intelligence flaw - Chomsky

intelligence flaw - Chomsky [+ favourites]

I'm not so sure what I'm discussing here is an intelligence flaw precisely , but a flaw in people who admire intelligence as one of the traits to be admired the most. Or whether its good to be seen as intelligent.

With this characteristic of personality comes the trait of trying to offer an alternative viewpoint, which is good as long as that 'view' - point is exactly that and not a 'stand' - point.

I learned this trait back at school when I noticed how the 'outsider' kids formed their own groups. I remember asking several why they did this and the general view was something like: 'cant you see that you all dress, act and do the same; its so boring'. I took their point; it was valid. But then I noticed that the outsiders formed their own identity, which was ironic to their said intentions. The cause of their intentions was actually rejection; as harsh as that sounds. I found it sad as to what actually happened; but that is a fact of life and it has to be learned. What I wished for, and practiced myself, was to stay in the mainstream and compete IN it, rather than outside it, and when something was rejected, stand by your point until you win. What I learned was that every group was carved by leaders, externally through music or fashion, or internally through character. I learned quickly that this was the way and to stick within the mainstream. Only recently have I reflected on this and conciously acknowledged this. Its your choice to believe me or not.

To refer back to the title, I mean when the usual, mundane, or traits of an environment, such as democracy in America, is understood by the person who sees themselves as intelligent, they look for other avenues of thought. These avenues of thought gradually distance themselves from the environment in which they are accustomed until eventually they seek a different, unknown, environment, and are subconciously backing that more than the obvious.

I am referring mostly to Americans who live in America who go against their governments actions. Sometimes these are sound. Sometimes they are not. Always be try to stay objective; stick with facts, and don't side with anti-Americanism, or an -ism, for then you are not intelligent; you're just as bad as that which you fight against but with the added cost of secluding yourself from the majority. This thought came from reading Chomsky, and I 'feel' the same patterns of thought by increasing posts on this forum. Chomsky, who is the master of this, is basically an anti-American living in America; if i could waken him up and his followers with a big reality stick I would. That said he does have some good things to say, which is why I've read what he has to say - the point is to read the lines as well as in-between the lines. And remember this; we are still human and still fundamentally live by human laws, which are different to those we have in civilised society. In fact, to create a civilised society, this must be acknowledged and understood first.

""No words""
[  Edited by heyjme1 at   ]

quote:

---

I am referring mostly to Americans who live in America who go against their governments actions. Sometimes these are sound. Sometimes they are not.

---

quote:

---

if i could waken him up and his followers with a big reality stick I would.

---

"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge. Stephen Hawking"

And how exactly do you define anti-American(ism) Hyjme?

Is anti-American anti the culture itself, or its politics and hence
Government?

Should Americans be viewed in solidarity with their Leaders?

And finally how would you define being pro-American?

To heed your warning of avoiding isms and what not, could you specify what you see as traits of these isms and what you feel are sound arguments against the government and which are not?

Traits of isms:

Simply, isms come about where opinions are set about some fact, where the fact is itself brought out to support the theory. There are two things you can ask when seeing if someone is telling you something that will help you or become your enemy. The two questions lie in the intent behind the philosophy: is a person wishing to educate or eliminate or build or destroy?

Anti-Americanism, which is what Chomsky stands behind, we can see why he likes it. He has shown that America has used pawns to rule, to use others to build itself. Americanism is an ism therefore that is itself eliminating, but with the goal to build. Anti-Americanism on the face of it tis a good thing, it educates us of the 'truth' and then aims to build societies. Time and time again, idealists will want for peace. And time and time again, history has shown that unless a nation is powerful in this world it will be beaten by an uprising.

As far as picking out a best of a bad world; I side with the American side, rather than the anti-americanism side because it at least has glimmers of hope. We have freedom of information; we are able to keep a check of ourselves, we have the ability to stay within less confines and explore science and technology with less censorship. Just ask would you rather live in America (I'm British- and choose to stay here) or live elsewhere?

Chomsky reveals understanding. He showed that the cause of the September 11th attacks was justified from the perspective of terrorists. Truth is, the real law underlying this lies in the philosophy of men. You kill someone's son or father and there will be a rebuttal. We do not have to accept this for ourselves, but if we are wise, we must accept this for others. And this is where Chomsky falls short. He has the vision of a eutopia; where we can all live without war. Where we can all call ourselves together and suggest our cause together to explore beyond our own greed. But we are not there yet; and as a result of this; we have to look inward to protect ourselves. In much the same way we build houses and streets to keep out beasts (e.g. wolves). From the perspective of the wolf impinging on their freedom; our protection in some cases keeps the population of wolves down. Its the same with Iran really. We could suggest that they have a greater moral position than our own. Or we could suggest that it is us using propoganda. They don't have nuclear capabilities or , if they do, they will only use it for nuclear energy. The question really is, even if we predit that this is highly unlikely, are we willing to take this risk, given the consequences? I can't really say the same with issues that are going on in Africa, I will think this over, or perhaps you can enlighten me there?

Chiron, to answer your question of what is anti-americanism, we first look to the cause of this is understanding; the 'other' side of the equation and empathisizing with it. But anti-Americanism as a principle, rather than opposing the 'black bits' in the culture. It becomes a problem when the solutions which we seek destroy rather than build nations, slashing away anything that has been built, only to eventually, degrade before building once again. It happened with the fall of the most educated societies in Greece and it will happen again. Fascism, I'm afraid is a fact, what we have to do is chip away at it, but not at the cost of killing ourselves off in the process. To be pro-American is to take pride in what you have been born into. To be an effective globalist, or humanitarian we can only first start with ourselves, personally, rather than casting the blame at someone else;

What would I awaken them too?

The simple laws of nature that operate underneath the principles they hold, which they already know.

""No words""

Ah, for clarity, it would seem, I am required to ask more clear questions.

What do you feel chomsky, and any others you wish to name, are saying or doing that is anti american?

I'm used to the term anti-american to mean something like the personal feeling, or the outward spreading of hate towards and the desire to destroy america, perhaps even to harm or kill americans, from without or within. This does include dissagreement with or dissapointment in or even justifiable stance of self defense from.

There is a huge difference between this and being against very specific policies, actions, and or members of a government at any given time or period of time.

quote:

---

Its the same with Iran really. We could suggest that they have a greater moral position than our own. Or we could suggest that it is us using propoganda. They don't have nuclear capabilities or , if they do, they will only use it for nuclear energy. The question really is, even if we predit that this is highly unlikely, are we willing to take this risk, given the consequences?

---

"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge. Stephen Hawking"
[  Edited by Ironwood at   ]