Noam Chomsky's 9/11 and The Doctrine of Good Intentions & The Doctrine of Good Intentions

Michelle Mecca, Cristal Aniceto & Tarek Rahman

…In the Name of Democracy

"The noble lie will inform them that they are better than those they serve and it is, therefore, their responsibility to guard and protect those lesser than themselves." Plato's Republic

It is undoubtedly part of our human nature to care for others, but have we gone too far? Throughout history, many mistakes have been made in the name of democracy. Vainly desiring to assist countries who haven't asked for help, America, for example, has a history that is dedicated to bringing democracy and independence to suffering peoples.

Democracy as defined by Webster’s dictionary is a form of government exercised either directly by the people, or through their elected representatives, and/or rule by majority, but what is explained by Chomsky is the polar opposite of what Is contained in that definition.

Question to focus on:

Is any other way of establishing a democracy (other than that of the peoples own free will) counterproductive/contradictory of democracy’s main goal?

In 9/11 and The Doctrine of Good Intentions, Noam Chomsky is Calling for URGENT reaction (EXPLAINATION) to the “threat of another Hiroshima”, Chomsky’s BASES HIS ARGUMENT AROUND the main idea that:

“…Washington’s primary role in accelerating the race to destruction by extending its historically unique military dominance, coupled with policies of aggressive militarism, both in word and in deed, that are virtually an invitation to disaster.” All of those ideas directly in conflict with the goal of democracy.

Chomsky delves into the tragedy of September 11^th by exploiting historical evidence all supporting reasoning as to how/why September 11^th occurred; including Historical evidence from countries all over the map such as: Japan, Germany, England, and the United States. According to Chomsky, these countries all shared the same fate by blindly and forcefully offering “help” to people’s who did not have the resources to be helped, nor the desire to be helped in the ways deemed correct by the more powerful country.

Through Righteous exceptionalism, these countries took it upon themselves to take action to “selflessly bear[ing] the costs of bringing peace and justice to the world” by forcefully instituting changes to foreign people’s lives under the premises that they were taking the morally sound and justified actions.

The main idea that helped us understand the title and validate Chomsky’s argument is Wilsonian Idealism and sober realism, before taking action, one (a country) must base their action on noble intentions and one must realize the limitations of our good intentions. By working strictly under these premises, there is no room for error or exploitation of another human being for personal benefit.

The United States Government declared war on Iraq, but do we even know why? Was it because they had weapons of mass destruction? Because they had ties with Al Queda and 9/11? --- AFTER engaging in military action and finding out none of questions had a black or white answer, the president stayed in the war for reasons of spreading democracy and overthrowing a violent regime.

We can sit in long debates trying to justify any war, but to what extent can it be for the good of a nation and its citizens to go to war or become the target of war. Under Nazi rule, Germany caused horrific crimes against Jews in the name of “saving the world from ‘annihilation’ by the ‘indifferent mass’.” England ruled over India and China, justified in the name of bringing peace and justice. America justifies going to war in its philosophy by bringing democracy and independence.

Are all in the name of “Good intentions”?

An interesting blog posted by the self proclaimed “shrewd investigator” offers to put ALL of what Chomsky is saying into perspective using events occurring up to today’s date, and he also analyzes the historic quote from Plato’s Republic, showing how it still holds true thousands of years later. http://theshrewdinvestor.net/?p=426

Historical evidence some may have forgotten or do not know

1. Bosnia ; A war for the difference of religion… Which side to take? Could it have triggered 9/11 ?

http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=1985

http://www.srpska-mreza.com/Bosnia/igniting-Bosnia.html

2. Somalia; For the good of the hungry? Somalia is a war that no one wants to touch...

http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/us-wages-food-war-against-somalia

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7422

Questions to consider :

- Historically, do you believe aggression was portrayed as self-defense to promote conformity? Was this tactic successful and/ or temporarily successful for the aggressor?

- Is any other way of establishing a democracy (other than that of the peoples own free will) counterproductive/contradictory of democracy’s main goal?

-Do you believe that democracy is beneficial enough to be forced onto historically un-democratic societies?

-Has the human race learned anything from our history, or are we doomed to keep repeating the same mistakes?

-Do you agree with Chomsky suggesting the educated class is to blame for war crimes/ should they be going to trial?

-Was Saddam Hussein really a defenseless target?

-Was the Vietnam war worth fighting for?

-Are the poor inherently ignorant?

-Who should pay for the death of so many innocent civilians/ will anyone ever pay?

Happiness After September 11

Welcome to the desert of the real!

Nathaniel Smith and Carolina Nunez


We were having some difficulties understanding what this reading had to do with 9/11. Zizek didn’t really delve into the 9/11 topic until the third section of the book which is not covered in this reading, but after doing some research and external reading I came across an explanation of this piece by Natasa Kovacevic, an English student at the university of Florida. If anyone is interested in understanding it better you can read this article athttp://www.politicsandculture.org/2009/10/02/the-obscene-underside-of-liberal-democracy-slavoj-zizek-natasa-kovacevic/

Happiness per Merriam-Webster:
: A state of well-being and contentment: a pleasurable or satisfying experience

Happiness After September 11, when reading this title our minds automatically start traveling across a path full of nothing but pain, sadness, hopelessness and of course vengeance!!! Nevertheless, as we read this article we found ourselves being informed; within many other things, about happiness, Fascism and The Land Before Time. Thus I recommend that when reading this article it is better for one to forget about its title and get ready for a reading full of randomness used to explain several topics throughout the article.

            In Happiness After September 11, Žižek creates a logical relationship between Happiness and Knowledge. To his opinion Knowledge is the seed of lack of Happiness; he explains that “knowledge ultimately makes us unhappy”. In a society where we are born and raised under the motto “Knowledge is Power” (at least in my case), this statement by Žižek creates controversy. How can knowledge lead to unhappiness when this one is consider to be power and power have (throughout history) lead to the happiness of the men and women who possess it? The statement is somewhat contradictory. Yet we do know that in many cases the curiosity of knowing have created major scars (emotionally/psychologically) in the lives of many of us.

            Think of knowledge and happiness and I’ll invite you to read about Sophocles, Oedipus the King. How is it possible that a story wrapped around knowledge falls into the genre of Tragedies? In Oedipus The King we find the main character; Oedipus, being submerged in unhappiness, shame and suffering after learning that he was the murderer of his father, husband and son to his mother and father and brother to his children. Before knowing the truth of his origin, Oedipus happily ruled the city of Thebes as its king, made great love to his wife Jocasta and showed pride for his children.

“Curiosity killed the cat”. Perhaps if the cat didn’t want to know it would have still be happy and alive Or perhaps the cat would have just been sadly alive being that its anxiety of knowing was never eradicated by trying to learn. Can happiness after 9/11 be accomplished by just ignoring the past events? To my opinion being more informed about this tragedy is the only way in which the people in this society will be happy or content. Resisting the knowledge of the background information carried by the attacks of September 11 only allows for this society to draw irrational conclusions and commit inhumane actions like the torture cases that have emerged after the attacks. 

Zizek wrote that knowledge ultimately makes us unhappy and that every true progress in knowledge comes with a painful struggle. He says, as humans we have an attitude to say we don’t want to know about it but I do not agree with him here because I do think there are really true happiness out there. I do admit there are a lot of wrongs in the world and truths that we do avoid because it is hard to understand and painful to hear but not all truths are eventually negative. Knowledge could also be seen as the ultimate road to happiness, a person without knowledge can never be successful in life and the more knowledge you have the better you will be if you are using the knowledge gained for good. Zizek talks about Huntington chorea gene; he talks about 9/11, and made references to many negatives that will knowledge brings. He uses sad and bad things to argue his case about happiness but he is completely one sided on the topic.
In the movie references that were made about spouse knowing their mates are cheating but chose to stay quiet in order to make them happy. Zizek argues that this knowledge made them unhappy but one could argue that if they were unhappy they would leave and they chose to stay because of their ultimate happiness. I know some people would say they may have stayed for money or status in life but what if that’s what makes them happy then that is the real reason one would be staying. Whatever views you have on this argument, it can be argued that truth does lead to happiness.

Here you can see Zizek explain happiness and what he think is wrong with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqhWiohr_gQ

Here are some questions that Carolina and I discussed and may not agree on. We would like for you to way in and give us your opinions.

Can truth lead to unhappiness? Would you want to know the truth if it’s going to make you unhappy?

Zizek states “resistance is the norm today”, do you agree? Can you resist happiness? And if yes, does resisting happiness make you happy or content?

Can we agree with Zizek? Or can we say that happiness cannot be destroyed by knowledge?

Would you want to know when you are going to die? And why?

If you don’t want to know when you are going to die, as in the case of the genetic disease. Would you take the test to know if you have it? Would you want others to know and keep in from you?

Would you take your child's life at the start of horrible pain to save him/her from the pain?

Is it honest ignorance or reputation that the German mayor killed himself?

Is suicide bravery or cowardess?

Would you take 1 life to save 1000 lives?

Sebastian: Friend or Dinner?

Linda Hidary & Lillian Zami

Though Judaism does not permit the consumption of shellfish we must say that we secretly have a desire to taste lobster (especially after reading the beginning of the article). Just because something may taste delicious do we all of the sudden forget to have a heart? Or, why does wanting to eat an animal categorize us as immoral.

Throughout the article the author is debating with himself as to whether or not it is immoral to eat lobster. He battles on one side that it is ok and we are not evil people for eating lobster and on the other hand he just can’t seem to rationalize it.

The author tries to emphasize that the lobster being killed is specifically being killed for you. As though you are initiating his death sentence. But is it when the lobster is already caught, if I don’t chose to eat lobster the next person will?

People try to moralize lobster killing by saying lobsters don’t feel pain, or do not have the same nervous system as we do but how can you say that that is true when the lobster thrashes around in the pot?

“Let’s acknowledge the questions of whether and how different kinds of animals feel pain and is it justifiable to inflict pain on them in order to eat them. Turns out these questions are extremely complex and difficult.”

In the novel Julie and Julia by Julie Powell, Julie goes into detail about her struggles killing the lobster every time the recipe called for lobster. She calls killing the lobster a “crime conglomerate” (Powell, 151). She spent the time the lobster was cooking in another room. For someone who appreciates food and makes food her life project she has a hard time imagining this live thrashing lobster as food.

Powell, Julie. Julie & Julia - 365 Days, 524 Recipes, 1 Tiny Apartment Kitchen. New York, New York: Back Bay/Little, Brown & Co., 2009.

The author claims pain is a totally subjective mental experience that it can’t be measured or communicated considering animals can’t speak. What do you think? Would you say animals could feel pain just as severe as humans can or do humans and animas have different thresholds for pain?

Is eating meat different than eating a lobster since the meat wasn’t slaughtered specifically for you rather it was slaughtered to feed a few hundred people?

“It is, at any rate, uncomfortable for me and for just about anyone I know who enjoys a variety of foods and yet does not want to see herself as cruel and unfeeling.”

We don’t like to believe that because we do indeed eat meat we are horrible people. We feel the need to rationalize our meat eating by saying it is okay animals are meant to be eaten.

“For those gourmet readers who enjoy well prepared and presented meals involving beef, veal, lam, pork, chicken lobster etc. Do you think much about (possible) moral status (probable) suffering of the animals involved?”

Do you ever think about what you eat before you eat it?

Sandor Ellix Katz says in his article

“I love meat. The smell of it cooking can fill me with desire, and I find its juicy, rich flavor uniquely satisfying. At the same time, everything I see, hear, or read about standard commercial factory farming and slaughtering fills me with disgust.”

Is it fair to have this dual vision concerning meat? Shouldn’t we choose one side over the other?

http://www.alternet.org/environment/142638/the_trials_of_being_a_conscious_meat_eater_/?page=entire

"Burning Bright;" Fire, and Looking Ahead

“Burning Bright” is the final chapter of Fahrenheit 451, and marks the complete rebirth of Montag, the firefighter who obeyed the twisted norms of society reborn into the free thinker enlightened by the wisdom of books. The title can take a literal meaning of describing the fire Montag uses to scorch Beatty and the mechanical hound, a metaphorical meaning of how brightly Montag’s new persona shines against the person he once was, or even a contextual meaning to refer to the symbolic Phoenix described by Granger at the end of the novel. Regardless of the interpreted meaning, the recurrent symbol of fire plays a role in most understandings of Fahrenheit 451’s themes and motifs.

Fire, and its multiple meanings.

Fire is the one symbol of the novel that, depending on the event, changes meanings. Bradbury employs the various meanings of fire to outline Montag’s dynamic characterization and to thematically address what is “right” and what is “wrong” in the novel. The ideas of good and evil were discussed in the last class, and there are multiple interpretations of what exactly can be considered evil or not. Fire, in “Burning Bright,” is described using unique adjectives that changes meaning constantly as the chapter progresses. Bradbury illustrates fire with “a great nuzzling gout of fire leapt out” and as “a gift of one huge bright yellow flower of burning” to describe the flames used to destroy Montag’s house, as “a shrieking blaze,” and “writhing flame,” when he turns the flamethrower on Beatty, and as a “bloom of fire, a single wondrous blossom” when he uses the flamethrower to destroy the mechanical hound. Bradbury carefully uses fire and it’s adjectives to describe what he believes is right or wrong, which can be seen in the destruction of Montag's house, starting with his bed to the parlors. Fire, in this event, is deconstructing the tenets of what made their utopian/dystopian society the way it was. Fire was referenced similarly as a blooming flower (a symbol of birth) when it destroyed the mechanical hound, another part of the society that Bradbury so abhors.
However, fire is described in a negative light when it destroys Beatty, which is “shrieking” and painful, which will be explained in a moment.

Dualism of fire; Dualism in society

As much as it was a prison to Montag, fire is also his salvation in “Burning Bright.” Following this line of fire having a dual nature, the three main characters also show dualism. Montag showed his duality at the very beginning, followed by Mildred, who despite her deep sadness within shows the same exterior that everyone else in the society shows, and finally, is shown by Beatty. Beatty is the captain of the firefighters, who are trained to erase books out of existance,and yet he secretly harbors a love for books. In the “Afterword,” Bradbury discusses Beatty more in depth, stating that his life was a “dream went sour” when the answers to his life problems (he had a very tumultuous childhood) were not found in the books he had loved so much. Beatty, showing the dualism motif so prevalent in the novel, is shown to be just as much a victim as the old Montag and Mildred (as well as the rest of society), and this is why the adjectives of fire at Beatty’s death did not illustrate the same beauty of “blossoms” and “nuzzling gout” as it did with the purely "evil" aspects of their society. Beatty death was even described by Montag, once he realizes what he had just done, as Beatty’s will. “Beatty wanted to die.” he thought, as he said Beatty insinuated his own death and forced his hand on the flamethrower.
In the final portion of “Burning Bright,” fire is given its soothing nature again. It is described by Montag, when he sees the vagabonds huddled around it, as “not burning... (but) warming.” In this case, fire was used to keep the men alive and warm, reinforcing Bradbury’s notion that fire should be used to preserve life, and not be used to destroy.


The Printing Press, New Technology, and the Future

People are reading less; that is the fact. But is it bad? Does it mean we are going to turn into society of people who are not able to think, like people in Fahrenheit 451? Or does it mean that, it is just a natural order of things? Hundreds years ago the books were invented, but may be now it is time for books to give way to other new sources of information?

Books, as we know them now, were not always as popular. Majority of people did not have access to any books at all till 15th century when the printing press was invented. Before, only few people from the upper class could afford handwritten books, and the invention of printing press was seen as “information revolution” because information became available to many more people. Besides, with printed books the information could travel faster and it could travel into different parts of the world at the same time. ( unlike the hand written books, which one would have to copy manually). However, as everything new, printed books were looked at with suspicion. In his article “Don’t Touch That Dial” about the new technology , Vaughan Bell writes that the famous philosophers of 15th century were afraid that the accessibility of printed books will cause “information overload”, “both confusing and harmful to the mind” . Bell also writes how everything, even a pencil went through the stage of being a “new technology”. (http://www.slate.com/id/2244198 ). So, it seems that more then five centuries ago people had the same concerns we have today. Just like we discuss Kindle nowadays and compare it to books, people used to discuss the printed books and compare them to the handwritten books. And guess what, many preferred the texture of the handwritten books over the machine printed versions.

Bradbury wrote his book about half a century ago so his fears mostly target the TV that just appeared at that time, but as you see, we still do not live in four TV walls. Now, with internet becoming more popular, people are more concerned about Web: for example in the cartoon WALL-E the future people represented as obese technology slaves who can not do anything (even walk) on their own, who fall in love and marry looking at their lap top screens and not at the people who are next to them. So, with every new technology new fears arise, but does it mean those fears will come true?

In the last chapter of Fahrenheit 451 the people who had knowledge kept their knowledge not in the books but in their heads. May be the author is trying to tell us that our own heads , and our own thinking ( if we think of course) is much more important then books, TV s, internet and other sources of information?

Questions to Consider

What are your overall views and opinions based on the analysis above? Do you agree/disagree with what was stated?

What do you think? Are we, people living in the 21st century are that different from people who were living 2 -3-5 hundreds years ago?
Do we feel less?
Do we think less?
Or is it just normal for us to exaggerate things when we compare ourselves to previous and next generations?

Do you agree that Beatty wanted to die? After reading the afterword, do you feel that the information neglected from the main (canon) story would have clarified the story or made it more interesting?

Do you agree with the idea that fire is given a "personality" by Bradbury? What do you think he is trying to say through the symbol of fire? Do you agree that fire is truly given varying roles to help influence the reader's thoughts on the current event in the chapter?