----- Original Message ----- From: Thomas Seay <entheogens at yahoo.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 1:06 PM Subject: Re: The Mystery of Hitchens's Mind (was: Re: Bush Names Kissinger to Head 9/11 Probe)
>
> --- Anthony Tothe <yankee at webspan.net> wrote:
>
> Also,
> > judging from some of the reviews of it-like the one
> > on the Znet home page-it
> > didn't seem like they had all that much to say. But
> > whenever anyone starts
> > using dense language and concepts when discussing
> > world affairs-this isn't
> > physics-I get very skeptical that they really have
> > anything of value to say.
>
> It is true that there are a lot of people who want to
> dazzle with opaque language when they really have
> nothing to say. However, I think that it would be
> wrong to conclude from that that all difficult texts
> are rubbish.
Ok...but I didn't say that. I said I get very skeptical that they have anything of value to say. It has to be shown that they do have something too say. That can be accomplished with simple english that any high school aged person can understand. There is no need that I can see-beyond their own class bias and careerism-to use language that confuses more than it enlightens. I think it is counter productive.
I personally think that Empire has a lot
> of interesting ideas, others may not.
Ok....
However to
> discard it out of hand just because it is difficult
> would mean that you would have to discard Spinoza,
> Hegel, Wittgenstein, Heidegger and any number of
> difficult philosophers.
Well I am not familiar with all of them and I haven't read anything of say Hegel since my college days 20 years ago, but your general point I think is fair. I often don't see the relevance of some of this stuff. Yes it is true that it is often a good intellectual exercise to wade through some of this stuff and you can gain insights into the world...yes, no doubt. I know Wittgenstein was a big linguist, I think, I never read anything by him that I can remember. But it has to be shown to me that they have some kind of special insights into the world that others do not that justifies the dense almost unreadable language. It may well be the case. I just haven't seen it.
>
>
>
> > It strikes me as needless careerism written for the
> > benefit of other
> > intellectuals. I really don't have time for books
> > like this.
>
> Well, I can understand that you might not have time,
> interest or energy to read a book like Empire, but as
> I said above, that isn't reason to discredit it or any
> other difficult text on that basis.
not because I don't have the time but because I dont see what the value of their perception is to justify the use of the language. It is true that there are only 24 hours in the day and we all work for a living, I assume. So yeah, I don't personally have the time to be bothered with PM gibberish. And as I said before judging from reviews I read there really wasn't much that they had to say
>
> Some of the people that you mention Chomsky, Zinn etc,
> do indeed do fine jobs but they are not writing
> political philosopy.
Ok...
Chomsky mostly presents news
> that does not get revealed by the mainstream press.
True.
> True, his political writings are fairly easy to read.
> However, have you tried to read one of his books on
> linguistic theory?
No, but we are not discussing linguistic theory. That is a specialized area that mostly experts in the field discuss, but NC's linguistics can be presented in such a way that it can be understood by a nonexpert. It is specialized intellectual endeavor. Are you saying that politics is a special endeavor that only experts should be concerned with?
You see, that is my point. I don't think it takes a PHD in political science to understand how the world works....It is decidedly not the realm of experts. They idea that it is is just the domain of the experts and intellectuals is nonsense. A book like Empire, and others like it, fosters this attitude. I think that is really harmful and tends to just alienate people and push them out of the political field because of the language that is used. It makes it seem that the world is really terribly difficult to understand phenomenon that requires grand theories and years of schooling to understand. Thats BS of the highest order to me.
Not exactly easy. Should we then
> conclude that Chomsky has nothing to say about
> linguistics?
I think I answered thsi above.
That he is just a poseur? Zinn is a
> popularizer. Nothing wrong with that. But writing
> those types of works are different than political
> theory.
Political theory that requries language that is unreadable? I think we'll have to disagree on that.-Tony
>
> Thomas
>
>
> =====
> "Nothing is true, everything is permitted."
>
> "Money eats quality and shits out quantity"
> -William Burroughs
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>