Human nature, Foucault vs Chomsky.

[m25105]

I wouldn't call Chomsky's view one of guilt but rather of responsibility and morality. He's often stated that at least those living in totalitarian, repressive countries (like the old USSR, China, the Arab theocracies) have fear of state violence as a valid excuse for not speaking out against their countries crimes. But those of us living in free societies have no such excuses and simply have to have the will to act in a moral way.

And yeah, Chomsky himself referred to Foucault as totally amoral in subsequent interviews. When you reach a point of skepticism so great you're afraid of taking ANY stance because hey, that's just an institution coercing you, you end up sitting on the sidelines and not contributing shit. Chomsky has said that you should have the courage to take certain stances if you want to get things done, but at the same time keeping open the possibility that you can be totally wrong.

I think the guilt stems from that he never went in to politics to do something about it. But I could just be reading in to things that aren't there.

 

[Islam Imamate]

It seems like even those at the two farthest ends of the human nature debate spectrum agree that every observable result is produced via a combination of nature and nurture/genes and institutions. It just becomes an argument over degree.

Yeah that's true, even behaviorists had to ultimately admit that and concede that their vision of a tabula rasa was inaccurate.

Chomsky tailors his talks to the audiences he's talking to. Whenever he discusses a problem he says something like "Well, there are lots of reasons why, but a big part is [insert the role of the West and or US here]"

And he makes his reasons for doing this clear: You are responsible for your own actions, not someone else's actions. So an American or Westerner should know what they have done so that they are able to rectify it. There's no value in talking about the other guy's crimes when your own crimes are still being perpetrated.

Perfectly rational.

Sure that's fair and I agree to a large extent. But sometimes when he does so I think it has the effect of suggesting a lack of agency on the part of non-Western actors.

When you reach a point of skepticism so great you're afraid of taking ANY stance because hey, that's just an institution coercing you, you end up sitting on the sidelines and not contributing shit.

I call it pseudo-radicalism. The ideas seem very radical but their effect is a kind of paralysis of action that ultimately accomplishes nothing of the sort.

 

[Islam Imamate]

A fellow Muslim? Us Salam alaykom

Aleyküm Selam brother.

You guys and @Maaj19 are the only Muslims I ever see posting in the WR. And yet despite the fact that calling myself a Muslim would be quite a stretch atm I'm the one who gets the brunt of the shit here for it.

 

[Maaj19]

You guys and @Maaj19 are the only Muslims I ever see posting in the WR. And yet despite the fact that calling myself a Muslim would be quite a stretch atm I'm the one who gets the brunt of the shit here for it.

Ignore the people who give you shit man, they wouldn't say anything irl. The WR is full of some really fucked up people with messed up views

 

[Possum Jenkins]

I think the guilt stems from that he never went in to politics to do something about it. But I could just be reading in to things that aren't there.

The guy is a scientist, politics aren't his passion. He's mentioned countless times that political issues aren't intellectually interesting to him but he engages in them because he recognizes how important they are.

He's also a committed anarchist so he doesn't believe in leaders and thinks the state is illegitimate. When asked what he'd do if he were president he's said things like "I'd start working to undermine the power I've just gained."

 

[Islam Imamate]

Ignore the people who give you shit man, they wouldn't say anything irl. The WR is full of some really fucked up people with messed up views

I bring it upon myself what with the gimmick I use and the fact that I don't hesitate to jump in on discussion on Islam. Just find it funny that when the WR thinks of a Muslim poster I'm probably the first to come to mind despite the fact that there are actual Muslims here. I get it, this place gets tiresome when it comes to the topic which usually devolves into a circlejerk of hate.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Sure that's fair and I agree to a large extent. But sometimes when he does so I think it has the effect of suggesting a lack of agency on the part of non-Western actors.

True, I also think he may not know the details of non-Western actors the way he does the West. So for instance, he'll briefly mention that Saddam gained power through a coup, but then he'll go on a 20-minute expose about how the US and the CIA backed him, complete with timelines, congressional discussions, UN resolutions, NY Times articles, etc. There's probably just more info available to him about the US/West than there is the others.

I call it pseudo-radicalism. The ideas seem very radical but their effect is a kind of paralysis of action that ultimately accomplishes nothing of the sort.

Exactly.

A similar thing occurs with these radicaler-than-thou leftists that think total revolution is the ONLY solution. In this video, Chomsky reks one such moran-

 

[m25105]

The guy is a scientist, politics aren't his passion. He's mentioned countless times that political issues aren't intellectually interesting to him but he engages in them because he recognizes how important they are.

He's also a committed anarchist so he doesn't believe in leaders and thinks the state is illegitimate. When asked what he'd do if he were president he's said things like "I'd start working to undermine the power I've just gained."

Cheers, most of my knowledge on Chomsky is me just having scratched the surface. I have a few books of his that is on my list to buy and read.

 

[Islam Imamate]

True, I also think he may not know the details of non-Western actors the way he does the West. So for instance, he'll briefly mention that Saddam gained power through a coup, but then he'll go on a 20-minute expose about how the US and the CIA backed him, complete with timelines, congressional discussions, UN resolutions, NY Times articles, etc. There's probably just more info available to him about the US/West than there is the others.

Can't expect one guy to know it all, just think its important to understand that one blind spot of his. But otherwise

Exactly.

A similar thing occurs with these radicaler-than-thou leftists that think total revolution is the ONLY solution. In this video, Chomsky reks one such moran-

And the funny thing is Chomsky himself holds pretty radical views as an anarchist, its just that he doesn't let them blind him to what can be done now politically that would improve the lives of as many people as possible.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Cheers, most of my knowledge on Chomsky is me just having scratched the surface. I have a few books of his that is on my list to buy and read.

His books are great and super easy to read.

His talks are great too. Fortunately, there are literally days' worth of them on Youtube.