Introductory
summary by Ted Honderich of Noam Chomsky’s Royal Institute of Philosophy Annual
Lecture
SIMPLE
TRUTHS, HARD PROBLEMS: SOME THOUGHTS ON TERROR, JUSTICE, AND SELF-DEFENCE
Noam Chomsky has for 52 years been
the unique shaper of the science of linguistics. He has for 45 years been the
greatest intellectual of the Left. Born in Philadelphia, he is, as I and others
say, now at the head of American Jewish thinkers and scientists, maybe all
American thinkers and scientists. His work in linguistics is also a
contribution to the philosophy of mind, in particular a proof of what once were
called innate ideas and a refutation of functionalism as well as the
behaviourism that preceded it. His lecture here is itself philosophical in its
line of argument.
That argument is that there are
reasons for judgement against our democracies and a compliant intellectual
class, reasons that are not only truths. They are simple and available truths. The main one is that there are obvious
inconsistencies with respect to the democracies and the class, obvious offences
against universality, hence failings that in effect deprive our democracies and
compliance with them of reasons, since reasons are of their nature general. If
you think or say both of the propositions p
and not-p your final failure is not a
falsehood. It is that you think and say nothing. You have no thought.
There are other simple truths. One
is that facts matter. In particular, no sense can be made or reflection carried
forward productively in denial or ignorance of history, say of American support
and instigation of terrorism in South America. For me, I guess there is also
the truism that typical pronouncements of our democratic leaders carry no
information, even in the technical sense familiar in linguistics. For me, there
is a truism too about the financing of suffering, and other truisms about
defence, including so-called anticipatory self-defence. Also, implicit if not
explicit in the lecture, there is the proposition that there are known wrongs
that can precede any general theory of right and wrong -- and must shape the
construction of any principle of right and wrong.
Given the inconsistencies of our
democracies and their intellectuals and ourselves, you do not necessarily have
to engage in further thinking, say the forming and defending of such a
principle, in order to judge our democracies and those who serve them. You do
not have to spend time with the Total Happiness Principle -- Utilitarianism. Or
the circularity of conservative principles of fairness in the sense of desert
or retribution or what is earned or owed. Or the question-begging deriving of
John Rawls's principles of justice. Or the 'principle' that everybody and all
states serve their own interest, so depended on by the state of Israel that
denies Chomsky admission to it. You do not necessarily need to spend time, as I
have, on the principle of humanity: that we must take all and only rational
means to the end of getting and keeping people out of bad lives, these defined
plainly in terms of fundamental human desires.
The simple truths make for a
response to what may be taken as hard problems, respected as such. They are in
fact problems without solutions, problems owed to the abandoning of
universality. One is the problem of understanding terrorism without allowing
that we have long been engaged in it. Another is the problem of defensibly
defining international crime or offences against human rights in accord with
the intention to limit them to the actions and policies of the other side.
To defend universality and
consistency and to defend the imperative of facts, I say myself, is to do what
is more valuable than Descartes's 'I think, therefore I am', or Hume's
declaration that each of us espies no inner self as distinct from the unity
that is our ongoing conscious existence, or the physicist Lichtenberg's smaller
dictum to put beside and against Descartes' -- 'I think, therefore there is
thinking going on'.
Still, I would not agree that time
spent on clarifying and defending a general principle of right and wrong is not
time well spent. To demonstrate inconsistency, if wonderfully valuable, is in
fact to leave open which of two things is right, at any rate to leave it only
assumed or implicit. To eschew a general principle also may be to put in some
doubt your own consistency, and to be more uncertain what is to be added to a
list of implicit wrongs.
But you will not need telling that
these words of mine on Chomsky are those of an ally, admirer of his work and
independence and personal courage, and friend. Your obligation is to test his
words for logic and fact. The obligation of actually thinking is another moral
truism. Think your way through the lecture and look at a book or two or three
of the very many of his behind it. Say Necessary
Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies or Power and Terror: Post-9/11 Talks and Interviews, or How the World Works. Or make some other
choice from the long, long list at the end of the best guide to them, the
linguist Neil Smith's Chomsky: Ideas and
Ideals, mainly on the linguistics.