🚀 go-pugleaf

Phillip Lord <plord@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:okln565sew.fsf@proline.sbc.man.ac.uk...
>
>
> >>>>> "Peter" == Peter Seebach <seebs@plethora.net> writes:
>
>
>   Peter> In a way.  However, keep in mind the principle of
>   Peter> self-reference.  Look at all the stuff Chomsky has written
>   Peter> about how entities make people believe things.  Now,
>   Peter> remember, he's *smart*.  He's playing the same game; he says
>   Peter> things because he believes that, if he says these things, the
>   Peter> resulting belief systems and values will be the ones he wants
>   Peter> to see.
>
>         It seems to me that what you are saying here is that when
> Chomsky writes something he is trying to convince people of his view
> point. I would say that this is a perfectly rational and reasonable
> thing to want to do when writing something.

Depends on your definition of 'reasonable' and 'rational'.  For example, I
suspect Adolph Hitler and Vladimir Lenin would be in complete agreement with
your position, but I would characterize neither's arguments as 'reasonable'
and often not 'rational' either.

Leaving those particular definitions aside, one can make a good case that
attempting to convince someone of something you know is not true - or which
you know is a grey area with unstated disputing arguments - it at least
dubious from an ethical standpoint, at least if you present it as a belief
you yourself hold instead of something which is clearly a political
statement.

- bill

>
>   Peter> This is completely orthogonal to any concept of "truth".
>   Peter> It's propaganda, and well-done propaganda, but you have to
>   Peter> evaluate his goals independant of his reasons for them,
>   Peter> because the reasons themselves are manufactured to "support"
>   Peter> the goals.
>
>         This is true of everyone's writing. There are some people in
> the world who feel that they alone can sit down and pontificate
> unaffected by their circumstances and their belief systems, and using
> this god given ability can divine their way towards the "truth". Its
> total crap of course. Personally I feel that I may be biased, I may
> base my view points on a series of self maintaining internal
> consistant arguments which bear no relationship to reality, and I may
> only be seeking to propagandise others to my view point, but I am at
> least aware that I am doing this, and more over quite open about it. I
> tend to respect Chomsky for the campaigning aspect of his work, which
> would have a lot less impact if he did not allow his humanity to come
> through in the name of some bogus search for "academic truth".
>
>
>
>         Phil