December 02, 2007
Chomsky on THE RESPONSIBILITY OF INTELLECTUALS
From Arts & Opinion:
GABRIEL MATTHEW SCHIVONE: What makes students a natural audience to speak to? And do you think it's worth 'speaking truth' to the professional scholarship as well or differently? Are there any short- or long-term possibilities here?
CHOMSKY: I'm always uneasy about the concept of "speaking truth," as if we somehow know the truth and only have to enlighten others who have not risen to our elevated level. The search for truth is a cooperative, unending endeavour. We can, and should, engage in it to the extent we can and encourage others to do so as well, seeking to free ourselves from constraints imposed by coercive institutions, dogma, irrationality, excessive conformity and lack of initiative and imagination, and numerous other obstacles.
As for possibilities, they are limited only by will and choice.
Students are at a stage of their lives where these choices are most urgent and compelling, and when they also enjoy unusual, if not unique, freedom and opportunity to explore the choices available, to evaluate them, and to pursue them.
More here.
Posted by Abbas Raza at 02:51 PM | Permalink
Comments
cf.
http://newcriterion.com:81/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm
Posted by: Benjamin.L | Dec 3, 2007 1:56:23 AM
"The search for truth is a cooperative, unending endeavour. We can, and should, engage in it to the extent we can and encourage others to do so as well, seeking to free ourselves from constraints imposed by coercive institutions, dogma, irrationality, excessive conformity and lack of initiative and imagination, and numerous other obstacles."
The search for truth is indeed a "cooperative unending endeavour". I wonder, then, how Mr. Chomsky can dismiss, out of hand, the entire 911 truth movement and instead accept the hopelessly flawed official version of events as truth?
Posted by: Jared | Dec 3, 2007 12:24:43 PM
Thank for that link, Benjamin.L, to a completely worthless slander piece.
Posted by: blogesota | Dec 3, 2007 1:48:03 PM
Jared--
I think Chomsky, as is also my view, is not as shocked as the average sheep on 911. The fact that a group of elite's benefited from a stated objective was not that much of a surprise. My first reaction was the Chileans had attacked in reprisal for the assignation of their elected president on 911 in 1973.
But attacking the symbol of US Capitalism (Twin Towers) and Military Imperialism (Pentagon) were obvious targets.
As far as conspiracy, it sure was a "convergence of interests" and should not be ignored.
But it has crippled further examination, and is a waste of energy and a diversion for much needed healthy anarchy.
Not a anomaly historically.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Dec 4, 2007 10:00:49 PM
Post a comment