Sam Harris' new book

[Alcofribas]

 

It seemed to me more that Chomsky was saying "do people who claim to believe in human rights, yet still commit atrocities, actually believe in human rights?"

but that's a completely different question. harris is dealing with ideal types here, people who actually belive in human rights - do they act differently than those who don't? and if that's how chomsky meant it then he's simply saying/proposing that people can be hypocritical and deceitful, well ok, but how is it relevant to the argument that harris initiated?

 

 

i don't think sam harris has a clear idea what he is doing here. he is talking about "ideal types" only to the extent that he doesn't seem able to grapple with the specific context of the sudan example that he provided. he shifts to ideal types only after bringing up chomsky's comments on that bombing which is completely disingenuous.

[eugene]

eugene, just curious, in what sense do you think the foucualt debate is relevant to this exchange with harris? and in what way do you think chomsky's very un-post-modernist worldview is being employed here?

not too relevant, just the earliest example i could think of where chosmky simply doesn't get what foucalt is talking about when he talks about his genealogy stuff, how ideas emerge and mutate and how they shape social norms and such. it's not even a debate, they just talk over each other most of the time.

 

as for second point, i don't think it's being employed here at all, it was just relevant to what limpy said. it's harris that's making a classic modernist claim, or something close to it at least. that those western ideals of human rights and other stuff is some ultimate measure of morality, chomsky simply drags him into particulars and away from the argument harris is trying to make.

[Alcofribas]

 

eugene, just curious, in what sense do you think the foucualt debate is relevant to this exchange with harris? and in what way do you think chomsky's very un-post-modernist worldview is being employed here?

not too relevant, just the earliest example i could think of where chosmky simply doesn't get what foucalt is talking about when he talks about his genealogy stuff, how ideas emerge and mutate and how they shape social norms and such. it's not even a debate, they just talk over each other most of the time.

 

as for second point, i don't think it's being employed here at all, it was just relevant to what limpy said. it's harris that's making a classic modernist claim, or something close to it at least. that those western ideals of human rights and other stuff is some ultimate measure of morality, chomsky simply drags him into particulars and away from the argument harris is trying to make.

 

 

gottcha. that particular debate was quite interesting bc i think they both articulated their respective view points quite elegantly throughout but it definitely seemed like chomsky had no idea what foucualt was talking about at times. particularly, he seemed to fail to grasp foucault's insistence upon revolution based on pure power as opposed to a revolution based on ideas conditioned within the framework of discursive formations, such as the notions of justice and right that chomsky was so adamant about.

 

anyway, i think you're giving harris way too much credit. he was the one who brought up the sudan bombing and used it as the basis for accusations against chomsky such as his so-called "moral equivalence" etc. and harris is constantly referring to specific global-political conflicts and examples in his writings and discussions. but when chomsky responds by expanding the context of that particular historical example in order to deepen its relevance to the "ideal" discussion, harris slips into "thought experiment" mode and backs away from his insistence upon that example as chomsky makes it very clear that it is not as useful to harris' argument as he thinks it is. it's not the case that chomsky dragged him into particulars at all; harris brought it up and when he gets pressed on it he pretends it's all just a "thought experiment" to save face imo

[Alcofribas]

anyway, even in the more abstract mode of the thought experiment chomsky has the upper hand here. harris very quickly degenerates into tone-policing and vagueness which is unsurprising since he's not a particularly good philosopher imo

[eugene]

anyway, i think you're giving harris way too much credit. he was the one who brought up the sudan bombing and used it as the basis for accusations against chomsky such as his so-called "moral equivalence" etc. and harris is constantly referring to specific global-political conflicts and examples in his writings and discussions. but when chomsky responds by expanding the context of that particular historical example in order to deepen its relevance to the "ideal" discussion, harris slips into "thought experiment" mode and backs away from his insistence upon that example as chomsky makes it very clear that it is not as useful to harris' argument as he thinks it is. it's not the case that chomsky dragged him into particulars at all; harris brought it up and when he gets pressed on it he pretends it's all just a "thought experiment" to save face imo

 

 

yeah it's "tactical" mistake by harris, but he wasn't really defeated in that argument on a strategic level, i mean it will take much more to disprove that beliefs and intentions don't matter. he got himself into that corner and chomsky kept bombarding him with his "info from credible sources"™ while he had nothing.

[Alcofribas]

 

 

anyway, i think you're giving harris way too much credit. he was the one who brought up the sudan bombing and used it as the basis for accusations against chomsky such as his so-called "moral equivalence" etc. and harris is constantly referring to specific global-political conflicts and examples in his writings and discussions. but when chomsky responds by expanding the context of that particular historical example in order to deepen its relevance to the "ideal" discussion, harris slips into "thought experiment" mode and backs away from his insistence upon that example as chomsky makes it very clear that it is not as useful to harris' argument as he thinks it is. it's not the case that chomsky dragged him into particulars at all; harris brought it up and when he gets pressed on it he pretends it's all just a "thought experiment" to save face imo

 

yeah it's "tactical" mistake by harris, but he wasn't really defeated in that argument on a strategic level, i mean it will take much more to disprove that beliefs and intentions don't matter. he got himself into that corner and chomsky kept bombarding him with his "info from credible sources" while he had nothing.

yeah. fwiw I don't think chomsky was disputing harris' point on intentions though, he was making a very obvious point that harris' representation of them is one-dimensional and self-serving and in the particular example in question harris hasn't even thought through anything but the most superficial and trite aspects.

 

but whatevs, derp derp islamofascisim.

 

peace out, gonna go watch some xfiles.