists and scientists, imho, lies in the humility with which Chomsky is able to speak on the usefulness of science. It seems to me that most folks not particularly familiar with the scientific method or the narrow scope of much scientific understanding, usually have a starry eyed view of science and it’s place in human affairs…
Posted by sk on from 03/11 at 09:33 PMTo clarify a few points…
First on the video, thank you for the suggestion of Manufacturing Consent. Unfortunately, Kim is correct, the entire debate is not included. It is very difficult to get the entire footage. That being said, I don’t lose sleep at night over not having seen it. I ask about it when the opportunity arises.James, this line:
“it certainly is true that we can learn more about ourselves from an insightful novelist than some scientist or PHD in psychology”
is something I disagree with. I think it is too generic, and lacks a critical explanation. In my opinion, this is one of Chomsky’s faults at times as well.Mickey, not all of social studies is corporate science, even if it is sometimes linked. I would argue that even more of social studies (or the humanities) is tied to what would be called Enlightenment thought. I’d bring it back to our disagreement about the use of “we”, or, national identities.
Rhonda, I would disagree, again, because you are attempting a general conclusion about both sciences and novelists. I don’t see how this can be truly accomplished.
sk, I think Chomsky has this idea of sciences being able to wield incredible power. Not just sciences funded by corporations, but those fueled by a universal reason and method.
Posted by mike on from Dublin 03/12 at 12:03 PMdear Mike from dublin Your comment says more about you than me. An opinion is not a fact and I was not attempting any conclusion, only an impression from the quote. Of course there is a difference between a scientist in the field measuring carbon in the atmosphere for example and one in a lab injecting dogs with a carcinogenic and claiming some proof for mankind. Just as a novelist can write a story about justifing racism, there are those who write about making the world a better place, like Dickens in his time. History determines both. My comment is if there is a deeper thought to it, was only that if you do not touch the heart of a matter, you can yap all you want about facts. Novelists can take you there and you can make your own conclusions.
Posted by Rhondda on from Canada 03/12 at 04:22 PMI’m sorry about all the flap related to Clint Eastwood’s movie. It was, simply, not a very good movie. However, the “disability” slant on why it is mediocre is one I consider almost as weak as the film.
As an athlete (ex), I’m very mindful the physical reality of a body that doesn’t always do as I would wish. However, what is wrong with preferring death to such a major life shift as was illustrated in the film? I can assure you that I have thought about different ways to die should I become significantly disabled. It is not a condition familiar to me, and we all are more comfortable with the familiar. Perhaps if I had been born with disability as part of my experience, or acquired disability in youth, I would not feel this way. I did not.It never ceases to amaze me about how judgmental each of us is, despite our best efforts not to be. I would rather be dead than severely disabied. I do not want pity for this perspective, nor do I deserve loathing. It is about choice, and as you have a right to choose life, I have that same right not to make your choice. Please do not give me the quality of life spiel, as that is also individually determined by a person capable of rational thought. The choice is also not always brought on by some insidious bout with depression or loneliness. I have good friends. I have a loving family. I would rather be dead than severely disabled, and that is MY well-adjusted, well-considered response.
Thank you,
TomPosted by Tshyman on from 03/21 at 08:46 PMTom,
The essence of the critique was that Eastwood’s flick offered a one-sided perspective of right to die. I can only speak for myself, but I certainly wasn’t telling anyone what to do.
Thanks,
MZ
Posted by Mickey Z. on from 03/21 at 08:53 PM
Next entry: TGIF Web Surfing
Previous entry: Where the (sex) toys aren't
Copyright © 2005-2007 Mickey Z.
