The fact is his criticism of intellectuals is often presented as self-criticism of his own position and privelege, presented as a we. He often says that he is not the "ideal" intellectual and then will mention people such as the Jesuit intellectuals in El Salvador, Rosa Luxembourg, or even such people as Septima Clark. For Chomsky these are the intellectuals that are noteworthy. Chomsky is a smart man and does his best but in his own view he is a privileged, elite intellectual who only tries his best to transcend his position. He constantly critisizes the "star" system which he finds himself in. He is not an intellectual to be admired, just a person who was in the right place at the right time and works very hard. The intellectuals that we should admire are those such as Myles Horton and Bob Moses, and I can name a half-dozen others from Brazil and Central America, who will never be "stars", who will never be famous, except perhaps briefly if someone puts a bullet through one of their heads. But who cares when we can sit around and admire the "stars", who posture and preen, and vogue in the Paris searchlights or attempt to find the equivalent. Jesus, for all of Jean Paul Sartre's he was not deluded about the position of intellectuals in society. Have we really made such progress that obfuscating priests are now our gurus? Listen you simply don't know what you are talking about in relation to Chomsky. You are taking a few off the cuff remarks sent or posted by Tayssir, presented by Chomsky in a quickly written email and/or interview and ascribing to him your own deep thougts. As a matter of fact Chomsky's thoughts on the limits of theory are deeply rooted in the history of science and not at all the philosophy of science. I can give you a list of his essays and books where he touches on it or writes about it. I can give you a list of his analysis of how physics suppressed chemistry and why. I can give you his speculations about the difference between Cartesian physics and Newtonian physics. I can give you why he thinks that science is very, very specific and thin, and why theory does not deal with qualia. I can give you where he and Quine battle it out over these topics. I can give you where he applies all of these thoughts to himself and sometimes finds himself coming up short. His thoughts on intellectuals he never claim are original. He refers to Panekoek and even occasionally Gramsci, but most often to Rudolf Rocker, and other anarchists. 50 years of work by Chomsky and you read one small excerpt and have developed a psychological and sociological analysis.
> The things Chomsky talks about are well known in the sociology of
> knowledge, you can go back, at least, to Mannheim. There's a specific
> subdisciplines -- sociology of the professions. I remember cruising the
> library, sitting on the floor, looking for something on the bottom shelf. I
> spied this obviously self published vol. a dissertation produced 20 years
> before in my dept. It was a vituperative sociology of academia using hte
> grad stud's dept. *snort*
>
> wonder why it never saw the light of day? :)
>
> But Chomsky doesn't present an objective analysis in the piece Tayssir
> forwarded. It is self-serving and uses nothing that would pass for
> scholarly research to advance the argument. It is the kind of crap I used
> to hear people who have physics envy say all the time about the social
> sciences and humanities. Alas, as the neo-positivist Randall Collins points
> out, we're dealing with very complex systems when we study society. When we
> produce knowledge about it, it gets fed into that society and _changes_ it.
> Maybe I'll scan the essay and post it. Note, collins is hardly a
> cheerleader of pomo, himself having written scathing critiques of the
> postmodern analyses of science. But I'll take his analysis and sneering
> critique any day over Chomsky's since Chomsky doesn't even begin to engage
> the topic with any sorted of engaged fallibilistic pluralism. He does not
> put his opponent in the best light possible but, instead, draws on common
> sense anti-intellectualism and resentment toward academics to advance his
> claims.
>
> my comments above,of course, only apply to the piece Tayssir forwarded. I'm
> also drawing on the remarkably crappy piece he published about postmodern
> critics of science which, in the published article on line, couldn't even
> be bothered to name the authors of the pieces he was criticizing. What kind
> of b.s. is that? You attempt to savage the work of others by never actually
> naming the articles and authors you're quoting from? Myabe he published
> something naming names and titles, but it wasn't the one I found at his
> site. How can anyone applaud that kind of criticism? It doesn't comport
> with any sort of standard of science where someone publishes research and
> is then criticized, publicly and openly, in order that they can learn from
> critics or at least respond.
>
>
> At 11:35 AM 12/16/2006, Jerry Monaco wrote:
>
> >Carrol, I am not arguing against anything you say here, but you should
> >really try to take a look at Chomsky's own very interesting notions of
> >what makes a theory, and why no "theories" in a strict sense have yet to
> >develop in the humanities, in relation to human history, and in the so
> >called "human-sciences" in general.
> >
> >At least think about the descriptions of theory, and the history of
> >science that Chomsky often presents in his polemics on these matters. I
> >think they are important in ways people have simply not yet fully
> >realized. They remained to be fleshed out by somebody and they should be
> >fleshed out.
> >
> >___________________________________
> >http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> "You know how it is, come for the animal porn,
> stay for the cultural analysis." -- Michael Berube
>
> Bitch | Lab
> http://blog.pulpculture.org
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Jerry Monaco's Philosophy, Politics, Culture Weblog is Shandean Postscripts to Politics, Philosophy, and Culture http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/
His fiction, poetry, weblog is Hopeful Monsters: Fiction, Poetry, Memories http://www.livejournal.com/users/jerrymonaco/
Notes, Quotes, Images - From some of my reading and browsing http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/