Chomsky Eats Harris for Breakfast

My Response to a podcast that features a discussion between Chomsky and Harris:

Sam Harris, incapable of engaging intelligently in Noam's arguments, and unwilling to try because any attempt at articulating a rational response would prove him to have been at best sentimental in regard to his obsession with intentions as a determinant of moral character, resorts instead, repeatedly, to admonishing Noam Chomsky to talk nice. In so doing Harris reveals himself as incapable of argument period: his request for courtesy is predicated upon the fallacy that every opinion has a de facto value. Such a belief obviates any kind of rational thinking, any search for truth. Chomsky actually discusses issues. Harris’ only subliminal intention (lol) is to establish that his opinion registered in the argument; whether or not his argument was triumphant or significant is not the point, recognition is. ‘Being heard’.

Harris is that kind of shallow narcissist whose failure to imagine that his opinion might not deserve respect demonstrates one of the key destructive elements of today’s society. The supposition that all opinions deserve to be validated by a tempered statement indicating that the opinion has been understood forces an emphasis on style rather than content.

Harris rejects the lifeblood of the dialectical process. He does not belong in the same ether as Chomsky.

The point of defending a conviction is to prove oneself right. Unless another person can convey an argument so good in proving its accuracy that it supplants one’s own there is no possibility of respecting the point of view that person has.

Convictions are hard won. They are the summa of a search for truth, for a description of something that is real. It is social convention that decrees that one proffer a synthetic salute to the other’s opinion. What is more significant is that since justifications of relativism have been tolerated, it has become legitimate, it is now pseudo legitimate, to respect and thus validate, at least in the sense of legitimizing the existence of, a conviction with which one disagrees. The distinction between the right to have an opinion and the notion that if that’s so, then there must be something, something (!) valuable about it. It must deserve to be engaged with. De facto, by virtue of its existence. This bastardization of language, this semantic debacle, is both a symptom and a cause of the frustrating and destructive lack of clarity, of sanity, with which we now live. The ability to solve problems has become vestigial. We do not seek agreement-instead we posit the legitimacy of oxy morons. We state, by so doing, that ideas have no value. We state, by so doing, that comparing notes in order to test our perceptions of the world has no value.

Fear of being misunderstood leads me to make this summation:

I am an advocate for the dialectical system. This presupposes, or rather, this means, that I am eager to engage in discussions. I am eager to hear arguments from those who disagree with me. My point is that I do not assume that the argument has merit. It must be defended. Just as I must defend my opinions, I expect others to defend their opinions. The subject being discussed is significant because it exists. The respective opinions about the subject are not. It’s very binary. We don’t need to prove anything about ourselves. We are concerned with the fate of our species, we are concerned with all of the permutations of existence, because they matter to human life. To postulate that reassuring others, or seeking it, one is exemplifying decency, is to postulate that the individual psychological profile needs to take center stage, at the risk of pursuing ideas. When we do that, we sabotage what is implicit, that we each, having understood by means of the imperatives of consciousness itself that we have commonalities and seek solutions. By shifting energy away from seeking solutions by means of argument, we destroy hope. We elevate ourselves and destroy the whole. We practice hubris, we fly into the sun, we become the agents of the petty, the superficial, the mediocre, and the damned.

It is also innately patronizing to bring courtesy forward while meaning takes a back seat. It’s not that courtesy is not important, it’s that it’s very importance is a function of meaning. Putting the feelings or sensitivities of a verbal adversary before the content of what the person is talking about insults them. It presumes that the person is presenting us with the position that his own needs are more important than ideas.

I guess I could say that I see myself as having inherent respect for all people. I don’t want to debase them by making sure they know. Discussion is valuable, argument is crucial, and seeking to understand one another is about the subject one is discussing, not about whether we are liked or respected or heard. It can be challenging to be heard, to be taken seriously, to feel contributive. It is our task, individually and severally, to build a society in which people develop the strength of character to value their own convictions, the ability to defend them, and the courage to change them.