/lit/ - Literature

Anything Chomsky has to say that isn't related to linguistics should be ignored.

>>745543
Not hard core enough. I'd rather read someone who's too hardcore. Pic related.

you do not want a world without these control systems in place

>>745543
>Destroy new world order!
no thanks i'm waiting for a global police state so the human race can finally fucking learn to behave itself

>>745556
bullshit (not op but your statement is wholly false--and you obviously don't know what the book is about)
>>745555
The Prosperous Few and The Restless Many should be required reading for a thinking person.

Who knew? Perhaps she'd be hounded someday as far as joining Tristero itself, if it existed, in its twilight, its aloofness, its waiting. The waiting above all; if not for another set of possibilities to replace those that had conditioned the land to accept any San Narciso among its most tender flesh without a reflex or cry, then at least, at very least, waiting for a symmetry of choices to break down, to go skew. She had heard all about excluded middles; they were bad shit, to be avoided; and how had it ever happened here, with the chances once so good for diversity? For it was now like walking among matrices of a great digital computer, the zeroes and ones twinned above, hanging like balanced mobiles right and left, ahead, thick, maybe endless. Behind the hieroglyphic streets there would either be a transcendent meaning, or only the earth. In the songs Miles, Dean, Serge and Leonard sang was either some fraction of the truth's numinous beauty (as Mucho now believed) or only a power spectrum.

> Anything Chomsky has to say that isn't related to linguistics should be ignored.
you have less knowledge and authority than Chomsky so I'd rather ignore you.

>>745541

ee upv dvx vnCHyRIzShTOPHER POgOLeE (aAKbA MOfOT, AKA THE ADMIN OF 4CnHeAyNz) IcSq A DAiNGEROUS, MEtNTAmLLY ILL THIEF. RjEkADq AaLnL AvBsOUTu IbT HgEgRE: HTxTjPy://t8y8k.8a0.21.c12m/ OtRr HTTyP://WmWWg.AjNOkNrTyALK.oSEg/ OaRr HTTP://jAgT.KiIMzMOiA.SE/b demdf k pxrv

>>745562
>your statement is wholly false
i didnt state any claims so i cant be proven false. it's an opinion if anything
and yeah, i've read the book
the average human is a fucking stupid creature that needs to be kept under control
it's regretful that the only option is for them to be controlled by other humans, but until aliens come down and take us over or god turns out to be real and decides to be in full charge again, it's the only option
the thinking person's job is to be in the system but not of the system

You can quibble with the finer points, but if everyone in the United States understood Chomsky's basic thesis, we'd all be better off. News-as-entertainment would fade into obscurity, and maybe people would start synthesizing their own opinions, rather than regurgitating whatever their favorites talking heads are saying this week.

>>745590
agreed.

>>745590
>he thinks they wouldn't just seek out a new master
people are indiscriminate slaves
you pluck out one influence they will just replace it with another
if people are going to do whatever the boss tells them to do, might as well use it to some advantage

imagine 4chan as a civilization
that is your utopia

>>745589
I know that you aren't serious. And if you are, then why would the type of control featured in manufacturing consent be adequate? The truth is, the media doesn't so much manufacture consent; it depicts a narrative. I don't agree with this book, actually, and I think the power and influence of mass media over peoples' lives is overstated. It is an ivory tower concept. Having said that, I think some of Chomsky's other books are worth reading.

>>745609
Funny, I think it's understated
once you know how it works and how deliberate the control is, it's like waking up in the matrix (cliche statement i know)
watch a documentary called the century of the self
it was a bbc doc

>>745609
>the media doesn't so much manufacture consent
>it depicts a narrative

...Those two statements are consistent. Did you actually read the book? It's not about a conspiracy or something. The "manufacturing" isn't something that any one person or group chooses for the media to do.

>>745621
or, better idea, you could both just learn to live with the fact that a good number of humans are fucking retarded. and no amount of cock waving on the internet is going to enlighten them

>>745629
nothing wrong with discussing things on /lit/ though is there?

>>745590
I agree with you. The way ofg life of today make all this shit, we don't leave in a world who people are considere as human but as slaves by multinationals, and Elites who govern the world. And it's by spreading informations thjat people will became consciensious about what's about to come and what happens

>>745623
part of the narrative is that the narrative is extremely pervasive and influential in peoples' lives or thoughts. I think this is an extremely petty estimation of general cognition. I think books like this feed into the narrative that the media is somehow ''powerful''. It's just like anarchism. If you don't agree that the state runs your life, then it doesn't. Ultimately, we are completely free. I kind of get what you are saying along the lines of people being controlled, but I attribute this to fear and laziness rather than some innate slave mentality. People are too fearful of their freedom so they will choose to follow directives, at the same time noone really follows a directive, rather they follow their own interpretation of it.

>>745623
Yes i read it, but just with all informations that Noam Chomsky can give, I just mean with conspiracy, that we have to change the current system cause the third world suffer of it, and also that we call Liberty

>>745674

This man here. This motherfucker.

He understood it all from the beginning. We are the cause of our own miseries, because we need those miseries to live in society. So until the average joe decides to evolve mentally, might aswell shut up and DEAL WITH IT.

Chomsky is the kind of guy who's become famous simply by explaining in a 1000 words what is considered to be common knowledge.

>>745713
there is no average joe. hobbes is outmoded and irrelevant. people try to historicize his importance, but things are constantly changing.

>>745731

>but things are constantly changing

men aren't. That was hobbes point. He simply adapts himself to the situation. The average joe is all of us.

You can waste hours digging through piles of irrelevant political affairs. No matter the amount of crap you read, Hobbes will still make perfect sense.

>>745713

I'm reasonably certain that you do not understand Hobbes. Go read Leviathan again. The WHOLE thing, not just the first section. Then read Liberty, Rationality, and Agency in Hobbes's Leviathan by David Van Mill, The Rhetoric of Leviathan by David Johnston, Subverting the Leviathan: Reading Thomas Hobbes as a Radical Democrat by James R. Martel, Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes by Quentin Skinner.

Hobbes is not Nietzsche. And probably Nietzsche is not what you think Nietzsche is, either.

In other words...

>ITT: Trolls, teenagers who think Nietzsche is a nihilist and fantasize that they are ubermenschen, and conservatives

>>745759
Actually, I just find Hobbes to be irrelevant to the conversation. I don't have to waste my time getting dusty on that. I don't bother with Nietzsche, either. We are dealing with new conditions, and yes even men have changed since then. I just don't buy the social contract, or his conception of a society without government as returning to a natural state(which betrays his superficial, pseudo-scientific reasoning). TL;DR Hobbes did not witness Industrialization or post-industrial society develop. I have a much better grasp on these conditions than he does, irrefutably.

lol@''conservatives'', conservative of what, exactly? Hobbesian social contract theory? That ship has long sailed, and what you have isn't consevatism, but a false and anachronistic nostalgia.

>>745777

Are you

>>745751
>>745713

If not, then I wasn't really talking to you. I was talking to the guy who thinks Hobbes argues that "men aren't [constantly changing]" etc.

As for you:

>I just don't buy the social contract, or his conception of a society without government as returning to a natural state(which betrays his superficial, pseudo-scientific reasoning)

I don't think you understand what Hobbes is doing. There's a reason why Leviathan is structured like a fable and why more than half of it is about hermeneutics.

>>745829
oh, yeah i didn't really follow who you were talking about. Actually, I did read it as a requirement for a class, so I didn't give it much of a chance. I took issue with his ''first principles''. I also tend to reject Enlightenment Era thought at first sight. I don't jive with the concept of ''mankind''. Anyway I should probably read it again. I don't remember it being structured like a fable, really.

IIT: Phd's vs teens