He's 88, still mentally very sharp and probably moved there for the weather(aside from the great department filled with old students).
His work ethic is incredible, he spends 5 hours a day responding to emails from the public- I've received a detailed response every time I've sent one. The amount of time he spends engaging with even terribly misinformed(but well meaning) people is truly astounding, and unparalleled amongst public figures as far as I can tell.
Here's an example(https://www.reddit.com/r/chomsky/comments/6tz1xp/what_do_you...) of some random kid badgering Chomsky with emails, and he still takes the time out to respond to every one of his questions, even though he gets more than a hundred mails a day.
I think this reddit comment in here sums up my thoughts on reading that random kid post
"Dear mr. chomsky i realize you've been an MIT professor for 60 years. you've made significant contributions to many fields of studies including linguistics, history, computer science, and philosophy and you've debated with towering figures such as Michel Foucault, Hannah Arendt, Jean Piaget, etc... now can you please allow me to condescend to you while i quote Breitbart news about blacks?"
> he spends 5 hours a day responding to emails from the public
rms, another MIT "affiliate", is like this too, although many of his replies are brief. Whenever you see him cracking open his laptop while he's sitting on a panel waiting for his turn to speak, he's almost surely answering email.
Here are pictures of him answering email around the world:
Holy shit that link you shared was so frustrating to read. To think of all the productive things a great intellectual like Chomsky could be doing with his time. Instead he generously chose to engage someone who had already made their conclusion and just wanted to "debate" without actually ceding to any points (take a shot any time OP says "liberal" or "PC"). He even hints at OP's "intentional ignorance" many times too... What a patient soul to debate someone whose entire education on race issues was some /pol/ infographic and right-wing blogs. OP could have taken some time to read some pre-existing literature, to learn the opposing side's arguments and especially when corresponding with an academic, to read their prior writing. Instead we have this..... the state of public discourse on the web 2.0.
I don't know how mentally sharp you get to be called after endorsing Hugo Chavez despite a history of similar politicians with similar policies plunging otherwise strong countries into eternal, unhealing chaos.
I know he has lots of clout, and tremendous work ethic, but I really wouldn't say he's very sharp. If he is sharp, he doesn't seem all that wise; and if he is wise, he would be very cruel.
I suspect that when Chomsky dies, a burst of new and valuable linguistics research will arrive. I'm not saying I hope he dies soon. However, I think his current impact on the field is probably negative.
Chomsky has far less of a grip on the field than people outside it imagine. There are already lots of people doing research in linguistics that's fundamentally different in its approach. So I would not expect any very sudden sea change once Chomsky dies.
Note that the economist article is very badly informed. Since another poster didn't link directly to the relevant article on the 'facultyoflanguage' blog, here is a link:
> However, I think his current impact on the field is probably negative.
This is obvious if you look at other field "champions" such as Claude Lévi-Strauss in cultural anthropology. His admittedly invaluable contributions were followed by 50 years of stagnation. Granted I only studied it for a year but it was one of my reasons for not sticking with it.
I haven't read his political works but Noam Chomsky as a social phenomenon is interesting. His subject matter is often media and political manipulation and people who haven't read him often feel compelled by an entrenched, opposed political view to voice extremely strong opinions about his work. And they're doing this without any conscious irony.
World-renowned linguist and all people are talking about is his political views (mostly by his own design).
Make no mistake, Chomsky's work was significant to both linguistics proper (X-bar theory, generative grammar, universal grammar) and computer science (Chomsky hierarchy).
In recent years though he more often than not comes across as a grumpy old man who can't seem to accept the fact that linguistic theory has moved on to often simpler, more elegant approaches.
> linguistic theory has moved on to often simpler, more elegant approaches.
As a linguist, I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. There have always been alternative approaches. But we have not recently been blessed with any that are clear winners in terms of simplicity and elegance.
Chomsky is a great critic of social issues like imperialism, manufactured consent, and state capitalism. However he has been proved devastatingly wrong about Venezuela and as of today won't admit the problems with state socialism. I hope his new students realize this.
I'm not sure what you mean by how "he has been proved devastatingly wrong about Venezuela". When Chavez was first elected, Chomsky noted how the oil wealth of Venezuela was finally being shared beyond a small coterie of wealthy European descendants, and was now accessible to the poor and working class Venezuelans of various races. Then six years ago, Chomsky said in an open letter that the Venezuelan government was beginning to take measures that were an "assault on democracy" ( https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/03/noam-chomsky-h... ).
I don't know how Chomsky "has been proved devastatingly wrong about Venezuela". Do you think these two reactions he had to events in Venezuela were incorrect?
Insofar as human rights, Chomsky saw respect for them beginning to dip six years ago, and reacted accordingly. I should note that eight years ago, Honduras had its first left-leaning president in living memory ousted by a coup from US-trained, US-funded military officers, after which, the US stood alone being supportive of the coup against virtually all other Latin American nations. Actually Wikileaks cables show the US knew what was going on and how they supported this. Elections were scheduled for 2013 and dozens of candidates and supporters were killed. The murder rate of Honduras has exploded, as has immigration from it. You never hear it in the US news though, unless unaccompanied Honduran chidlren appear at the border, and then you never hear why, just arguments between the Trumpites and anti-Trumpites about what to do with them.
Insofar as Venezuela's economy, it has been similar to other economies heavily dependent on energy. Including the energy-dependent areas of the US economy that voted heavily for Trump. It is why Venezuelan minister Juan Pablo Perez Alfonzo helped found OPEC in 1960. Venezuela had decades of an up and down economy along with the price of oil before Chavez came along.
Is there some crucial factor in Venezuela's woes which clearly arises from socialism? It seems likely that the US will soon become the latest demonstration that corruption can damage a country with any form of government. Chomsky identifies that as the problem in Venezuela, which I find plausible.
> However he has been proved devastatingly wrong about Venezuela and as of today won't admit the problems with state socialism. I hope his new students realize this.
Doesn't the problems with state socialism result from being attack by state capitalism which tend to be much stronger nations?
The US and europe attacking venezuela and blaming their failures on state socialism is like blaming democracy for ukraine's loss of crimea. When larger nations bully smaller nations, smaller nations suffer.
We can never truly ascertain the merits of socialism, capitalism or any other ism really because it doesn't exist in a vacuum.
The chinese and their state socialism has been the most successful nation the past 40 years after the US decided to play nice with them.
He made some stupid comments about privatization in Brazil in the 1990s. He never lived here, he did not know the absolute mess that Brazil was before the tenure of president FHC. He seems to think that state bureaucracy, inefficiency, inflation, public spending and privileges of public servants are problems so minor that can be ignored.
Chomsky is intelligent and points real problems in USA and capitalism, but he is not infinitely intelligent and should not put the weight of his name in things that he does not have any first-hand experience, because it is damaging. Already some hard-left local people cite Chomsky and call it a day, along with the young lefties that think that Brazil was a paradise until the 1980s.
I'm not sure what you're referencing, but Chomsky has typically not been aligned with state socialism. I think typically it's viewed as another structure which uses it's position to maintain power.
Venezuela is very far from the government he prefers. In fact it's close to the exact opposite, since he's an an anarchist and vocal critic of Lenin and Stalin. He however supports the rights of Latin American countries to elect their own government over CIA backed dictators who privatise resources and funnel out a country's wealth.
The fact that social democratic countries in Latin America have overall had better development than extreme free market societies like haiti or pre-socialist Brazil is pretty widely accepted, dutch disease inflicted Venezuela notwithstanding.
An argument about socialism requires all parties to understand the actual definition of socialism. That is further than most peoples understanding of government.
Actually under Chavez a lot of improvements were made thanks to state socialism. Chomsky’s position in Venezuela currently is that it has a lot of problems, and he’s criticized the authoritative directions the government has taken, but he believes the US should be trying to help, and not start fires there.
He is not a great man. He is an intellectually dishonest enabler of repressive leftist governments. He was a well known supporter of Hugo Chavez - perhaps the only leader in the Americas dumber than Trump. I'm embarrassed at how many of my fellow techies have fallen under Chomsky's sway.
Does anybody else find these sorts of discussions to be just fundamentally cringey as hell? On both sides. Stuff like "We agree mainstream black culture is terrible."
Like I don't think either would have the guts to say that in front of a black person.
Six years ago Chomsky wrote an open letter that said actions Hugo Chavez were taking were an "assault on democracy". How exactly is that "torturing the data to make Hugo Chavez sound like a good leader"? When Chavez was elected and freed the oil money of Venezuela from the hands of a small, corrupt, European-descendant aristocracy, being shared with poor and working class Venezuelans of all races, Chomsky was enthusiastic. Six years ago, when the government began taking actions that Chomsky thought were anti-democratic and authoritarian, Chomsky was critical.
As a UofA grad I can tell you the hippies down there are going to go absolutely apeshit. The university is half Rob Gronkowski and half Cesar Chavez. The Gronks all leave after school but the Cesar's all stick around the university and think, act, and look like Noam. He'll fit right in.
[+] [-] otalp|8 years ago|reply
His work ethic is incredible, he spends 5 hours a day responding to emails from the public- I've received a detailed response every time I've sent one. The amount of time he spends engaging with even terribly misinformed(but well meaning) people is truly astounding, and unparalleled amongst public figures as far as I can tell.
Here's an example(https://www.reddit.com/r/chomsky/comments/6tz1xp/what_do_you...) of some random kid badgering Chomsky with emails, and he still takes the time out to respond to every one of his questions, even though he gets more than a hundred mails a day.
[+] [-] swaggyBoatswain|8 years ago|reply
"Dear mr. chomsky i realize you've been an MIT professor for 60 years. you've made significant contributions to many fields of studies including linguistics, history, computer science, and philosophy and you've debated with towering figures such as Michel Foucault, Hannah Arendt, Jean Piaget, etc... now can you please allow me to condescend to you while i quote Breitbart news about blacks?"
[+] [-] jordigh|8 years ago|reply
rms, another MIT "affiliate", is like this too, although many of his replies are brief. Whenever you see him cracking open his laptop while he's sitting on a panel waiting for his turn to speak, he's almost surely answering email.
Here are pictures of him answering email around the world:
https://rms.sexy/
I call this one, "The Birth of Emacs": http://stallman.org/photos/rms-working/pages/13.html
[+] [-] cooper12|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marmaduke|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] microcolonel|8 years ago|reply
I know he has lots of clout, and tremendous work ethic, but I really wouldn't say he's very sharp. If he is sharp, he doesn't seem all that wise; and if he is wise, he would be very cruel.
[+] [-] fatjokes|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rhaps0dy|8 years ago|reply
>he spends 5 hours a day responding to emails from the public
Since I read Deep Work, I think these phrases contradict each other. You don't do original, interesting work when replying emails.
[+] [-] jtraffic|8 years ago|reply
My theory derives from these sources: https://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21695371-theor... (Chomsky's recent theory of how language evolved has not been accepted favorably), and
http://www.nber.org/papers/w21788 (this happens a lot)
[+] [-] foldr|8 years ago|reply
Note that the economist article is very badly informed. Since another poster didn't link directly to the relevant article on the 'facultyoflanguage' blog, here is a link:
http://facultyoflanguage.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/it-never-end...
[+] [-] gboudrias|8 years ago|reply
This is obvious if you look at other field "champions" such as Claude Lévi-Strauss in cultural anthropology. His admittedly invaluable contributions were followed by 50 years of stagnation. Granted I only studied it for a year but it was one of my reasons for not sticking with it.
[+] [-] droidist2|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] imminentviolet|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] justin66|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BjoernKW|8 years ago|reply
Make no mistake, Chomsky's work was significant to both linguistics proper (X-bar theory, generative grammar, universal grammar) and computer science (Chomsky hierarchy).
In recent years though he more often than not comes across as a grumpy old man who can't seem to accept the fact that linguistic theory has moved on to often simpler, more elegant approaches.
[+] [-] foldr|8 years ago|reply
As a linguist, I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. There have always been alternative approaches. But we have not recently been blessed with any that are clear winners in terms of simplicity and elegance.
[+] [-] em3rgent0rdr|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] balance_factor|8 years ago|reply
I don't know how Chomsky "has been proved devastatingly wrong about Venezuela". Do you think these two reactions he had to events in Venezuela were incorrect?
Insofar as human rights, Chomsky saw respect for them beginning to dip six years ago, and reacted accordingly. I should note that eight years ago, Honduras had its first left-leaning president in living memory ousted by a coup from US-trained, US-funded military officers, after which, the US stood alone being supportive of the coup against virtually all other Latin American nations. Actually Wikileaks cables show the US knew what was going on and how they supported this. Elections were scheduled for 2013 and dozens of candidates and supporters were killed. The murder rate of Honduras has exploded, as has immigration from it. You never hear it in the US news though, unless unaccompanied Honduran chidlren appear at the border, and then you never hear why, just arguments between the Trumpites and anti-Trumpites about what to do with them.
Insofar as Venezuela's economy, it has been similar to other economies heavily dependent on energy. Including the energy-dependent areas of the US economy that voted heavily for Trump. It is why Venezuelan minister Juan Pablo Perez Alfonzo helped found OPEC in 1960. Venezuela had decades of an up and down economy along with the price of oil before Chavez came along.
[+] [-] AlexCoventry|8 years ago|reply
https://www.democracynow.org/2017/4/5/chomsky_leftist_latin_...
[+] [-] eighthnate|8 years ago|reply
Doesn't the problems with state socialism result from being attack by state capitalism which tend to be much stronger nations?
The US and europe attacking venezuela and blaming their failures on state socialism is like blaming democracy for ukraine's loss of crimea. When larger nations bully smaller nations, smaller nations suffer.
We can never truly ascertain the merits of socialism, capitalism or any other ism really because it doesn't exist in a vacuum.
The chinese and their state socialism has been the most successful nation the past 40 years after the US decided to play nice with them.
[+] [-] epx|8 years ago|reply
Chomsky is intelligent and points real problems in USA and capitalism, but he is not infinitely intelligent and should not put the weight of his name in things that he does not have any first-hand experience, because it is damaging. Already some hard-left local people cite Chomsky and call it a day, along with the young lefties that think that Brazil was a paradise until the 1980s.
[+] [-] Crye|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] otalp|8 years ago|reply
The fact that social democratic countries in Latin America have overall had better development than extreme free market societies like haiti or pre-socialist Brazil is pretty widely accepted, dutch disease inflicted Venezuela notwithstanding.
[+] [-] Bud|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] azaras|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Frogolocalypse|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Synaesthesia|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] avip|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swiftting|8 years ago|reply
Great man.
[+] [-] umanwizard|8 years ago|reply
If everywhere south of the Gila River (i.e., the Gadsden Purchase) became its own state, it would be deep blue.
[+] [-] y0ssar1an|8 years ago|reply
http://www.noticias24.com/actualidad/noticia/77779/hugo-chav...
[+] [-] tlively|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EternalData|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] otalp|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notadoc|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shkibb|8 years ago|reply
Like I don't think either would have the guts to say that in front of a black person.
[+] [-] sctb|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ArialAnemone|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] y0ssar1an|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] balance_factor|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GirlsCanCode|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] klarrimore|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Hasknewbie|8 years ago|reply
So they are low-key, patient, and make thorough, very detailed responses when debating?