16 ms·

Aaron Swartz: The Book That Changed My Life

274 points by k1m 14y ago

merinid 14y ago
The extent to which Chomsky has remained relevant in both political and scientific arenas never ceases to amaze me.
- francesca 14y ago
  Agreed. Ironic that Chomsky still teaches at MIT
  - gadders 14y ago
    Not sure about his linguistics, but his politics is adolescent.
    - 46Bit 14y ago
      Adolescent in what way?
    - jeremyswank 14y ago
      you're going to have to take that argument a bit farther for it to be convincing.
    - lukifer 14y ago
      At worst, he is guilty of unrealistic idealism, in the same fashion as the original democratic philosophers. But his knowledge and understanding of real power (perception management) is more sophisticated than any adolescent, and for that matter, most adults.
    - jacquesm 14y ago
      Are you suggesting that older people are not allowed to have ideals?
    - Yaa101 14y ago
      Now explain to the world why you think that his politics is adolescent without the world thinking that you are behaving adolescent.
    - jules 14y ago
      Norvig (Director of Research at Google, and author of the most popular AI book [1]) has written a criticism of Chomsky's linguistics in relation to AI: http://norvig.com/chomsky.html http://norvig.com/chomsky.html tl;dr: Norvig argues that language is best modeled statistically, Chomsky's model is deterministic. He also disagrees about what makes good science (usefulness for engineering is a valid criterium & gathering facts over developing theories). [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Intelligence:_A_Modern_Approach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Intelligence:_A_Mode...
      - cdavid 14y ago
        The scientific pedigree of Chomsky is beyond doubt. From a purely academic POV, with all respect due to Norvig, they are in a different league. (that does not mean that Norvig may be wrong and Chomsky right on that point you are quoting. It seems you're suggesting that Chomsky is not a great linguist because he disagress with Norvig - that would be a mistake).
      - beagle3 14y ago
        Norvig has written criticism about specific ideas that Chomsky uttered in some convention (which are also reflected in some of his written works on natural languages and their computational models). But Chomsky's contribution to linguistics in general and computational linguistics in particular goes well beyond anything like that, e.g. [1]. I'm not sure, but I suspect that linguistics and computational linguistics where unrelated fields before Chomsky tied them together. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy
        jules 14y ago
        You are minimizing the criticism, which isn't just about some utterance at a convention, it's about the core premise on which Chomsky's entire work rests, namely determinism. And more generally, that success of a model should be tested empirically rather than that it should "provide insight" in some abstract way. There is no doubt that Chomsky has done great work in the area of formal languages, it's just that the relationship with natural language is not as strong as initially hoped.
    - flyinRyan 14y ago
      My CSS must be broken. I would expect such a useless, non-content-contributing comment to be greyed out by now.
  - merinid 14y ago
    He likes to be at the nerve of it all. It's an honest place for him to be and work, and in all fairness, they have really supported his enterprise there.
- xk_id 14y ago
  Uh, didn't he criticise scientific epistemologies in relation to so-called scientism? I read briefly about some of his remarks on the matter, and he just seemed like most of his fellow sociologists: ignorant of the relevance of science to sanity, probably caused by not having been trained in physico-mathematical rigour.
  - mtraven 14y ago
    That might win the prize for most ignorant comment ever on HN. While you can level a number of criticisms at Chomsky, lack of mathematical rigor is not one of them. I would assume people here were If anything, Chomsky is guilty of over-reliance on mathematical formalism in his linguistics.
    - xk_id 14y ago
      well, there is absolutely nothing wrong with conjecturing, when one presents it as such. Thanks for making a case against what I said, I may give Chomsky a second chance. Edit: by the way, I'm a bit suspicious of your phrasing in "mathematical formalism in his linguistics". Mathematical verbalism does not qualify as sane. I know a case of a person who does speak as a mathematician (very convincing!), even uses mathematics in his expositions, yet he is completely insane and what he says makes no sense whatsoever. I can share a recording of one of his lectures if you wish, but unfortunately he speaks in Romanian.
      - CR45H 14y ago
        Your description of this "mathematician" intrigues me. And, since I happen to speak Romanian, I would love to have a link to one of his lectures. Thanks! However, I agree with "mtraven" that you should not be leveling this kind of accusation until you have read Chomsky's work.
        xk_id 14y ago
        Duly noted! The lecture is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-30t8pSd7s0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-30t8pSd7s0.
- Bud 14y ago
  That's probably because you don't really know who Chomsky is or what the breadth of his work has been. Even if you choose to discard all his work in politics, he's a towering figure in linguistics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
  - merinid 14y ago
    I meant this in a positive way, ie, that the breadth is so enormous and he is so prolific that I am constantly impressed.
    - flyinRyan 14y ago
      That's how I took it when I upvoted you.
- Yaa101 14y ago
  What never cease to amaze me and fascinates me is how people can rationalize away simple concept like: When the public pays for knowledge to be created, it should be that the public owns the knowledge it paid for, of all people Americans should live this truth. But no, the majority really thinks that a small elite has the right to usurp this knowledge not paid by them and let the public that paid for it, pay more and more. Who are guilty here? The oportunists that took the chance to usurp the knowledge, or the public that let it steal from under their nose and let the oportunists be oportunistic? Who here dares to answer my amazement? I dare you to enter this debate!!
  - hackerblues 14y ago
    The public's taxes also fund the military. Extending your principle to this case implies that the public owns the countries nuclear arsenal. Can you advise what this ownership should practically entail? Should I get access to the weapons? Should I be able to use them? Or am I limited to indirectly benefitting from their existence?
    - BrokenPipe 14y ago
      You are not the first to make the mistake of comparing I.P. with physical property. They are not the same physically, in theory, in practice or in law.
      - CR45H 14y ago
        The biggest problem with I.P. is that those of us who understand that it is in no way "property" continue to allow ourselves to be maneuvered into using that term. As long as we continue to use the term "intellectual property" then the duplication of it will be called "theft" or "piracy". We must stop using these terms with are inherently wrong. The truth is that copying is not only the way that human society advances (you cannot have innovation without copying) but it is how humanity itself evolves. It is inscribed in our DNA and we would not exist without it.
        14y ago
jacquesm 14y ago
Chomsky is one of the most eloquent people that I've ever come across. Manufacturing consent and Understanding power are indeed life changing books. They are in the sense that after reading them you will look at the media and politics in a new way and that that way will never leave you. It's like putting on glasses when you didn't know you needed them.
- Jun8 14y ago
  Your glasses analogy is interesting but I think is misleading, in that it assumes there's a correct way to view things. This approach is one of the major problems I have with Chomsky and other writers like him, i.e. "you have been duped by the (mostly US) media, the military-industrial complex, by the secret powers that may be; here is the real truth about matters". Rather than being presented as the truth, these opinions be seen to be another viewpoint that enhances your understanding of the situation. Let me give an analogy that may not be totally appropriate but I find is kind of illuminating: Many people, based on their everyday experience, believe in the existence of the centrifugal force (otherwise how to explain what they are experiencing daily). Then, their physics professor explains to them that in reality there is no such thing. Only if they study physics farther than the freshman year do they learn that that is not true either. Other similar examples of hypercorrection can be given (see this interesting answer: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/13568/852 http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/13568/852). The intent of the professor is benign, i.e. not to confuse the students, but it perpetuates a half-truth. Coming from a non-US country, I have to say that those of you who heavily criticize US media for manipulating opinion should look deeper into the media of other countries (not that I'm saying that the US media is non-manipulative, it's that the breadth of publicly sharable opinion is astonishing).
  - niels_olson 14y ago
    > the secret powers that may be I think this is a concept inserted by a lot of Chomsky nay-sayers. I don't recall that being part of the worldview. My limited reading and viewing has left me with the impression, perhaps more disturbing, that there is no secret power. This really is just how people behave, and to really understand what's happening in real time, so that better interventions can be made, is going to take whole new fields of study. I think the solutions of anarchism or communism that some Chomskyites put forward are mainly bold attempts to add those vectors into the other much larger vectors that are already present in the public debate and tend to make the space appear very inhospitable to alternative view points. Much like Aaron described, the world seems very lonely afterwards, and hearing a shout in the distance is very welcome to the man alone in the desert.
marcofloriano 14y ago
I think people give too much credit to human stuff. Really, all this Aaron thing kicks the hell out of me. I REALLY believe that if that boy knew about all the blesses that GOD have for us, he would never have take his own life. But american people (i´m Brazilian) specially the rich people are going too far away from God and His lessons. That´s why they are living a crap life and Aaron is a prove of that. Less money, less intelligence and less success. More love, more God in your heart. That´s ALL you really need at the end.
engtech 14y ago
Did anything ever come from the book he was talking about writing? He was 19 when he wrote that blog post.
steveeq1 14y ago
A life changing book in a similar vein is "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman: http://tinyurl.com/a26wscp http://tinyurl.com/a26wscp . I found out about it via Alan Kay's excellent reading list ( http://tinyurl.com/c6fjhj http://tinyurl.com/c6fjhj )
- chollida1 14y ago
  Not sure why the above links were obfuscated/minimized but this is what they point to: http://www.amazon.com/Amusing-Ourselves-Death-Discourse-Business/dp/014303653X http://www.amazon.com/Amusing-Ourselves-Death-Discourse-Busi... http://www.squeakland.org/resources/books/readingList.jsp http://www.squeakland.org/resources/books/readingList.jsp
- obstacle1 14y ago
  If Postman strikes your fancy, another good one is "The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America" by Daniel Boorstin. http://amzn.com/0679741801 http://amzn.com/0679741801
zopticity 14y ago
Dennis Ritchie is an unforgettable person in history because if it weren't for his inventions, most of today's technology wouldn't exist or be very different. If you have the time, I'd recommend reading one of his books. R.I.P., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Ritchie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Ritchie
pclark 14y ago
Fateful Triangle is another fascinating book. Highly recommended, especially in times like these. Chomsky is marvellous.
iandanforth 14y ago
I can also recommend Power and Struggle (Politics of Nonviolent Action, Part 1). It is an absurdly trenchant look at how power is derived from and maintained in a society. Gene Sharp is unparalleled in his research into effecting change through non-violent action and should be required reading for activists of all kinds.
- jackpirate 14y ago
  I used to be a nuclear submarine officer, but left the US Navy as a complete pacifist and conscientious objector. What the pacifist movement needs is books willing to engage nonviolent strategy in the same way that military tacticians do it. That's what Gene Sharp's books claim to be, but IMHO they fail. They paint nonviolence in a little bit too good of a light, without fully acknowledging its limitations.
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    From one conscientious objector to another (ages ago), thank you.
    - jackpirate 14y ago
      Would you mind sharing your experience? I like collecting other people's CO stories, and I've never heard of another computer nerd doing it. If you prefer privacy, my email is mike@izbicki.me. The NY Times did a write up on my court case: (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/nyregion/23objector.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/nyregion/23objector.html?p...), and I've written up some of the testimony from my hearing on my own blog (http://izbicki.me/blog/category/religion/my-co-discharge http://izbicki.me/blog/category/religion/my-co-discharge).
      - jacquesm 14y ago
        hey Mike, I don't mind, it's long ago and I'm not at all ashamed about it. In the Netherlands, where I was born lots of people were doing it. There was the threat of jail time and there was a bunch of military police sent to pick up people to force them into the army. Lots went to prison or were forced to do a replacement service. I managed to stay ahead of them for quite long but I did have a regular place to stay so that wasn't a tenable situation in the longer term. It also made my mom quite nervous. Finally we got a summons from the regular police, I could choose to come in to talk with one particular officer or I'd be picked up. I went there nervous as hell and fully expected to be arrested but in fact the guy was very reasonable. I explained my issues with authority (this was at the time that our military was sent to the middle east), and that I have a pretty bad streak running through me from a military point of view: that I can't handle injustice and that putting me in a situation where injustice is perpetrated on an ongoing basis is likely going to blow up sooner or later, likely sooner. I was 17 at the time, I'd just quit school and I still didn't have my aggressive streak bottled up (much better now, and it should be, approaching 48) and I really foresaw trouble. The guy said he'd see what he could do, he asked me to call him in a few days. And so I did, he asked me to come in and sign some papers that essentially came down to me not being able to reverse my decision later or become a police officer and that was the end of that. No jail time, no formal court case or hearing. I realized later that I got off really light compared to some in my age group. This was one of the last, if not the last year when there was still a draft in the Netherlands. The thing that bugs me about the military and this is something that I really don't understand is the blind obedience expected of the soldiers. I have no doubt that I can be pretty nasty to people if the circumstances would push me that far but to blindly follow orders is not in my genetic make-up.
podperson 14y ago
I love Manufacturing Consent (the documentary) and it inspired me to read some of Chomsky's books on politics and see him live. It didn't change my life though. In general, I think the fundamental problem with Chomsky's compelling and very well buttressed description of The Way Things Work [in the US(1)] is that it really doesn't offer much hope. (This actually comes up towards the end of the movie, and his answer -- essentially that people are smarter than we think -- is pretty thin.) In the end, the great mass of Americans are too busy with their day to day lives to parse out what's going on with their government and the corporate state. US democracy has essentially been reduced to a sporting event. As long as those in power don't drive the voting population into absolute misery (and it's hard to figure out just how much misery that is) they're happy enough with business as usual. (1) I'm not saying that Chomsky's observations apply uniquely to the US or that other democracies are great, but many of Chomsky's observations are rather specific to the US, either because of peculiarities of the US political system or the US's undeniably unique position in world affairs.
- obstacle1 14y ago
  I am unclear on how your "fundamental problem" is a problem. I was not aware that when making arguments that offering hope was a prerequisite for validity or truth. Because if that is not the case, then offering no hope is not a fundamental problem.
  - podperson 14y ago
    You're right that I haven't expressed myself clearly. The terms "manufacturing consent", "necessary distraction" etc. are taken from a political science treatise arguing that for a democracy to be a world power it must essentially distract the great unwashed from the political process so that the smart people can run things correctly. Chomsky's aim is to expose the workings of this process (and no, he's not a conspiracy theorist -- he's simply pointing out naturally emergent behaviors of large institutions) arguing that if only the great unwashed were aware of what's going on they'd suddenly start participating and everything would be better. But as the discussion proceeds, it really seems to be arguing that people are stupid and uninformed and like it that way, and when presented with this argument, Chomsky makes the claim that no they're smart because they can learn to talk -- which I think is weak. (It's like arguing that basketball players must be good at physics.) This leaves the original thesis -- that people are stupid and ignorant and like it that way -- essentially standing, and thus argues in favor of the entire political philosophy he's trying to take down. And that's a fundamental problem with Chomsky's political philosophy, but not with his observations. (Much as Marx was a great social critic, but his remedies weren't much use.)
DigitalJack 14y ago
I found the following review of the book interesting. I always like to read the "negative" reviews of something because I find it easier to make a decision whether to read something or buy something (books, software, food, etc...) based on whether I can identify with the negative comments or not. If someone has recommended something to me, and the negative comments are inconsequential to me (or absurd, etc...), I'm more likely to follow that recommendation. Likewise the reverse. http://www.amazon.com/review/R31KSCZ4TXPLIR/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0099466066&linkCode=&nodeID=&tag= http://www.amazon.com/review/R31KSCZ4TXPLIR/ref=cm_cr_pr_per... Reposting: Understanding Power is, without question, the most comprehensive and compelling presentation of Noam Chomsky's ideas. Reading this book will change the way you see the world. If you are interested in Chomsky, it is likely that you are a noble person who genuinely cares for others and yearns for a better world. Beware, reader, and make sure you choose the right vehicle for your hope. While his intentions are for a peaceful, safe, and healthy world, Chomsky's political writings systematically assume conscious malevolence without evidence, ignore context, and romanticize Third World struggles, regardless of their goals. Let's briefly examine some of his convictions on a pressing topic: the War on Terror. Following the September 11th attacks, Chomsky immediately presented them as our fault: the result of U.S. Middle East policy, and equally evil U.S. Cold War efforts (training Mujahadeen to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan). His presumption here is that if the United States changes its behavior, that terrorist attacks will then cease. Islamic terrorists, in fact, want a pan-world government under Talibanesque repressive sharia law, a vision that mandates the overthrow of all free nations beginning with ours. These facts are easily learned by reading about the historical development of Islamic radicalism, which is rooted in reinterpretations of the Qur'an's dictates for action, NOT in wishes to live peacefully in a U.S.-free Middle East. These facts, however, do not enter into the Chomskyan world-view, which romanticizes Third World underdogs as brave and legitimized no matter what they stand for. The linguist also described the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan as a conscious "silent genocide," predicting wrongly that millions would be severed from food supplies. As is typical, Chomsky here focused solely on the negative aspects of the situation, those for which the U.S. deserved his bitter recrimination. For a man who lives prosperously in America and is supposedly the voice of the downtrodden, Chomsky certainly did not put himself into the shoes of the Afghan women. For them, whose existence was akin to slavery, the liberation was a cause for great joy. Actual sentiments were fully antithetical to Chomsky's condemnatory remarks to his villainous U.S. government, which he and he alone believed was consciously bent on killing as many innocent Afghans as possible. Omitting what is significant (the liberation of people living under tyranny, in this case) to emphasize his often ludicrous misperceptions about American motives and motivations is a constant in Chomsky's writings. His Cold War depictions are even more stunning, as Understanding Power's abundant examples attest. In the case that you are already entrenched in his manner of thinking, at least admit that Noam Chomsky MIGHT be wrong, and see if his positions hold up under review: read Chomsky's articulate, sane critics (The Anti-Chomsky Reader is a good place to start). If he is perfect, then you have nothing but gain to acheive from this exercise; it will only serve to strengthen your ability to effectively argue and implement Chomsky's ideas in the world. After clear-eyed reassessment of his political writings, if you STILL think he is on-point, then all the best to you. If, however, you reevaluate his "wisdom," you will have saved yourself from much needless confusion and despair. Were Chomsky's views simply false, there would not be need for this posting. They become perilous, however, in their blind, wholesale demonization of the United States. Chomsky's own fear and anger about the state of our world are projected, with great urgency: anger at and fear of U.S. "elites" is the Chomsky program. The result is often flat-out hatred. What would Chomsky do were he President? We do not know; he avoids that inconvenient question by telling us that were he to run (which he admits he would never do), the first thing he would do is tell us not to vote for him. Furthermore, why does Professor Chomsky not include himself in the "elites" so prominent in his analyses? Does he not pay taxes, and drive a BMW, and teach at a cushy, prestigious university? The questions may seem too simplistic, but they point to a core issue: if Chomsky cannot look into the mirror regarding his own status and societal position, then how much more impaired must his assessments be of things outside of himself? On paper, it is unclear exactly what Chomsky IS calling for, and putting aside the constant onslaught of judgment-filled writings and audio programs, neither does his life provide us an example of what he conceives to be right-action. Those who want an idea of who believes IN Chomsky, however, need look no further than Hugo Chavez, who recently proclaimed allegiance and military support to his "brother" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad, for anyone who needs reminding, daily denies the Holocaust, and calls for the destruction of Israel and the United States. Is it a coincidence that those who love Chomsky also embrace a world-view rooted in blame, anger, and vilification? Good and evil do exist in this world, but Noam Chomsky is not capable of distinguishing between the two. The U.S.A. is not perfect, and never will be. Nevertheless, if we fail to recognize the good that IS here, we may soon lose our nation. Chomsky's writings are little more than a good reminder that appearance is not essence. It is worth noting as well, that Chomsky is an avowed atheist, and believes that life is meaningless. If we bear in mind that evil is in the eye of the beholder, then Chomsky--an American, an Israelite, a millionaire--is instantly unmasked in all of his self-revulsion. Understanding Power should be retitled as "Understanding Blame." Stear clear and take heart, reader; there is hope in this world, and your country is good, but you will discover neither in Avram Noam Chomsky.
smogzer 14y ago
I recommend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_%28book%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_%28book%29 Btw in Lost why did sayd was nice guy in the beginning and died as an evil torturer ? And why does every action series and movies, event toy story 3 promotes torture ?
OldSchool 14y ago
Surely he's not perfect in his views but he is highly objective, intelligent and visionary. Given the chance to sit in on a random lunch with Chomsky or a captain of industry (Buffett, Gates, etc.) I'd pick Chomsky without pause.
- lins05 14y ago
  Yes, I agree with you.
mark_l_watson 14y ago
Interesting thing about Noam Chomsky: he goes face to face with the US government on a lot of issues and is smart enough to not have ever got in serious trouble over it.
- pravda 14y ago
  During the 1960s he faced prison due to his opposition to the Vietnam war. I don't know the specifics, but I recall in one interview about his personal life he mentioned that his wife finished her degree so that she would be able to support their family while he was in prison.
- baddox 14y ago
  Or perhaps the government considers him radical enough (without advocating violence) to not be a threat.
Zimahl 14y ago
I remember vividly clutching at the door to my room, trying to hold on to something while the world spun around. Maybe I'm a bit too simple or pragmatic but I sincerely hope that this was simply hyperbole. If not, I think we might have an early glimpse into a special, yet troubled, mind. From a lot of things I've read about Mr. Swartz since his suicide, it doesn't seem like he was all that mentally stable.
- xk_id 14y ago
  indeed...
- david927 14y ago
  Are you really stating that his feeling physically dizzy at comprehending something that changed his world view is a "glimpse into troubled mind"? Seriously? Please, for all that is holy, unless you have a background in mental health, please avoid making armchair diagnoses. (Those that have that background are loathe to jump to conclusions, for example.) It's neither your place, nor your field. Don't do it.
  - Zimahl 14y ago
    I'll stand by what I said, he seemed very troubled and it is clear that he was since he killed himself. Suicide typically doesn't happen overnight so I'll assume he's had issues long before the DOJ decided to target him. I'm not getting this from one single blog post. Others have posted how he had trouble communicating personally. There was another blog where he was sympathetic to the Joker from 'The Dark Knight'. If his blog was a personal one I bet there are probably hundreds of other examples. If you hear something that is so profound that the you get physically dizzy at the thought, enough to require you to hold onto something, there's nothing else to say but you should get help. Like I said, if it was just hyperbole, fine, but I don't get the feeling it was.
k1m 14y ago
The link to the torrent for Manufacturing Consent at the end of his piece no longer works, but the full film is up on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AnB8MuQ6DU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AnB8MuQ6DU
chernevik 14y ago
"Reading the book, I felt as if my mind was rocked by explosions." If you've only had this experience from _one_ book, you aren't reading enough. "Questions that had puzzled me for years suddenly began making sense in this new world." If, on reading a book, you don't know of at least one other set of alternative answers, you aren't reading enough. No doubt Chomsky is a powerful and persuasive writer. But there are many thought-systems of similar extraordinary explanatory power. At some point you have to realize that the ones that hit you, hit because you share their basic premises and took the time to understand the explication of the thought-system. Without the ability to identify and examine those premises, your thinking is more an accident of which powerful system clicked with you first. You have to read enough to intelligently criticize those opinions you hold most dear and believe most certainly. It's very hard. The "terrifying side effect" of being "left all alone" is not quite so terrifying as the gut-wrenching feeling you don't actually know _anything_. It is an amazing and wonderful and terrifying experience to see the world in a new way. But you cannot stop at _that_ new way of thinking.
- jonknee 14y ago
  > If you've only had this experience from _one_ book, you aren't reading enough. He was 17 years old when he read the book.
  - BrokenPipe 14y ago
    And later in the comments he said the same happened to him with other books. i.e. purely intellectual math. The more I read about Aaron he more I'm impressed and even though I didn't read enough about Chomsky I think he's right on far too many issues (the ones I encountered so far).
- johnfn 14y ago
  You really need to do some more research before you make statements like "you aren't reading enough". In fact, I don't think I've read or heard of a person more well-read than Aaron. For example, he read 130 books in 2009[1]. That's a book every 3 days. [1]: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/books2009 http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/books2009
anigbrowl 14y ago
It’s undoubtedly the best documentary I’ve seen, weaving together all sorts of clever tricks to enlighten and entertain. This is sadly ironic; since Chomsky is one of the most manipulative and dishonest writers I've had the displeasure of reading. I'm not going to engage in an exhaustive deconstruction of any of his work here, since I don't keep any of his books on my shelf. I'll just say that I think his mischaracterization of the source material that he refers to in the endless footnotes is beyond biased and falls into being outright dishonesty. There is no question but that he is smart enough to know better; as an academic linguist he would never accept such shoddy arguments if they were submitted to him for peer review. He's the left wing's Ayn Rand, and I don't mean that as a compliment.
- flyinRyan 14y ago
  Thanks for your argument, I'm sure you've enlightened everyone who's had the pleasure of reading your post. You're the whatever wing Sean Hanity, and I don't mean that as a compliment.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
leoh 14y ago
Interesting, but ironic given that Reddit is and was a powerful engine of disinformation. Aaron can't be faulted for that, though.
- antidaily 14y ago
  Aaron can't be faulted for that, though
TerraHertz 14y ago
"I remember vividly clutching at the door to my room, trying to hold on to something while the world spun around." Some commenters treat this as if it must be hyperbole. But what Aaron describes is a typical reaction for someone who's just had their safe worldview shattered, and discovered that political reality is something far darker than they imagined. There has been much written on the psychology of conspiracy denial, and the cognitive dissonance that keeps many corralled within the comforting (but false) narrative of the mainstream media propagandists. One aspect of denial is a kind of self-worth self-preservation. To even contemplate that the world may be controlled by vastly evil powers, and that the historical fables we are all supposed to believe are actually gross lies purveyed by mass murdering psychopathic conspirators, one has to consider what that implies about one's self. To have been totally duped for so many years, by incredibly evil people... to have cooperated in their crimes, even if only by inaction... To discover that those one looked up to, respected, trusted with the wise governance of the state, are actually deranged elitist liars and criminals... Most people simply cannot bear to contemplate such a level of gullibility and culpability in themselves. So they remain in vigorous denial. And in self defense, attack those attempting to enlighten them to the true state of the world. http://everist.org/archives/links/!_About_Conspiracy.txt http://everist.org/archives/links/!_About_Conspiracy.txt "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Director of Central Intelligence. An observation by the late Director at his first staff meeting in 1981.
dade_ 14y ago
This book may very well have changed his life, but I suggest that discovering that there are serious problems with our society is not really that enlightening. Far more important is learning why and how we got here. My view is that John Raulston Saul has identified the very essence of the beginning of this mess and the good intentions that started it hundreds of years ago in his book, "Voltaire's Bastards". Further, the identification of the fundamental (flaws/errors/oversights) that became a part of the fabric of our civilization now based on reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ralston_Saul http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ralston_Saul
askimto 14y ago
Chomsky also knows the real inventor of email.
xmlblog 14y ago
Anyone who can call Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens "religious fanatics" with a straight face is either attempting to deceive the audience or themselves. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt9QCAUPPeY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt9QCAUPPeY
afterburner 14y ago
What is the purpose of posting this? My cursory looks into Chomsky's writings showed me there might be a serious intellectual honesty problem with the man, but I admit I haven't bothered to look into it deeply. So is posting this about praising Chomsky and by extension Aaron's admiration of his book, or is it a sly low blow against someone's impressionable reaction at a young age, after that person can't defend themselves? The answer depends on what the poster thinks of Chomsky.... Anybody care to comment on the validity of the following? The first followed from reading the comments in Aaron's post. http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/wma.html http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/wma.html http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomskyhoax.html http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomskyhoax.html
mladenkovacevic 14y ago
Welcome to my world.. a place where I'm more or less convinced that every mainstream news report is more lies than truth, carefully shaped and spun to support some not necessarily evil, but definitely manipulative agenda. And the worst part is, even though you're reasonably sure of it, you realize that most people around you are either more invested into this invented narrative than you are in your "maybe real" one... or they are just apathetic to the whole thing and even if they did care they can't be bothered to put in the effort and imagine the consequences of every society running what's basically a global public opinion manipulation engine.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

274 points by k1m 14y ago

merinid 14y ago

The extent to which Chomsky has remained relevant in both political and scientific arenas never ceases to amaze me.

francesca 14y ago
Agreed. Ironic that Chomsky still teaches at MIT
- gadders 14y ago
  Not sure about his linguistics, but his politics is adolescent.
  - 46Bit 14y ago
    Adolescent in what way?
  - jeremyswank 14y ago
    you're going to have to take that argument a bit farther for it to be convincing.
  - lukifer 14y ago
    At worst, he is guilty of unrealistic idealism, in the same fashion as the original democratic philosophers. But his knowledge and understanding of real power (perception management) is more sophisticated than any adolescent, and for that matter, most adults.
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    Are you suggesting that older people are not allowed to have ideals?
  - Yaa101 14y ago
    Now explain to the world why you think that his politics is adolescent without the world thinking that you are behaving adolescent.
  - jules 14y ago
    Norvig (Director of Research at Google, and author of the most popular AI book [1]) has written a criticism of Chomsky's linguistics in relation to AI: http://norvig.com/chomsky.html http://norvig.com/chomsky.html tl;dr: Norvig argues that language is best modeled statistically, Chomsky's model is deterministic. He also disagrees about what makes good science (usefulness for engineering is a valid criterium & gathering facts over developing theories). [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Intelligence:_A_Modern_Approach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Intelligence:_A_Mode...
    - cdavid 14y ago
      The scientific pedigree of Chomsky is beyond doubt. From a purely academic POV, with all respect due to Norvig, they are in a different league. (that does not mean that Norvig may be wrong and Chomsky right on that point you are quoting. It seems you're suggesting that Chomsky is not a great linguist because he disagress with Norvig - that would be a mistake).
    - beagle3 14y ago
      Norvig has written criticism about specific ideas that Chomsky uttered in some convention (which are also reflected in some of his written works on natural languages and their computational models). But Chomsky's contribution to linguistics in general and computational linguistics in particular goes well beyond anything like that, e.g. [1]. I'm not sure, but I suspect that linguistics and computational linguistics where unrelated fields before Chomsky tied them together. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy
      - jules 14y ago
        You are minimizing the criticism, which isn't just about some utterance at a convention, it's about the core premise on which Chomsky's entire work rests, namely determinism. And more generally, that success of a model should be tested empirically rather than that it should "provide insight" in some abstract way. There is no doubt that Chomsky has done great work in the area of formal languages, it's just that the relationship with natural language is not as strong as initially hoped.
  - flyinRyan 14y ago
    My CSS must be broken. I would expect such a useless, non-content-contributing comment to be greyed out by now.
- merinid 14y ago
  He likes to be at the nerve of it all. It's an honest place for him to be and work, and in all fairness, they have really supported his enterprise there.
xk_id 14y ago
Uh, didn't he criticise scientific epistemologies in relation to so-called scientism? I read briefly about some of his remarks on the matter, and he just seemed like most of his fellow sociologists: ignorant of the relevance of science to sanity, probably caused by not having been trained in physico-mathematical rigour.
- mtraven 14y ago
  That might win the prize for most ignorant comment ever on HN. While you can level a number of criticisms at Chomsky, lack of mathematical rigor is not one of them. I would assume people here were If anything, Chomsky is guilty of over-reliance on mathematical formalism in his linguistics.
  - xk_id 14y ago
    well, there is absolutely nothing wrong with conjecturing, when one presents it as such. Thanks for making a case against what I said, I may give Chomsky a second chance. Edit: by the way, I'm a bit suspicious of your phrasing in "mathematical formalism in his linguistics". Mathematical verbalism does not qualify as sane. I know a case of a person who does speak as a mathematician (very convincing!), even uses mathematics in his expositions, yet he is completely insane and what he says makes no sense whatsoever. I can share a recording of one of his lectures if you wish, but unfortunately he speaks in Romanian.
    - CR45H 14y ago
      Your description of this "mathematician" intrigues me. And, since I happen to speak Romanian, I would love to have a link to one of his lectures. Thanks! However, I agree with "mtraven" that you should not be leveling this kind of accusation until you have read Chomsky's work.
      - xk_id 14y ago
        Duly noted! The lecture is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-30t8pSd7s0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-30t8pSd7s0.
Bud 14y ago
That's probably because you don't really know who Chomsky is or what the breadth of his work has been. Even if you choose to discard all his work in politics, he's a towering figure in linguistics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
- merinid 14y ago
  I meant this in a positive way, ie, that the breadth is so enormous and he is so prolific that I am constantly impressed.
  - flyinRyan 14y ago
    That's how I took it when I upvoted you.
Yaa101 14y ago
What never cease to amaze me and fascinates me is how people can rationalize away simple concept like: When the public pays for knowledge to be created, it should be that the public owns the knowledge it paid for, of all people Americans should live this truth. But no, the majority really thinks that a small elite has the right to usurp this knowledge not paid by them and let the public that paid for it, pay more and more. Who are guilty here? The oportunists that took the chance to usurp the knowledge, or the public that let it steal from under their nose and let the oportunists be oportunistic? Who here dares to answer my amazement? I dare you to enter this debate!!
- hackerblues 14y ago
  The public's taxes also fund the military. Extending your principle to this case implies that the public owns the countries nuclear arsenal. Can you advise what this ownership should practically entail? Should I get access to the weapons? Should I be able to use them? Or am I limited to indirectly benefitting from their existence?
  - BrokenPipe 14y ago
    You are not the first to make the mistake of comparing I.P. with physical property. They are not the same physically, in theory, in practice or in law.
    - CR45H 14y ago
      The biggest problem with I.P. is that those of us who understand that it is in no way "property" continue to allow ourselves to be maneuvered into using that term. As long as we continue to use the term "intellectual property" then the duplication of it will be called "theft" or "piracy". We must stop using these terms with are inherently wrong. The truth is that copying is not only the way that human society advances (you cannot have innovation without copying) but it is how humanity itself evolves. It is inscribed in our DNA and we would not exist without it.
      - 14y ago

jacquesm 14y ago

Chomsky is one of the most eloquent people that I've ever come across. Manufacturing consent and Understanding power are indeed life changing books. They are in the sense that after reading them you will look at the media and politics in a new way and that that way will never leave you. It's like putting on glasses when you didn't know you needed them.

Jun8 14y ago
Your glasses analogy is interesting but I think is misleading, in that it assumes there's a correct way to view things. This approach is one of the major problems I have with Chomsky and other writers like him, i.e. "you have been duped by the (mostly US) media, the military-industrial complex, by the secret powers that may be; here is the real truth about matters". Rather than being presented as the truth, these opinions be seen to be another viewpoint that enhances your understanding of the situation. Let me give an analogy that may not be totally appropriate but I find is kind of illuminating: Many people, based on their everyday experience, believe in the existence of the centrifugal force (otherwise how to explain what they are experiencing daily). Then, their physics professor explains to them that in reality there is no such thing. Only if they study physics farther than the freshman year do they learn that that is not true either. Other similar examples of hypercorrection can be given (see this interesting answer: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/13568/852 http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/13568/852). The intent of the professor is benign, i.e. not to confuse the students, but it perpetuates a half-truth. Coming from a non-US country, I have to say that those of you who heavily criticize US media for manipulating opinion should look deeper into the media of other countries (not that I'm saying that the US media is non-manipulative, it's that the breadth of publicly sharable opinion is astonishing).
- niels_olson 14y ago
  > the secret powers that may be I think this is a concept inserted by a lot of Chomsky nay-sayers. I don't recall that being part of the worldview. My limited reading and viewing has left me with the impression, perhaps more disturbing, that there is no secret power. This really is just how people behave, and to really understand what's happening in real time, so that better interventions can be made, is going to take whole new fields of study. I think the solutions of anarchism or communism that some Chomskyites put forward are mainly bold attempts to add those vectors into the other much larger vectors that are already present in the public debate and tend to make the space appear very inhospitable to alternative view points. Much like Aaron described, the world seems very lonely afterwards, and hearing a shout in the distance is very welcome to the man alone in the desert.

marcofloriano 14y ago

I think people give too much credit to human stuff. Really, all this Aaron thing kicks the hell out of me. I REALLY believe that if that boy knew about all the blesses that GOD have for us, he would never have take his own life. But american people (i´m Brazilian) specially the rich people are going too far away from God and His lessons. That´s why they are living a crap life and Aaron is a prove of that. Less money, less intelligence and less success. More love, more God in your heart. That´s ALL you really need at the end.

engtech 14y ago

Did anything ever come from the book he was talking about writing? He was 19 when he wrote that blog post.

steveeq1 14y ago

A life changing book in a similar vein is "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman: http://tinyurl.com/a26wscp http://tinyurl.com/a26wscp . I found out about it via Alan Kay's excellent reading list ( http://tinyurl.com/c6fjhj http://tinyurl.com/c6fjhj )

chollida1 14y ago
Not sure why the above links were obfuscated/minimized but this is what they point to: http://www.amazon.com/Amusing-Ourselves-Death-Discourse-Business/dp/014303653X http://www.amazon.com/Amusing-Ourselves-Death-Discourse-Busi... http://www.squeakland.org/resources/books/readingList.jsp http://www.squeakland.org/resources/books/readingList.jsp
obstacle1 14y ago
If Postman strikes your fancy, another good one is "The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America" by Daniel Boorstin. http://amzn.com/0679741801 http://amzn.com/0679741801

zopticity 14y ago

Dennis Ritchie is an unforgettable person in history because if it weren't for his inventions, most of today's technology wouldn't exist or be very different. If you have the time, I'd recommend reading one of his books. R.I.P., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Ritchie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Ritchie

pclark 14y ago

Fateful Triangle is another fascinating book. Highly recommended, especially in times like these. Chomsky is marvellous.

iandanforth 14y ago

I can also recommend Power and Struggle (Politics of Nonviolent Action, Part 1). It is an absurdly trenchant look at how power is derived from and maintained in a society. Gene Sharp is unparalleled in his research into effecting change through non-violent action and should be required reading for activists of all kinds.

jackpirate 14y ago
I used to be a nuclear submarine officer, but left the US Navy as a complete pacifist and conscientious objector. What the pacifist movement needs is books willing to engage nonviolent strategy in the same way that military tacticians do it. That's what Gene Sharp's books claim to be, but IMHO they fail. They paint nonviolence in a little bit too good of a light, without fully acknowledging its limitations.
- jacquesm 14y ago
  From one conscientious objector to another (ages ago), thank you.
  - jackpirate 14y ago
    Would you mind sharing your experience? I like collecting other people's CO stories, and I've never heard of another computer nerd doing it. If you prefer privacy, my email is mike@izbicki.me. The NY Times did a write up on my court case: (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/nyregion/23objector.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/nyregion/23objector.html?p...), and I've written up some of the testimony from my hearing on my own blog (http://izbicki.me/blog/category/religion/my-co-discharge http://izbicki.me/blog/category/religion/my-co-discharge).
    - jacquesm 14y ago
      hey Mike, I don't mind, it's long ago and I'm not at all ashamed about it. In the Netherlands, where I was born lots of people were doing it. There was the threat of jail time and there was a bunch of military police sent to pick up people to force them into the army. Lots went to prison or were forced to do a replacement service. I managed to stay ahead of them for quite long but I did have a regular place to stay so that wasn't a tenable situation in the longer term. It also made my mom quite nervous. Finally we got a summons from the regular police, I could choose to come in to talk with one particular officer or I'd be picked up. I went there nervous as hell and fully expected to be arrested but in fact the guy was very reasonable. I explained my issues with authority (this was at the time that our military was sent to the middle east), and that I have a pretty bad streak running through me from a military point of view: that I can't handle injustice and that putting me in a situation where injustice is perpetrated on an ongoing basis is likely going to blow up sooner or later, likely sooner. I was 17 at the time, I'd just quit school and I still didn't have my aggressive streak bottled up (much better now, and it should be, approaching 48) and I really foresaw trouble. The guy said he'd see what he could do, he asked me to call him in a few days. And so I did, he asked me to come in and sign some papers that essentially came down to me not being able to reverse my decision later or become a police officer and that was the end of that. No jail time, no formal court case or hearing. I realized later that I got off really light compared to some in my age group. This was one of the last, if not the last year when there was still a draft in the Netherlands. The thing that bugs me about the military and this is something that I really don't understand is the blind obedience expected of the soldiers. I have no doubt that I can be pretty nasty to people if the circumstances would push me that far but to blindly follow orders is not in my genetic make-up.

podperson 14y ago

I love Manufacturing Consent (the documentary) and it inspired me to read some of Chomsky's books on politics and see him live. It didn't change my life though. In general, I think the fundamental problem with Chomsky's compelling and very well buttressed description of The Way Things Work [in the US(1)] is that it really doesn't offer much hope. (This actually comes up towards the end of the movie, and his answer -- essentially that people are smarter than we think -- is pretty thin.) In the end, the great mass of Americans are too busy with their day to day lives to parse out what's going on with their government and the corporate state. US democracy has essentially been reduced to a sporting event. As long as those in power don't drive the voting population into absolute misery (and it's hard to figure out just how much misery that is) they're happy enough with business as usual. (1) I'm not saying that Chomsky's observations apply uniquely to the US or that other democracies are great, but many of Chomsky's observations are rather specific to the US, either because of peculiarities of the US political system or the US's undeniably unique position in world affairs.

obstacle1 14y ago
I am unclear on how your "fundamental problem" is a problem. I was not aware that when making arguments that offering hope was a prerequisite for validity or truth. Because if that is not the case, then offering no hope is not a fundamental problem.
- podperson 14y ago
  You're right that I haven't expressed myself clearly. The terms "manufacturing consent", "necessary distraction" etc. are taken from a political science treatise arguing that for a democracy to be a world power it must essentially distract the great unwashed from the political process so that the smart people can run things correctly. Chomsky's aim is to expose the workings of this process (and no, he's not a conspiracy theorist -- he's simply pointing out naturally emergent behaviors of large institutions) arguing that if only the great unwashed were aware of what's going on they'd suddenly start participating and everything would be better. But as the discussion proceeds, it really seems to be arguing that people are stupid and uninformed and like it that way, and when presented with this argument, Chomsky makes the claim that no they're smart because they can learn to talk -- which I think is weak. (It's like arguing that basketball players must be good at physics.) This leaves the original thesis -- that people are stupid and ignorant and like it that way -- essentially standing, and thus argues in favor of the entire political philosophy he's trying to take down. And that's a fundamental problem with Chomsky's political philosophy, but not with his observations. (Much as Marx was a great social critic, but his remedies weren't much use.)

DigitalJack 14y ago

I found the following review of the book interesting. I always like to read the "negative" reviews of something because I find it easier to make a decision whether to read something or buy something (books, software, food, etc...) based on whether I can identify with the negative comments or not. If someone has recommended something to me, and the negative comments are inconsequential to me (or absurd, etc...), I'm more likely to follow that recommendation. Likewise the reverse. http://www.amazon.com/review/R31KSCZ4TXPLIR/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0099466066&linkCode=&nodeID=&tag= http://www.amazon.com/review/R31KSCZ4TXPLIR/ref=cm_cr_pr_per... Reposting: Understanding Power is, without question, the most comprehensive and compelling presentation of Noam Chomsky's ideas. Reading this book will change the way you see the world. If you are interested in Chomsky, it is likely that you are a noble person who genuinely cares for others and yearns for a better world. Beware, reader, and make sure you choose the right vehicle for your hope. While his intentions are for a peaceful, safe, and healthy world, Chomsky's political writings systematically assume conscious malevolence without evidence, ignore context, and romanticize Third World struggles, regardless of their goals. Let's briefly examine some of his convictions on a pressing topic: the War on Terror. Following the September 11th attacks, Chomsky immediately presented them as our fault: the result of U.S. Middle East policy, and equally evil U.S. Cold War efforts (training Mujahadeen to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan). His presumption here is that if the United States changes its behavior, that terrorist attacks will then cease. Islamic terrorists, in fact, want a pan-world government under Talibanesque repressive sharia law, a vision that mandates the overthrow of all free nations beginning with ours. These facts are easily learned by reading about the historical development of Islamic radicalism, which is rooted in reinterpretations of the Qur'an's dictates for action, NOT in wishes to live peacefully in a U.S.-free Middle East. These facts, however, do not enter into the Chomskyan world-view, which romanticizes Third World underdogs as brave and legitimized no matter what they stand for. The linguist also described the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan as a conscious "silent genocide," predicting wrongly that millions would be severed from food supplies. As is typical, Chomsky here focused solely on the negative aspects of the situation, those for which the U.S. deserved his bitter recrimination. For a man who lives prosperously in America and is supposedly the voice of the downtrodden, Chomsky certainly did not put himself into the shoes of the Afghan women. For them, whose existence was akin to slavery, the liberation was a cause for great joy. Actual sentiments were fully antithetical to Chomsky's condemnatory remarks to his villainous U.S. government, which he and he alone believed was consciously bent on killing as many innocent Afghans as possible. Omitting what is significant (the liberation of people living under tyranny, in this case) to emphasize his often ludicrous misperceptions about American motives and motivations is a constant in Chomsky's writings. His Cold War depictions are even more stunning, as Understanding Power's abundant examples attest. In the case that you are already entrenched in his manner of thinking, at least admit that Noam Chomsky MIGHT be wrong, and see if his positions hold up under review: read Chomsky's articulate, sane critics (The Anti-Chomsky Reader is a good place to start). If he is perfect, then you have nothing but gain to acheive from this exercise; it will only serve to strengthen your ability to effectively argue and implement Chomsky's ideas in the world. After clear-eyed reassessment of his political writings, if you STILL think he is on-point, then all the best to you. If, however, you reevaluate his "wisdom," you will have saved yourself from much needless confusion and despair. Were Chomsky's views simply false, there would not be need for this posting. They become perilous, however, in their blind, wholesale demonization of the United States. Chomsky's own fear and anger about the state of our world are projected, with great urgency: anger at and fear of U.S. "elites" is the Chomsky program. The result is often flat-out hatred. What would Chomsky do were he President? We do not know; he avoids that inconvenient question by telling us that were he to run (which he admits he would never do), the first thing he would do is tell us not to vote for him. Furthermore, why does Professor Chomsky not include himself in the "elites" so prominent in his analyses? Does he not pay taxes, and drive a BMW, and teach at a cushy, prestigious university? The questions may seem too simplistic, but they point to a core issue: if Chomsky cannot look into the mirror regarding his own status and societal position, then how much more impaired must his assessments be of things outside of himself? On paper, it is unclear exactly what Chomsky IS calling for, and putting aside the constant onslaught of judgment-filled writings and audio programs, neither does his life provide us an example of what he conceives to be right-action. Those who want an idea of who believes IN Chomsky, however, need look no further than Hugo Chavez, who recently proclaimed allegiance and military support to his "brother" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad, for anyone who needs reminding, daily denies the Holocaust, and calls for the destruction of Israel and the United States. Is it a coincidence that those who love Chomsky also embrace a world-view rooted in blame, anger, and vilification? Good and evil do exist in this world, but Noam Chomsky is not capable of distinguishing between the two. The U.S.A. is not perfect, and never will be. Nevertheless, if we fail to recognize the good that IS here, we may soon lose our nation. Chomsky's writings are little more than a good reminder that appearance is not essence. It is worth noting as well, that Chomsky is an avowed atheist, and believes that life is meaningless. If we bear in mind that evil is in the eye of the beholder, then Chomsky--an American, an Israelite, a millionaire--is instantly unmasked in all of his self-revulsion. Understanding Power should be retitled as "Understanding Blame." Stear clear and take heart, reader; there is hope in this world, and your country is good, but you will discover neither in Avram Noam Chomsky.

smogzer 14y ago

I recommend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_%28book%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_%28book%29 Btw in Lost why did sayd was nice guy in the beginning and died as an evil torturer ? And why does every action series and movies, event toy story 3 promotes torture ?

OldSchool 14y ago

Surely he's not perfect in his views but he is highly objective, intelligent and visionary. Given the chance to sit in on a random lunch with Chomsky or a captain of industry (Buffett, Gates, etc.) I'd pick Chomsky without pause.

lins05 14y ago
Yes, I agree with you.

mark_l_watson 14y ago

Interesting thing about Noam Chomsky: he goes face to face with the US government on a lot of issues and is smart enough to not have ever got in serious trouble over it.

pravda 14y ago
During the 1960s he faced prison due to his opposition to the Vietnam war. I don't know the specifics, but I recall in one interview about his personal life he mentioned that his wife finished her degree so that she would be able to support their family while he was in prison.
baddox 14y ago
Or perhaps the government considers him radical enough (without advocating violence) to not be a threat.

Zimahl 14y ago

I remember vividly clutching at the door to my room, trying to hold on to something while the world spun around. Maybe I'm a bit too simple or pragmatic but I sincerely hope that this was simply hyperbole. If not, I think we might have an early glimpse into a special, yet troubled, mind. From a lot of things I've read about Mr. Swartz since his suicide, it doesn't seem like he was all that mentally stable.

xk_id 14y ago
indeed...
david927 14y ago
Are you really stating that his feeling physically dizzy at comprehending something that changed his world view is a "glimpse into troubled mind"? Seriously? Please, for all that is holy, unless you have a background in mental health, please avoid making armchair diagnoses. (Those that have that background are loathe to jump to conclusions, for example.) It's neither your place, nor your field. Don't do it.
- Zimahl 14y ago
  I'll stand by what I said, he seemed very troubled and it is clear that he was since he killed himself. Suicide typically doesn't happen overnight so I'll assume he's had issues long before the DOJ decided to target him. I'm not getting this from one single blog post. Others have posted how he had trouble communicating personally. There was another blog where he was sympathetic to the Joker from 'The Dark Knight'. If his blog was a personal one I bet there are probably hundreds of other examples. If you hear something that is so profound that the you get physically dizzy at the thought, enough to require you to hold onto something, there's nothing else to say but you should get help. Like I said, if it was just hyperbole, fine, but I don't get the feeling it was.

k1m 14y ago

The link to the torrent for Manufacturing Consent at the end of his piece no longer works, but the full film is up on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AnB8MuQ6DU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AnB8MuQ6DU

chernevik 14y ago

"Reading the book, I felt as if my mind was rocked by explosions." If you've only had this experience from _one_ book, you aren't reading enough. "Questions that had puzzled me for years suddenly began making sense in this new world." If, on reading a book, you don't know of at least one other set of alternative answers, you aren't reading enough. No doubt Chomsky is a powerful and persuasive writer. But there are many thought-systems of similar extraordinary explanatory power. At some point you have to realize that the ones that hit you, hit because you share their basic premises and took the time to understand the explication of the thought-system. Without the ability to identify and examine those premises, your thinking is more an accident of which powerful system clicked with you first. You have to read enough to intelligently criticize those opinions you hold most dear and believe most certainly. It's very hard. The "terrifying side effect" of being "left all alone" is not quite so terrifying as the gut-wrenching feeling you don't actually know _anything_. It is an amazing and wonderful and terrifying experience to see the world in a new way. But you cannot stop at _that_ new way of thinking.

jonknee 14y ago
> If you've only had this experience from _one_ book, you aren't reading enough. He was 17 years old when he read the book.
- BrokenPipe 14y ago
  And later in the comments he said the same happened to him with other books. i.e. purely intellectual math. The more I read about Aaron he more I'm impressed and even though I didn't read enough about Chomsky I think he's right on far too many issues (the ones I encountered so far).
johnfn 14y ago
You really need to do some more research before you make statements like "you aren't reading enough". In fact, I don't think I've read or heard of a person more well-read than Aaron. For example, he read 130 books in 2009[1]. That's a book every 3 days. [1]: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/books2009 http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/books2009

anigbrowl 14y ago

It’s undoubtedly the best documentary I’ve seen, weaving together all sorts of clever tricks to enlighten and entertain. This is sadly ironic; since Chomsky is one of the most manipulative and dishonest writers I've had the displeasure of reading. I'm not going to engage in an exhaustive deconstruction of any of his work here, since I don't keep any of his books on my shelf. I'll just say that I think his mischaracterization of the source material that he refers to in the endless footnotes is beyond biased and falls into being outright dishonesty. There is no question but that he is smart enough to know better; as an academic linguist he would never accept such shoddy arguments if they were submitted to him for peer review. He's the left wing's Ayn Rand, and I don't mean that as a compliment.

flyinRyan 14y ago
Thanks for your argument, I'm sure you've enlightened everyone who's had the pleasure of reading your post. You're the whatever wing Sean Hanity, and I don't mean that as a compliment.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

leoh 14y ago

Interesting, but ironic given that Reddit is and was a powerful engine of disinformation. Aaron can't be faulted for that, though.

antidaily 14y ago
Aaron can't be faulted for that, though

TerraHertz 14y ago

"I remember vividly clutching at the door to my room, trying to hold on to something while the world spun around." Some commenters treat this as if it must be hyperbole. But what Aaron describes is a typical reaction for someone who's just had their safe worldview shattered, and discovered that political reality is something far darker than they imagined. There has been much written on the psychology of conspiracy denial, and the cognitive dissonance that keeps many corralled within the comforting (but false) narrative of the mainstream media propagandists. One aspect of denial is a kind of self-worth self-preservation. To even contemplate that the world may be controlled by vastly evil powers, and that the historical fables we are all supposed to believe are actually gross lies purveyed by mass murdering psychopathic conspirators, one has to consider what that implies about one's self. To have been totally duped for so many years, by incredibly evil people... to have cooperated in their crimes, even if only by inaction... To discover that those one looked up to, respected, trusted with the wise governance of the state, are actually deranged elitist liars and criminals... Most people simply cannot bear to contemplate such a level of gullibility and culpability in themselves. So they remain in vigorous denial. And in self defense, attack those attempting to enlighten them to the true state of the world. http://everist.org/archives/links/!_About_Conspiracy.txt http://everist.org/archives/links/!_About_Conspiracy.txt "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Director of Central Intelligence. An observation by the late Director at his first staff meeting in 1981.

dade_ 14y ago

This book may very well have changed his life, but I suggest that discovering that there are serious problems with our society is not really that enlightening. Far more important is learning why and how we got here. My view is that John Raulston Saul has identified the very essence of the beginning of this mess and the good intentions that started it hundreds of years ago in his book, "Voltaire's Bastards". Further, the identification of the fundamental (flaws/errors/oversights) that became a part of the fabric of our civilization now based on reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ralston_Saul http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ralston_Saul

askimto 14y ago

Chomsky also knows the real inventor of email.

xmlblog 14y ago

Anyone who can call Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens "religious fanatics" with a straight face is either attempting to deceive the audience or themselves. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt9QCAUPPeY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt9QCAUPPeY

afterburner 14y ago

What is the purpose of posting this? My cursory looks into Chomsky's writings showed me there might be a serious intellectual honesty problem with the man, but I admit I haven't bothered to look into it deeply. So is posting this about praising Chomsky and by extension Aaron's admiration of his book, or is it a sly low blow against someone's impressionable reaction at a young age, after that person can't defend themselves? The answer depends on what the poster thinks of Chomsky.... Anybody care to comment on the validity of the following? The first followed from reading the comments in Aaron's post. http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/wma.html http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/wma.html http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomskyhoax.html http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomskyhoax.html

mladenkovacevic 14y ago

Welcome to my world.. a place where I'm more or less convinced that every mainstream news report is more lies than truth, carefully shaped and spun to support some not necessarily evil, but definitely manipulative agenda. And the worst part is, even though you're reasonably sure of it, you realize that most people around you are either more invested into this invented narrative than you are in your "maybe real" one... or they are just apathetic to the whole thing and even if they did care they can't be bothered to put in the effort and imagine the consequences of every society running what's basically a global public opinion manipulation engine.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]