He's like a caricature of the problem with academia. Very articulate and well-spoken. Can make an argument sound good. However, he lacks any sort of real life experience. Academics who are like Chomsky are an issue because their arguments sound credible and intelligent, and they sell a position well, even if it's a totally stupid position.

Chomsky is relatively moderate compared to some of the more recent academics in the next generation, but the same general principle (being a salesman rather than a practitioner with real world experience) is responsible for the more stupid trends coming out of modern universities- it's the reason why Marxist philosophies have any shred of credibility at all.

In Chomsky's case his knowledge is vast, but it is superficial in the areas of philosophical thought which have led to human advancement. Namely, the sciences and quantitative disciplines. He is a shallow philosopher with a wide breadth of knowledge but no substance to back it up. The same is true of most Marxist philosophers, which is not a shock as Marxism itself is a shallow philosophy and functions like a regressive anti-science cult rather than a bastion of critical thought. As Antifa (and their allies) have demonstrated, this is especially true when taken to extremes.

Sometimes a little knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge. At least with the latter, intelligent people are prone to understand their limitations.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2017 09:26PM by istirith.