Chomsky Harris email exchange/debate

stevejazzx

Anyone read this exchange? Thoughts?


I have seen the conclusion of this exchange described most accurately, in my opinion, as 'Sam Harris Begs Noam Chomsky to Publicly Embarrass Him'.
Oddly, and for reasons totally unapparent from this exchange there are those who believe that Harris came out this more favorably, partly I suspect in convincing readers that Chomsky was being cantankerous throughout and therefore losing the argument by default of not being able to control his emotions or whatever nonsense Harris tries to clings to.

For the uninitiated this bizarre affair started because Chomsky dismissively referred to Harris and Hitchens as religious fanatics here.
I felt the clip was unfortunate for Chomsky. Firstly he didn't even understand the question correctly, possibly an audio issue (if I am being generous) but secondly and more seriously I felt unintelligibly accuses Harris and Hitchens of being State fundamentalists in what i can only describe as a poor comparison to any form of religious fundamentalism and even more unfortunately a comparison we are more prone to hear from creationists and fundamentalists themselves rather than distinguished academics.

Harris was obviously not impressed by Chomskys dismissal and with good reason and decided to engage with Chomsky but here's where it went wrong for Harris.
Instead of engaging Chomsky on matters directly pertaining to differences between State and religious fundamentalism (a conversation/argument he could have handled and indeed won) or at least on matters more or less religious, he instead decides to tackle Chomsky on his theory of intentions.

Harris believes that intentions mean everything in the modern world. He uses the example of what Palestine/Iran would do if they had nuclear missiles - Palestine's/Iran's intention would be to destroy Israel. Since Israel has nuclear missiles and greater military power and hasn't destroyed Palestine, Israel is therefore a moral superior! It seems like the kind of conclusion a well meaning 12 year old might arrive at.
His specious and hole ridden theory can be heard here

Unfortunately Harris thought that this interpretation of the moral equivalence issue was something that he needed engage with Chomsky on and suitably has his arse handed to him in return. The whole 10,000 word exchange can be summed up here

skpechick wrote:

As Chomsky shows quite clearly in his response, his entire point of bringing up the pharmaceutical plant bombing was to explore the difference in morality between murdering tens of thousands of people purposely because you regard them as people with an important role to play in terror and murdering tens of thousands of people as a side effect of your true aim and an effect which you never actually acknowledge or atone for in any way because you don’t actually view those victims as people who deserve a second thought.

I haven't read any of Harris books and following this exchange my opinion of him has floundered dramatically to the point of writing him off as a serious intellectual who I should listen to. Chomsky is of course not without his flaws some them stubborn and elementary (his inability to accept greater complexities in certain aspects of foreign policy) nonetheless he is a towering academic whose body of work stands to him. Can the same be said of Harris? Has he embarrassed himself with this exchange and what does it say about the current state of the celebrated atheist intellectual/skeptic if this is the best we can offer.

robindch

stevejazzx wrote: »

[...] Chomsky was being cantankerous [...]

Chomsky could have made many worthwhile contributions to the sum of human knowledge beyond his excellent work in linguistics - he's a smart guy. But sadly, a flawed one - his willingness, and perhaps even need, to impute the basest of motives to people and institutions appears to have superceded any interest he ever had in presenting an honest argument.

A touch less ranting and a few dashes more of fact + reason and he'd be worth listening to. As he is, he isn't.

Haven't read Harris for years, though I can understand why Chomsky might get riled by him.

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

Chomsky could have made many worthwhile contributions to the sum of human knowledge beyond his excellent work in linguistics - he's a smart guy. But sadly, a flawed one - his willingness, and perhaps even need, to impute the basest of motives to people and institutions appears to have superceded any interest he ever had in presenting an honest argument.

A touch less ranting and a few dashes more of fact + reason and he'd be worth listening to. As he is, he isn't.

Haven't read Harris for years, though I can understand why Chomsky might get riled by him.

Interesting but not unexpected response
Have a look at this article
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/23/noam-chomsky-guardian-personality
I am bemused by Chomsky detractors it's almost always without specific examples.
I think that's because in a large part what he has to say is painful to listen to especially for us westerners who wish our societies and governments weren't so utterly corrupted.
I mean your sentiment is not completely without merit but asking Chomsky for more facts is like asking an Olympic athlete for more energy.

robindch

stevejazzx wrote: »

I am bemused by Chomsky detractors it's almost always without specific examples. I think that's because in a large part what he has to say is painful to listen to especially for us westerners who wish our societies and governments weren't so utterly corrupted.

Well, a few weeks back and for no greater reason than it happened to be gravitating towards one end of my bookshelf, I pulled down and read the first chapter of "Necessary Illusions", Chomsky's 25-year old diatribe against people and organizations whom he doesn't like.

I certainly agree that he's painful to listen to. For me, largely on account of his continual attempts to glue together on the one hand, incontrovertible facts with poor reasoning and, on the other hand, pseudo-facts with good reasoning - to little effect in either case. Also also, having lighted upon some self-evident truth, rarely if ever applies it consistently across the political universe - choosing instead to treat certain people and organizations with the blowtorch of his considerable contempt, while ignoring entirely similar excesses and abuses by others. His use of simplistic, pejorative language becomes a trifle tedious with time as well - was he the first person to bang on constantly about "liberal elites" before Paul Murphy discovered the term? No doubt he wasn't. And there's a certain rich irony in him claiming that governments and corporations endlessly distort issues, when he's guilty of doing exactly the same.

Putting his book back on the shelf, it occurred to me that he's the kind of author who would function well as the angry man's replacement for the angry teen's Ayn Rand. Or perhaps somebody who could be termed a Political Justice Warrior analogous to the Social Justice Warrior found elsewhere.

As I said above, it's a pity really. Chomsky is undeniably smart and is well-capable of saying something worth hearing. It's to his eternal discredit that he chooses not to.

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

Well, a few weeks back and for no greater reason than it happened to be gravitating towards one end of my bookshelf, I pulled down and read the first chapter of "Necessary Illusions", Chomsky's 25-year old diatribe against people and organizations whom he doesn't like.

I certainly agree that he's painful to listen to. For me, largely on account of his continual attempts to glue together on the one hand, incontrovertible facts with poor reasoning and, on the other hand, pseudo-facts with good reasoning - to little effect in either case. Also also, having lighted upon some self-evident truth, rarely if ever applies it consistently across the political universe - choosing instead to treat certain people and organizations with the blowtorch of his considerable contempt, while ignoring entirely similar excesses and abuses by others. His use of simplistic, pejorative language becomes a trifle tedious with time as well - was he the first person to bang on constantly about "liberal elites" before Paul Murphy discovered the term? No doubt he wasn't.

Hmm
With this not too inconsiderable wall of critique I find myself enjoying your prose style - it really is quite good! - reminds of the time, when Galloway proclaimed Hitchens was something unique in nature "the first ever metamorphosis from a butterfly into a slug" to which Hitchens simply replied "not bad, not bad". I feel like doing the same here except I can't help but notice that point I made in the initial post about how opponents of Chomsky attack his style rather than his substance, as it were.

robindch wrote:

And there's a certain rich irony in him claiming that governments and corporations endlessly distort issues, when he's guilty of doing exactly the same.

It is with great discomfort that we are forced to endure the 'ironies' leftover from the great miscalculations and downright corruptions of those in government and large corporations. Conversely Chomskys misgivings, bias or his attempts at speaking truth to power is an irony I am comfortable to endure.

robindch wrote:

Putting his book back on the shelf, it occurred to me that he's the kind of author who would function well as the angry man's replacement for the angry teen's Ayn Rand. Or perhaps somebody who could be termed a Political Justice Warrior analogous to the Social Justice Warrior found elsewhere.

With Chomsky being the proverbial 'chalk' to Rands (mouldly) 'cheese' I find the comparison confusing. I think I follow the presupposition of the idea tough
but it seems rather forced imo - any journey from Randian objectivism and libertairianism to Chomkesque anti-capitalism and socialism would be quite something
(even in the mind of a maladjusted misguided teenager becoming a malcontent and misinformed man). Although I can see the humor apparent in the root of idea I feel it was made more for point scoring rather than any accuracy. Ah yes accuracy - this brings me back to Greeenwalds article and how people like to attack Chomskys style. By god he is a prescient fellow.

robindch wrote:

As I said above, it's a pity really. Chomsky is undeniably smart and is well-capable of saying something worth hearing. It's to his eternal discredit that he chooses not to.

I am aware there is a certain type of kudos in the zeitgeist for moving against the grain of accepted wisdoms particularly when they are represented by seemingly pompous, arrogant or simply unlikable intellectuals or academics but this kind of sweeping dismissal of one of histories best established and most highly regarded socio-polictical commentators is at great odds with basic common sense.