I don't think Noam Chomsky is a genius like Einstein or Newton but he is certainly the smartest person I've ever met. While I know him only casually, it is an acquaintanceship stretching over at least four decades. He once did me the great favor of teaching a class on the British Empiricists at my request. It was an intellectual tour de force. I don't know if my students were as blown away by those two hours as I was but they should have been. He likely doesn't remember it (it was 30 years ago), but it was typical of him. He is extraordinarily generous with his time and has done things like this for countless others. He is also absolutely uncompromising in his principles, something many people find uncomfortable.
The following clip is vintage Chomsky. I'm not sure when this fragment of an interview on religion was done but it is clearly in the last few years. These of the views of a very sane man on an insane subject:
- Log in to post comments
Bloody 'ell! The video ends right in the middle of his answer about U. S. presidents and religion. You could tell he was about to say something trenchant. Drat!
C. Corax: Yes, it's a shame. I looked to see if I could find the next part but couldn't. If someone has it, let me know and I'll post after this one. Still, it's always nice to hear his clear and sane opinions, even if only a fragment.
This is a trivial anecdote, but it's so exciting when I see that my favourite blogger also likes one of my favourite people (intellectually, because I've only ever met him once). I found you to be very generous in sharing information with me on philosophy of medicine (once in the comments section) and I find the views on public health written here sobering and inspiring. I guess I see similarities...
Thanks for this ideal Sunday listening.
Chomsky has always been one of those seminal thinkers that I have read about but have never read. I think I need to rectify that.
Thanks for posting this, I enjoyed listening to it.
I'd be interested in knowing how Chomsky defines some of the terms he uses, such as "justice" and "equality." I think the government, using funds derived from a simplified tax system (and not through wage or price controls, which I feel are infringements of freedom of commerce) should guarantee all citizens access to the basic necessities of life, but I'm not sure it should attempt to redistribute wealth to the extent that everyone basically has the same standard of living.
I also think it's good to make a clear distinction between morality and ethics - with morality being the superstitious belief in right and wrong, which I think is as fallacious as belief in the Biblical God, and ethics simply being the art and science of rule making, of deciding (and discovering, through trial and error) which laws and regulations are most conducive to a harmonious society.
One of my heroes, one who influenced me quite deeply back in the 70's. Along with J. Krishnamurti who, when I visited him at his place in Ojai back then, ended my "Search" with the words: "What are you doing here? What can _I_ tell you? You must make up your own mind". Saved me from a whole bunch of woo.
Note that Chomsky is also very well versed in the bible, to the extent that he knows the original Hebrew phrase used by Elijah to King Ahab, off the top of his head; this can only strengthen his position as an authority on the subject. So nyahnyah to the fundies who complain we of no religion are that way because we know not the written Word. (note: I absolutely _HATE_ the term "Atheist". I subscribe to no -ism as far as I know. What I believe is what I believe, no more no less, and probably not shared in its entirety by anybody else. So there).
I do not know where the continuation might be. But I do remember seeing a later interview where he basically accused GWB of destroying the country's basis for greatness. There are lots of Chomsky interviews on youtube, many quite complete. Just search on "Chomsky" and be prepared to lose a day or two.
Chomsky often engages in rhetorical techniques that are designed to provoke rather than answer--they're usually annoying rather than illuminating. This is why I've never lionized him the way others do. He doesn't do it here and the clarity of what he offers in admirable.
Rich: That's never been my (long) experience with Noam. He is brutally honest and uncompromising, yes, and doesn't give answers where he doesn't have them. But I don't think he intends to provoke, although many are provoked by what he intends to say.