🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> "Bill" == Bill Todd <billtodd@foo.mv.com> writes:

  Bill> Phillip Lord <plord@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk> wrote in message
  Bill> 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.

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

        I havent read much of Hitlers stuff for a while. I never 
really liked it very much. His political arguments were how shall we
say cogent, although frequently wrong ("Britian will stay neutral" for
instance). Lenin on the other I do find reasonable, rational and by
and large convincing. State and Revolution was insightful when it was
written and still appears so even in the light of 80 years of somewhat
depressing history. 

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

        I think that you underestimate the depth of the differences
between different peoples view points. Their is the possibility that
Chomsky actual thinks that what he say is largely true. I tend to find
his writing convincing, even if it sometimes has to fight against his
own prose (this is me criticising someone elses stilted prose
right?). 

        When I argue I do try and suggest when there are differing 
view points on the matter, but I realise that this is a lost
cause. There are always differing view points. In many cases for
instance things that are commonplace in the US are treated with shock
in the rest of the western world (the execution of minors, or those
who were when they commited the crime, for instance). Similiarly I
have when I have described myself as a Marxist, or worse communist
many US people (and indeed people in my own country) act like Ive just
crapped on the table. I dont consider that I am some chronic weirdo, I
dont consider that I am an evil and manipulative individual any more
than I have ever been. When I discuss that I think Marxism holds much
more for the future than the oligarchichal capitalism we live under am
I guilty of presenting this as a belief I hold or as a political
statement? To be honest I can concieve of making a political statement
that I didnt believe. To me this is what the reality of politics is
about.

        Phil