Who Is Noam Chomsky?
Someone who should have stuck to syntax.

BY ROGER SCRUTON
Tuesday, September 26, 2006 12:01 a.m.

Noam Chomsky's popularity owes little or nothing to the eminent place that he occupies in the world of ideas. That place was won many years ago in the science of linguistics, and no expert in the subject would, I think, dispute Prof. Chomsky's title to it.

He swept away at a stroke the attempts of Ferdinand de Saussure and his followers to identify meaning through the surface structure of signs, as well as the belief, once prevalent among animal ethologists, that language could be acquired by making piecemeal connections between symbols and things. He argued that language is an all-or-nothing affair, that we are equipped by evolution with the categories needed to acquire it, and that these categories govern the "deep structure" of our discourse, no matter what language we learn. Sentences emerge by the repeated operations of a "transformational grammar" that translates deep structure into surface sequences: As a result, all of us are able to understand indefinitely many sentences, just as soon as we have acquired the basic linguistic competence. Language skills are essentially creative, and the infinite reach of our understanding also betokens an infinite reach in what we can mean.

Although some of those ideas had been foreseen by the pioneers of modern logic, Prof. Chomsky develops them with an imaginative flair that is entirely his own. He has the true scientist's ability to translate abstract theory into concrete observation, and to discover intellectual problems where others see only ordinary facts. "Has," I say, but perhaps "had" would be more accurate. For Prof. Chomsky long ago cast off his academic gown and donned the mantle of the prophet. For several decades now he has been devoting his energies to denouncing his native country, usually before packed halls of fans who couldn't care a fig about the theory of syntax. And many of his public appearances are in America: the only country in the whole world that rewards those who denounce it with the honors and opportunities that make denouncing it into a rewarding way of life. It is proof of Prof. Chomsky's success that his diatribes are distributed by his American publishers around the world, so as to end up in the hands of America's critics everywhere--Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez included.

To his supporters Noam Chomsky is a brave and outspoken champion of the oppressed against a corrupt and criminal political class. But to his opponents he is a self-important ranter whose one-sided vision of politics is chosen for its ability to shine a spotlight on himself. And it is surely undeniable that his habit of excusing or passing over the faults of America's enemies, in order to pin all crime on his native country, suggests that he has invested more in his posture of accusation than he has invested in the truth.

To describe this posture as "adolescent" is perhaps unfair: After all, there are plenty of quite grown-up people who believe that American foreign policy since World War II has been founded on a mistaken conception of America's role in the world. And it is true that we all make mistakes--so that Prof. Chomsky's erstwhile support for regimes that no one could endorse in retrospect, like that of Pol Pot, is no proof of wickedness. But then the mistakes of American foreign policy are no proof of wickedness either.

This is important. For it is his ability to excite not just contempt for American foreign policy but a lively sense that it is guided by some kind of criminal conspiracy that provides the motive for Prof. Chomsky's unceasing diatribes and the explanation of his influence. The world is full of people who wish to think ill of America. And most of them would like to be Americans. The Middle East seethes with such people, and Prof. Chomsky appeals directly to their envious emotions, as well as to the resentments of leaders like President Chavez who cannot abide the sight of a freedom that they haven't the faintest idea how to produce or the least real desire to emulate.

Success breeds resentment, and resentment that has no safety valve becomes a desire to destroy. The proof of that was offered on 9/11 and by just about every utterance that has emerged from the Islamists since. But Americans don't want to believe it. They trust others to take the kind of pleasure in American success that they, in turn, take in the success of others. But this pleasure in others' success, which is the great virtue of America, is not to be witnessed in those who denounce her. They hate America not for her faults, but for her virtues, which cast a humiliating light on those who cannot adapt to the modern world or take advantage of its achievements.

Prof. Chomsky is an intelligent man. Not everything he says by way of criticizing his country is wrong. However, he is not valued for his truths but for his rage, which stokes the rage of his admirers. He feeds the self-righteousness of America's enemies, who feed the self-righteousness of Prof. Chomsky. And in the ensuing blaze everything is sacrificed, including the constructive criticism that America so much needs, and that America--unlike its enemies, Prof. Chomsky included--is prepared to listen to.

Mr. Scruton, a British writer and philosopher, is the author of "Gentle Regrets" (Continuum).

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Success breeds resentment, and resentment that has no safety valve becomes a desire to destroy.

Yet several who form or join the terrorist groups are in the middle class of their country or even well off. Correct or incorrect? Who are we to believe?

The proof of that was offered on 9/11 and by just about every utterance that has emerged from the Islamists since.

Terrorists do not speak for all of the Islamic faith. How do I know? I have Muslim friends and their words and actions over the past six years confirm it.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Chomsky has many people who want to discredit him. Having been to one of his talks I can't say I found him "adolescent". His power comes from the sheer amount of research he does on a subject. His books and talks are well backed up with facts and evidence and his sources well quoted. His talent is for digging out the information that, although publicly available is often hidden from general view.

His detractors seldom question the factual basis of what he say, but instead stick to adhomenin attacks and twisting of the facts. For example the accusation that he supported Pol Pot. From what I understand that was a freedom of speech issue..not a support of the dictators ideas or methods.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Rush, do you know who Roger Scruton is? Of course, you probably do, as he is of your ilk. He is loathed by all good lefties and rightly so.

---

Rush, do you know who Roger Scruton is? Of course, you probably do, as he is of your ilk. He is loathed by all good lefties and rightly so.

Here's his own official HP

Political activist, Founder of the Conservative Philosophy Group, which helped to change the climate of opinion in Britain during the 1970s and 1980s. Co-founder with Anthony Barnett of the Town and Country Forum, devoted to encouraging cross-party discussion of the problems and solutions connected with the town and country divide.

So he's an selfproclaimed activist righty, imho that's a sure sign of being an extreme rightwing nutcase.

Pardon my naivete and correct me if I "don't get it."

What does brilliance in linguistics have to do with being "a brave and outspoken champion of the oppressed against a corrupt and criminal political class?"

If the popularity he received as a lingustics expert has allowed a larger share of public focus for him, why would an apparently intelligent individual suddenly decide he is an expert in social reform?

Robert Redford is a accomplished actor and popular, but that doesn't make him an expert in foreign policy. Maybe my analogy isn't perfect, but the point is being an expert in (fill in expertise here) doesn't necessarily make you an expert in all fields. Sure, an intelligent individual is just that....very smart. But is that a valid reason for proclaiming omnipotence?

It just seems that he has become one of many detractors that says "look HERE!" while more devastating problems are "over there." Keeping the public is engrossed and distracted on social issues, while foreign political leaders toture their own, export and support violence, and have no compunction in regard the misuse nuclear technology is not only dangerous but irresponsible.

In other words, quoting the Great and Magnificent OZ, "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

What does brilliance in linguistics have to do with being "a brave and outspoken champion of the oppressed against a corrupt and criminal political class?"

Nothing, but why has it to exclude each other, as you seem to suggest?
He seems to be both, why shouldn't he?

What does failing as a sportsmanager has to do with being an expert on foreign (or any kind of) policy?

What does brilliance in linguistics have to do with being "a brave and outspoken champion of the oppressed against a corrupt and criminal political class?"

Nothing, but why has it to exclude each other, as you seem to suggest?
He seems to be both, why shouldn't he?

What does failing as a sportsmanager has to do with being an expert on foreign (or any kind of) policy?

I'm saying that merely having an opinion doesn't make you an expert.

If your roof were leaking, would you hire a plumber? That plumber is the best around. Many people have needed his services, and have been impressed by his work ethic and timely completion of tasks. What I gather you are saying is, because he is an expert and highly regarded in his field, he must be a good "roofer."

I have an opinion. Does that make me an expert? Not by any means. Why can't I pontificate on social reform? I could, but who would listen intently? But I was a great home builder. I had many satisfied clients and enjoyed a great measure of popularity by word of mouth advertising. So why would I use that popularity to suddenly say my opinion counts for more than yours because I'm an 'expert' and decide to host forums on foreign policy?

To work very hard in a particular field and reap the rewards and recognition based on that work then suddenly switch "majors" makes that person a novice in the "new" field. To award credibility to that person on their new field of expertise without them earning it is a hypocritical statement coming from those who would support that assumption.

Chomsky has many people who want to discredit him. Having been to one of his talks I can't say I found him "adolescent". His power comes from the sheer amount of research he does on a subject. His books and talks are well backed up with facts and evidence and his sources well quoted. His talent is for digging out the information that, although publicly available is often hidden from general view.

His detractors seldom question the factual basis of what he say, but instead stick to adhomenin attacks and twisting of the facts. For example the accusation that he supported Pol Pot. From what I understand that was a freedom of speech issue..not a support of the dictators ideas or methods.

You said this last time and I noted specifically that Noamy was a hypocrite and provided the concrete examples of his hypocrisy. I attacked the factual basis for his opinions and provided evidence.

You are still welcome to refute them.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Rush, do you know who Roger Scruton is? Of course, you probably do, as he is of your ilk. He is loathed by all good lefties and rightly so.

For the most part, I'm not interested in the person writing any given position, I'm intererested in the position and the evidence and reasoning presented to support it.

While of course you are entitled to your opinion of Mr. Scruton and I, your labelling of us as "ilk" doesn't advance whatever position you've taken. In fact, you haven't taken any position at all, you've simply stated that lefties loathe him. Big deal. You don't care what he thinks; therefore you can understand why Dubya, or whoever you are against du jour doesn't care what you think.

Your best course of action, if you disagree with Mr. Scruton (or anyone for that matter), would be to present an argument and provide evidence to back it up. Forgive me if I don't start holding my breath.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Your best course of action, if you disagree with Mr. Scruton (or anyone for that matter), would be to present an argument and provide evidence to back it up. Forgive me if I don't start holding my breath.

But there was no argument to disagree with, it was all just rightwing nonsense, with next to no relation to the real world outside the neo-con enclosure. How can I argue with someone who refuses to do so?

If your roof were leaking, would you hire a plumber? That plumber is the best around. Many people have needed his services, and have been impressed by his work ethic and timely completion of tasks. What I gather you are saying is, because he is an expert and highly regarded in his field, he must be a good "roofer."

If that learned plumber is a good roofer, and I know it, why shouldn't I hire him, just because he also is a plumber?

A friend of mine is an experst in traffic planing and sociology. He has learned (studied) it. But he is also an expert in computer networks, which he learned in privat somehow. I don't know if I would hire him for a big companies network to maintain it (and I don't know if he would do it at all), but I would definitely let him configure my private one, if I happen to need this once.

So Chomsky is an expert linguist, and that excludes him from being an expert on other subjeczts as well, at least you say so. I disagree, as I think this kind of reasoning is utter rubbish and only done to smear him, but that's a "swift" tactic of the right afaik.

But there was no argument to disagree with, it was all just rightwing nonsense, with next to no relation to the real world outside the neo-con enclosure.

This is just a self-serving conclusory statement, like, "I hate peas."

How can I argue with someone who refuses to do so?

He hasn't "refuse[d] to do so," he presents a number or positions, many of which are flattering to Mr. Chomsky. If you disagree with one of them, present your argument.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

So Chomsky is an expert linguist, and that excludes him from being an expert on other subjeczts as well, at least you say so. I disagree, as I think this kind of reasoning is utter rubbish and only done to smear him, but that's a "swift" tactic of the right afaik.

To be accurate, that's a tactic often practiced by ideologues on either side of a position, not a hallmark of the right. Or the left. It's generally practiced by those who cannot clearly articulate a position nor defend it against contrary reasoning.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

For the most part, I'm not interested in the person writing any given position, I'm intererested in the position and the evidence and reasoning presented to support it.

While of course you are entitled to your opinion of Mr. Scruton and I, your labelling of us as "ilk" doesn't advance whatever position you've taken. In fact, you haven't taken any position at all, you've simply stated that lefties loathe him. Big deal. You don't care what he thinks; therefore you can understand why Dubya, or whoever you are against du jour doesn't care what you think.

Your best course of action, if you disagree with Mr. Scruton (or anyone for that matter), would be to present an argument and provide evidence to back it up. Forgive me if I don't start holding my breath.

Well, good for you. I'm interested in the person who does the writing, because that person will come from a particular perspective, the work will be set in a particular context. But that doesn't necessarily mean I can't be surprised (although sadly, not so far by Mr Scruton). His work is always predictable.

Of course I don't expect your president to care what I say, and du jour is tous les jours pour moi, because my position is basically the same position I have held most of my life.

Now, as to my best course of action. What does this mean? Is my best course of action to write in a way that will please you?

---

You said this last time and I noted specifically that Noamy was a hypocrite and provided the concrete examples of his hypocrisy. I attacked the factual basis for his opinions and provided evidence.

You are still welcome to refute them.

I win!

---

Reality Internet Personality

Well, good for you. I'm interested in the person who does the writing, because that person will come from a particular perspective, the work will be set in a particular context.

Which, of course, has no bearing on the validity of the arguments presented. For example, though Noamy may be a hypocrite, that doesn't mean he doesn't sometimes have valid criticisms. It just lessens his credibility and short changes the positions he is capable of advocating.

Of course I don't expect your president to care what I say, and du jour is tous les jours pour moi, because my position is basically the same position I have held most of my life.

Let us know if you ever decide to articulate that.

Now, as to my best course of action. What does this mean? Is my best course of action to write in a way that will please you?

You do as you wish. However, if your goal to to convince your reader of the validity of your position, then yes, your best course of action is, as I said, to present an argument and provide evidence to back it up.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I win!

How original.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I win!

How original.

I was taught by the best.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I win!

How original.

I was taught by the best.

Blame Misfit?