#9 — Final Thoughts On Chomsky
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
171.54256
Summary
In this episode of the Ask Me Anything podcast, I talk about my recent conversation with Noam Chomsky, and why I decided to publish it on my blog for all to see. I also talk about why I think the conversation was a failure, and what I learned about myself in the process of trying to have a civil conversation with one of the most influential thinkers in the world, and how I should have handled the situation differently. I hope you enjoy this short episode, and that it serves as a reminder of the importance of having conversations with people who hold very different points of view, so that we can be civil and productive in our discussions about things like U.S. foreign policy, racial and religious intolerance, and free speech. I don t want to be wrong for a moment longer than I need to be, and if my opponent is right about something, I can see that, and I will be very quick to admit it. I hope that you'll join me in this effort to be civil, productive, and thoughtful in our conversations, and to learn from the lessons that I learned from the experience of having a conversation with someone who holds a different point of view than yours. It's the most consequential problem that exists, apart from violence and other forms of coercion. And if we fail to do this, we will fail to get everything else of value we need to get, we won't get nearly as much as we do now, and we'll lose everything else we have to be a part of the conversation. I think of it as a conversation, not as a debate, but as a discussion, not a debate. You can't have a debate unless you're willing to change your mind, can you change it? and that's a conversation is the most important thing we can do, right? I don't know what you can do to change it. If you can't change it, then you're not going to get enough of it, and you're going to lose it or you don't have enough of what you need to do it, or you won't be able to change what you think you want to change, and it's not enough to be right about it, is it not enough? -- I'll tell you what I mean by losing the debate, or not enough, is the problem you're missing out on something you can change it or you're just not getting enough of something that you're trying to be better?
Transcript
00:00:00.000
I wanted to do another Ask Me Anything podcast, but I know I'm going to get inundated with
00:00:26.340
questions about my conversation with Noam Chomsky. So in order to inoculate us all against
00:00:31.700
that, or at least to make those questions more informed by my view of what happened there,
00:00:38.200
I want to do a short podcast just dealing with the larger problem, as I see it, of having
00:00:43.400
conversations of this kind. More and more, I find myself attempting to have difficult conversations
00:00:48.780
with people who hold very different points of view. And I consider our general failure to have
00:00:55.200
these conversations well, so as to produce an actual convergence of opinion and a general
00:01:01.400
increase in goodwill between the participants. I consider this the most consequential problem
00:01:06.380
that exists. Apart from violence and other forms of coercion, all we have is conversation with which
00:01:13.480
to influence one another. And the fact that it's so difficult for people to have civil and productive
00:01:19.460
discussions about things like U.S. foreign policy or racial inequality or religious tolerance and free
00:01:25.780
speech, this is profoundly disorienting. And it's also dangerous. If we fail to do this, we will fail
00:01:34.080
to get everything else of value. Conversation is our only tool for collaborating in a truly open-ended
00:01:42.500
way. So I've been experimenting by reaching out to people to have difficult conversations.
00:01:46.660
I recently did this with the Muslim reformer Majid Nawaz, which resulted in a short book entitled
00:01:52.380
Islam and the Future of Tolerance, which will be published in the fall. And as you'll read in that
00:01:56.500
book, this was not at all guaranteed to work. Majid and I had a very inauspicious first meeting.
00:02:03.180
But when I later saw the work he was doing, I reached out to him. And the resulting conversation is
00:02:07.140
one in which we made genuine progress. He opened my mind on several important points. And most important,
00:02:13.680
it was a genuine pleasure to show readers that conversation, even on very polarizing topics,
00:02:19.860
can occasionally serve its intended purpose, which is to change minds, even one's own. Now here I would
00:02:26.960
draw a distinction between a conversation and a debate. I mean, they're superficially similar when
00:02:33.000
the parties disagree. But to have one's mind changed in a debate is to lose the debate and very likely to
00:02:40.140
lose face before one's audience. Now this is an incredibly counterproductive way to frame any
00:02:46.040
inquiry into what is true. Now I've occasionally, I engage in public debates, but I've never approached
00:02:52.320
them like a high school exercise where one is committed to not changing one's view. I don't want
00:02:58.080
to be wrong for a moment longer than I need to be. And if my opponent is right about something and I can
00:03:03.040
see that, I will be very quick to admit it. So my dialogue with Majid was not a debate, really,
00:03:09.300
even though at times we are pushing rather hard against one another. It was rather a conversation.
00:03:16.340
And on the heels of that success, I decided to attempt a similar project with Noam Chomsky.
00:03:21.400
And the results of my failure are on my blog for all to see. Of course, many people understood exactly
00:03:27.000
what I was trying to do and why I published the exchange. And they apparently appreciated my efforts.
00:03:31.980
I tried to have a civil conversation on an important topic with a very influential thinker and I
00:03:39.700
failed. And I published the result because I thought the failure was instructive. But the whole purpose
00:03:46.180
was to extract something of value from what seemed like a truly pointless exercise. But that's not the
00:03:53.260
lesson that many readers took away from it. Many of you seem to think that the conversation failed
00:03:58.220
because I arrogantly challenged Chomsky to a debate, probably because I was trying to steal some
00:04:03.700
measure of his fame, and that I immediately found myself out of my depth. And when he devastated me
00:04:10.400
with the evidence of my own intellectual misconduct and my ignorance of history and my blind faith in
00:04:16.420
the goodness of the U.S. government, I complained about his being mean to me and I ran away.
00:04:21.140
Well, I must say, I find this view of the situation genuinely flabbergasted. Many of you seem to forget
00:04:28.800
that I published the exchange. You must think I'm a total masochist or just delusional. I know that
00:04:35.920
some of you think the latter. I heard from one person, I think it was on Twitter, who said,
00:04:40.440
Sam Harris reminds me of a little kid who thinks he's playing a video game and he thinks he's winning,
00:04:45.280
but his controller isn't actually plugged in. Now, I happen to love that metaphor. I'm just not so
00:04:51.320
happy to have it applied to me. But anyone who thinks I lost a debate here just doesn't understand
00:04:57.440
what I was trying to do or why, upon seeing that my attempt at dialogue was a total failure,
00:05:02.680
I bailed out. I really was trying to have a productive conversation with Chomsky.
00:05:07.900
And I encountered little more than contempt and false accusations and highly moralizing language.
00:05:13.880
I mean, accusing me of apologizing for atrocities and then weird evasions and silly tricks.
00:05:20.320
It was a horror show. Now, I concede that I made a few missteps. I should have dealt with
00:05:25.200
Chomsky's charges that I had misrepresented him immediately and very directly. They are,
00:05:30.180
in fact, tissue thin. I did not misrepresent his views at all. I simply said that he had not thought
00:05:36.640
about certain questions when I should have said he had thought about them badly. Those of you who
00:05:41.220
have written to tell me that what I did to Chomsky is analogous to what has been done to me
00:05:44.860
by people who actually lie about my views, you're just not interacting honestly with what happened
00:05:51.340
here. I did not misrepresent Chomsky's position on anything. And insults aside, he was doing
00:05:57.940
everything in his power to derail the conversation. And the amazing thing is that highly moralizing
00:06:03.500
accusations work for people who think they're watching a debate. They convince most of the audience
00:06:09.340
that where there's smoke, there must be fire. I mean, for instance, when Ben Affleck called me
00:06:14.160
and Bill Maher racist, that was all he had to do to convince 50% of the audience. But I'm sorry to
00:06:20.540
say it was the same with Chomsky. I can't tell you how many people I heard from who think that he
00:06:25.360
showed how ludicrous and unethical my concern about intentions was, for instance. He's dealing in the
00:06:31.880
real world, but all my talk about intentions was just a bizarre and useless bit of philosophizing.
00:06:37.040
But think about that for a second. Our legal system depends upon weighing intentions
00:06:41.980
in precisely the way I describe. How else do we differentiate between premeditated murder and
00:06:47.540
crimes of passion and manslaughter and criminal negligence and just terrible accidents for which
00:06:52.960
no one is to blame? Imagine your neighbor's house burns down and yours with it. What the hell
00:06:58.240
happened? Well, what happened has a lot to do with your neighbor's intentions. If he had a cooking fire
00:07:04.420
that got out of control, that's one thing. If he tried to burn down his own house to collect the
00:07:08.760
insurance payment, that's another. If he tried to burn down the whole neighborhood because he just
00:07:14.140
hates everyone, that's another. Intentions matter because they contain all the information about
00:07:21.300
what your neighbor is likely to do next. There's a spectrum of culpability here, and intention is its
00:07:27.600
very substance. Chomsky seems to think that he has made a great moral discovery in this area,
00:07:32.340
and that not intending a harm can sometimes be morally worse than intending one.
00:07:37.600
Now, I'm pretty sure that I disagree, but I would have loved to discuss it. I wasn't debating him
00:07:42.860
about anything. I was trying to figure out what the man actually believes. It's still not clear to me,
00:07:49.400
because he appeared to be contradicting himself in our exchange. But in response to my questions and
00:07:54.020
the thought experiments I was marshalling trying to get to first principles, all I got back were insults.
00:07:59.340
But worse, many people seem to think that these insults were a sign of the man's moral seriousness.
00:08:05.840
Many seem to think that belligerence and an unwillingness to have a civil dialogue
00:08:09.400
is a virtue in any encounter like this, and that simply vilifying one's opponent as a moral monster
00:08:16.440
by merely declaring him to be one is a clever thing to do. Now, despite what every Chomsky fan seems to
00:08:23.660
think, there was nowhere in that exchange where I signaled my unwillingness to acknowledge or to
00:08:28.760
discuss specific crimes for which the U.S. government might be responsible. The United States
00:08:33.800
and the West generally has a history of colonialism and slavery and of collusion with dictators and of
00:08:39.560
imposing its will on people all over the world. I have never denied this. But I'm hearing from people
00:08:45.880
who say things like, of course ISIS and al-Qaeda are terrible, but we're just as bad, worse even,
00:08:52.060
because we created them, literally. And through our selfishness and our ineptitude, we created millions
00:08:58.620
of other victims who sympathize with them for obvious reasons. We are, in every morally relevant
00:09:04.700
sense, getting exactly what we deserve. Well, this kind of masochism and misreading of both ourselves
00:09:11.380
and of our enemies has become a kind of religious precept on the left. I don't think an inability
00:09:17.220
to distinguish George Bush or Bill Clinton from Saddam Hussein or Hitler is philosophically or
00:09:23.380
politically interesting, much less wise. And many people, most even, who are this morally confused
00:09:29.620
considered Chomsky their patriarch. And I suspect that's not an accident. But I wanted to talk to him
00:09:36.140
to see if there was some way to build a bridge off this island of masochism so that these sorts of
00:09:42.040
people who I've been hearing from for years could cross over to something more reasonable.
00:09:48.540
And it didn't work out. The conversation, as I said, was a total failure, but I thought it was an
00:09:53.880
instructive one. So I don't know if that answers all the questions I'm going to get about the Chomsky
00:09:59.920
Affair. But when I put out a call for an AMA later this week, forgive me for moving on to other topics
00:10:08.020
because I don't think there's much more to say on this one. But I'm going to keep trying to have
00:10:13.360
conversations like this because conversations are only hope.