I was first introduced to Noam Chomsky way back in the early 80s. I had to write a paper for a philosophy of language class, and I was having a heck of hard time understanding why "Snow is white" and "Schnee ist weiss" (or whatever the correct spelling for "snow is white" in German is supposed to be) is philosophically interesting. I told my professor I couldn't think of anything to write about. He recommended reading Noam Chomsky's views on language. I found a collection of essays on the philosophy of language (edited by John Searle) that included one by Chomsky. He argued that we had an innate knowledge of grammar that enabled us to learn language. What an absolutely fascinating idea! So I took an incomplete and spent the next year reading Chomsky's books on language and also what his critics had to say about them. I thought Chomsky's arguments were the stronger and wrote up a paper on the topic and passed with a "B."
The one thing that I was curious about was how Chomsky thought we came to have this innate knowledge. I learned later that he was skeptical that a Darwinian account of our innate language learning ability could be provided. So did he think this innate "universal grammar" had been purposely designed? Heavens no! So what did he think the historical account was? Apparently he was willing to remain agnostic about it, though I read something recently where he seemed to think that eventually a Darwinian account might be found for it.
Fast forward to the last couple of years, where Chomsky has said some rather interesting things about the 9/11 Truth movement. Perhaps the most interesting thing he said is that even if it were proven that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition, then the most likely culprit would still be al Qaeda.
Now there seems to be a similarity of some sort between these two disparate topics. In the first case, Chomsky discovered something seemingly extraordinary about human beings - an innate universal grammar - but was unwilling to hypothesize an extraordinary explanation for it, such as intelligent design. In the second case, he has said that even if an extraordinary explanation - controlled demolition - for the collapses of the WTC buildings is discovered, there is no reason to think there was an extraordinary explanation for the controlled demolitions.
It's almost as if Chomsky is willing to draw a line in the sand and say, "This far and no further. I may have discovered something extraordinary, but that is no reason to think it needs an extraordinary explanation. There may be something extraordinary about the collapses of the WTC towers, but that is no reason to think there is an extraordinary explanation for that."
I should add that the fact that we have an innate universal grammar fit very well into Chomsky's political philosophy. To him this proved that we were not just tabula rasa, blank slates, that could be molded however the state wanted to mold us. We were somehow incorrigibly made in a certain way that guaranteed individual dignity.
However, it is not as clear to me that 9/11 "Truth" would fit as well into Chomsky's views. But then, I haven't studied his political philosophy.
12 comments:
While I'm not at all sure of this, I think one of the things you would find if you were to study his political..... arguments (I'm not sure he has a "political philosophy" proper) is that he's much more interested in how institutions function and change than he is in how particular good or bad actors affect things. I suspect this contributes a little to his disinterest in truther ideas. This explains one of his most controversial remarks (in a Q/A setting) about how "who cares" and how it wouldn't have any "significance" if it were proven true that Bush et al orchestrated 9/11. Similarly on JFK, he says something like: "People get shot all the time. So what if one of them was John F. Kennedy?" I think the idea here - expressed in a no doubt intentionally shocking way - is that while particular abuses come and go, long-term systems and institutions are the real locus of political power and interest, and should be the focus of activism. There was actually a recent piece in Slate somewhat relevant to this (although I've only skimmed it!):
http://www.salon.com/2014/04/23/noam_chomsky_was_right_why_the_koch_brothers_are_obscuring_the_real_enemy/
(I should note, my use of "disinterest" re: 9/11 is probably a little misleading, since he's given the topic far more time than have most people of his level of independent scientific and political respectability.)
I think Chomsky made clear somewhere that his "who cares" remark was in reference to who shot JFK, not about 9/11. But otherwise, I suspect your analysis is correct.
Incidentally the institutional point would be weaker in the case of 9/11, since 9/11 has been of great use to institutions in a way that the JFK assassination was not.
Although, since Chomsky thinks the use of 9/11 was illegitimate whether it was an inside job or not, even this might not make much of a difference to him.
The use of 9/11 to invade Iraq was certainly illegitimate. The case for invading Afghanistan is probably more debatable.
Often people who doubt the official JFK narrative think that our military was behind it, with the motive being to make sure that there would be a president who backed an escalation of the war in Vietnam. So in that sense, there is a parallel between the JFK and 9/11. Chomsky and others might argue that JFK would have escalated the war anyway, but I don't think we know either way for sure. If our military was behind the assassination (and I think they were), I suspect they didn't know either, but were afraid that their failure to get JFK to invade Cuba was a portent to what he would do in Vietnam.
Chomsky's work on the JFK/Vietnam issue is actually quite extensive, e.g. here (beginning in paragraph 4):
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199209--.htm
Interesting analysis. Peter Dale Scott responds to him in a book, but I couldn't find anything online in a brief attempt. I find it difficult to believe that JFK would have been willing to escalate U.S. forces from 16,700 to over 500,000. After all, this is the same guy who refused to approve air support for the Bay of Pigs invasion, which he had already approved.
On the other hand, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which many (including me) think was an Operation Northwoods type event, didn't occur until early August of 1964, quite a bit later than the assassination. I had though it occurred in January of '64, which would have meant that it was clearly in the works by the assassination. So now I would need to say that somehow the military already knew that they needed a false flag operation nine and a half months ahead of time. That seems more implausible.
Peter Dale Scott made an interesting observation here:
"Chomsky had no trouble perceiving as a “fraud” the Tonkin Gulf incidents that led the U.S. to attack North Vietnam, and the resulting Congressional resolution that had already been drafted some months in advance.[4] But he is not interested in the close analogies between the Tonkin Gulf incidents of 1964 and the 9/11 incidents of 2001, which were almost immediately followed by the Patriot Act, likewise already drafted well in advance. Chomsky argues that the 9/11 movement has drawn “enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism.”[5] But the strong analogies between the Tonkin Gulf deception and the 9/11 deception have energized and activated me, and not me alone."
I found this review" that claims that recent historical research has refuted Chomsky's thesis
If this article in the Nation is really based on notes from the actual times, as it implies, then there seems to be fairly good evidence that Chomsky's thesis is wrong.
And then there's Galbraith.
And Howard Jones.
Interesting articles. I may set aside some time to read through some of this debate. Chomsky has also continued to debate various points on the matter after the article I posted. E.g. here (from 2003/2004):
http://www.chomsky.info/letters/200312--.htm
Post a Comment