3 ms·
It never ceases to amaze me how this pseudo-intellectual hack is taken seriously at all. But I suppose it must be by people who have not really been exposed to
by valvar 7y ago
It never ceases to amaze me how this pseudo-intellectual hack is taken seriously at all. But I suppose it must be by people who have not really been exposed to any serious thinking before.
Leaving aside how unoriginal and trite the things he is saying actually are (I imagine it's what Trump would sound like if he had a wider vocabulary), just consider his smear of Bloom and his book. It's amazing. Here's a very serious book that tries to address the problems he just presented, and all he's got is something worse than a straw man. Suggesting that the classics have a place in the curriculum is 'a couple of smart guys deciding what the great thoughts are' and paramount to imposing authority and trashing everything else. He even manages to sandwich it into 'turning the schools into marine corps'. I think only two conclusions are possible - either he had not read the book in question, or he is willfully lying about it (and not very convincingly).
- trevyn 7y agoPerhaps a change of perspective has the potential to reduce your level of amazement?
- valvar 7y agoI'm sure. What do you have in mind?
- nabla9 7y agopseudointellectual n. A person who claims proficiency in scholarly or artistic activities while lacking in-depth knowledge or critical understanding. As someone who disagrees a lot with the views of Noam Chomsky, I must say that you can never call him pseudointellectual. Chomsky is an intellectual in the truest sense of the word. Academically he has contributed into linguistics and theoretical computer science. As a political thinker he forms his toughs and arguments irritatingly well.
- valvar 7y ago>Academically he has contributed into linguistics and theoretical computer science This is true, but >As a political thinker he forms his toughs and arguments irritatingly well. is something people keep saying, but which I have never seen substantiated. I've read many of his pieces and wasted hours listening to his blabbing. None of it is profound, and a lot of it is quite the opposite (the video linked being one of the most egregious examples). Perhaps he can be admired for being a good con man, though - somehow his rhetoric manages to fool a lot of people.
- thundergolfer 7y ago> This is true, but Oh so you'd retract saying "pseudo-intellectual hack" then? Your couple of comments here have made me very wary of taking you seriously, but as a big fan of Chomsky I'd like to not dismiss your vitriol and instead ask for some alternative books and talks to look at. Who do you recommend in the areas of education, politics, and civics?
- valvar 7y ago>Oh so you'd retract saying "pseudo-intellectual hack" then? Definitely not. One can be an expert in one area, and still be completely incompetent while claiming otherwise in another one. Chomsky is just as well known for his politics and social commentary as for his hard science, and proficiency in the latter does not exonerate him from deficiency in the former. >but as a big fan of Chomsky I'd like to not (sic, I presume) dismiss your vitriol That's good - you've now dismissed the vitriol of at least two persons. But to be fair, I do know that I'm not being overly civil, and I do appreciate your effort to not be as close-minded as Chomsky himself. >Who do you recommend in the areas of education, politics, and civics? A good starter is the book which Chomsky slandered in this video. Camille Paglia has also written a lot on topics related to the ones touched upon in the video, but with much greater clarity and originality. I haven't read as much about education as I should have, so I can't give any more recommendations than that. The other two subjects are much too broad for recommendations to be meaningful, unless you are looking for something specific (refuting Chomsky is also too broad, I think) or just want to place me ideologically.