Posted on 03/24/2011 4:55:12 AM PDT by EllisWashingtonReport
For years I have followed the controversial career of Noam Chomsky, MIT professor of Linguistics and prolific writer on political philosophy. A self-described "libertarian socialist," in my view an oxymoronic political philosophy, he summarizes as challenging all forms of authority and attempting to eliminate them if they are unjustified – for which the burden of proof is solely upon those who attempt to exert power.
Fifty years since publishing his work on transformational grammar, "Syntactic Structures" (1957), Chomsky is viewed as a demigod among the progressive left and a demagogue to the conservative right. According to reconstructed '60s radical David Horowitz's definitive article on Chomsky, this MIT professor is the patron saint of "the legions of '60s radicals who have entrenched themselves in American universities to indoctrinate students in their anti-American creeds. The New York Times calls Chomsky 'arguably the most important intellectual alive,' and Rolling Stone – which otherwise does not even acknowledge the realm of the mind – 'one of the most respected and influential intellectuals in the world.'"
His pioneering work in linguistics
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
You know as well as I do that there is a liberal, incestuous, love affair going on between liberals in academia and the literary world. I remember when I was a lot younger reading book reviews and other forms of literature where a particular lib would be awarded the genius label...by other liberals. When I finally realized that practically everyone in the literary world was a leftist-lib, it all made sense. That's why an idiot like Cornel West who spouts gibberish at every occasion is called a genius, and Thomas Sowell is virtually unknown to most Americans.
You’re welcome!
I miss William F. Buckley.
I'm convinced Chomsky's "success" (if that's what we'll call it) is from the fact that he speaks in measured tones, is grammatically correct, and can cite history. Each of his sentences on their own sound plausible. In sum - he learned early on to speak, and look like, an "academic."
His logic is absolutely convoluted though. Everything rests on completely unprovable leftist assumptions and the typical leftist cliches. In sum, his Leftism is his RELIGION.
You make an important point IMHO.
While individuals like Gandhi may have made historic achievements in their lives, it is important to keep in mind the fact that such accomplishments do not necessarily qualify them as infallible demi-gods whose every word on any subject must be taken as gospel wisdom.
I agree. Thanks for your comments!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.