Noam Chomsky's statement on killing of Osama bin Laden

[cfabel]

Regarding the "sketchyness" of "Liberalism, of course you're right,  people
adapt the term to their purposes. But they would not be understood unless
the uses were similar sufficiently, had what Wittgenstein termed sufficient
"family resemblances." Right now the literature identifies 5 coherent,
consistent groups of uses; so confusing enough, but manageable in
conversation and certainly in journals, etc. The thing about overloading the
term is that historically, politically at least, the trajectory of discourse
on liberalism was meant to develop, and was intended as, a philosophy.  But
that aside, it's very difficult to judge behavior absent some assumptions
about human nature, the nature of "reality," the role of society in human
affairs, etc.; a philosophy, as minimal or tacit as it may be. 

Regarding "smithereening" villages, there are empirical reasons to believe
that "conservatives" are less concerned significantly with human suffering
and the harm caused by political decisions than are "liberals." There is
much speculation on the reasons in the literature, but some conservative
thinkers have confirmed as much.  

Regarding prisons and compounds, only after we get the occupants out,
regardless of thei particular roles? 

C. F. Abel
Chair
Department of Government
Stephen F. Austin State University
Nacogdoches, Texas 75962
(936) 468-3903




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On Behalf
Of Richard Ryan
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 2:33 PM
To: Joseph Tracy
Cc: pynchon-l at waste.org
Subject: Re: Noam Chomsky's statement on killing of Osama bin Laden

One shouldn't blow up villages; one should blow up prisons and compounds -
especially compounds with tyrants or terrorists lurking inside.


On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> Also liberalism is a sketchy word, And what is progressive? It all gets
vague fast.  Liberal has the long standing meaning of generous, willing to
share, kind. Adding ism and trying to make that an elaborate political
philosophy has seriously overloaded the carrying capacity of a word. These
terms get defined, redefined, watered down, elaborated, and filled with a
fair amount of shit to where the there is no shared consensus of meaning.
> One thing I s for damn sure. It is no better to have your village blown to
smithereens by a Liberal, than by any other asshole.
> On May 16, 2011, at 11:57 AM, Joseph Tracy wrote:
>
>>
>> My question, as far as the isms issue is whether there is substantial
evidence that Chomsky ascribes to some grand ism. I have never gotten that
sense from reading him over the years. He seems to be a pragmatic socialist
with a strong commitment to basic freedoms and the equal application of law.
Is it "utopian" to think we can have a world without a dominant empire that
steals most of the resources?
>
>
>



--
Richard Ryan
New York and the World
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Thanks to all who saw VTM's new production!
"Brilliant!";"Superb!" - NYTheatre-wire.com www.kingstheplay.com