Quotessence
Home / Quotes / Quote by Mitta Xinindlu

Quote by Mitta Xinindlu

Author

Mitta Xinindlu

Browse famous quotes and profile details for Mitta Xinindlu. more

You May Also Like

“So, if you take a look at, say, the work of Rousseau that I quoted, which is the 'Second Discourse on Inequality,' that's his most libertarian writing. He begins with a pretty strictly Cartesian view of animals as being machines, just reflexive machines, compelled to do what they do by internal and external circumstances, without the creative character of human thought and behavior. He then says, again in roughly Cartesian terms, that what is unique and distinctive about humans is this internal creative capacity. That's what makes humans different from the rest of the natural world. Then comes a thesis which is not proved, but it, I think, is plausible. Namely, any social arrangements that inhibit or constrain that free creative capacity are fundamentally illegitimate unless they can justify themselves. That means any structure of authority, domination, hierarchy - whether it's in a patriarchal family, or in international affairs, or anything in between - should be subject to challenge. It's not self-justifying. And I mean, you could see the chain of thinking. Notice, it's not a proof, but beginning with the observation that inherent to human nature, what's special about us, is this creative character. The free need to inquire, to create, to act, to choose what you do, how you speak, how you interact and so on. There's kind of a chain of thinking from that to the conclusion that the social structures which inhibit that are illegitimate unless proved otherwise. Like, sometimes you can give an argument in favor of authority. So, if I'm walking down the street with, say, my three-year-old granddaughter, and she runs into the street, and I grab her arm and pull her back, I think I can give a justification for that. But the point is that any form of authority and domination requires justification. And usually, you can't justify it, in which case you have to dismantle it and replace it by something more free and just.”

PowerHuman NatureAuthorityDominationHierarchy
Author:Noam Chomsky
Create image

“Well, where does that leave us with regard to social action and practice? The answer is very far away. There still remains an enormous gap between what we have to grasp in order to ground moral action, to choose a course of action on moral grounds. An enormous gap between that and what we, in fact, understand about human nature and the human needs that derive from it, and the human rights that derive from it. Big gap. So, we are left where we were, with the need to make an intuitive leap and to posit some judgment about what real, intrinsic human nature is. In a sense, you're staking your faith in what you think or hope human beings may be. Now, if you take as your faith that of, say, the classical liberal doctrine, you will conclude that there is no justification, there's no moral justification for the commissar, the central committee, or the cultural or corporate manager, or any of the others who control and coerce us on species grounds. The actual classical liberal view, which is very different from what is known with its deep innatist roots, is very subversive and radical because it challenges the existence of any form of authority and requires that it be justified, which can rarely be done. It's not too surprising, I think, that the actual ideas of the Enlightenment have been subjected to such a broad-ranging attack. They are radical and subversive because of the faith that they express in human capacity, and human rights, and human needs, and their richness. And that's a deeply upsetting view from the point of view of any institutional structure which is concerned with control and manipulation, or any of the people who operate within those institutional structures. Well, if one takes this position, the next thing to do is to make the intuitive leap and turn to the concrete substantive questions of acting as a moral agent, choosing a course of action. And here what you do is seek out structures of authority and domination. Often we don't see them, so you have to try to find them even though they're there. Once you notice them, you see them and seek them out. Ask the question as to whether they, in fact, are legitimate for some contingent reason, say, self-defense or whatever argument is put forth. And if they fail that test, as they almost invariably do, to move forward to dismantle them, which means solidarity, organization, and so on. That's a hard task. But there are achievements. There are real achievements. For most of human history, for example, literal human slavery was considered legitimate. In fact, considered quite praiseworthy. It was for the benefit of these depraved creatures who shouldn't be left on their own. It's only a little tiny period of human history where this is considered a total obscenity. And the fact that it is considered a total obscenity is an achievement. In the 18th century, it was pointed out that wage slavery is fundamentally not very different from slavery. If people are compelled to rent themselves in order to survive, it's not very different than selling yourself in order to survive. That's an insight that has yet to be recovered, but it's a valid one. And, in fact, notice that it grows from these same conceptions of human nature. But, at least, literal human slavery would no longer be justified by, I suppose, almost anyone. That's an achievement. It's a moral achievement. It's a moral advance. Just in our own lifetimes, the questions of the legitimacy of sexist oppression have come to the fore. It's not like anybody noticed before, but there's been a sustained and committed effort to bring them to consciousness. And it's not long ago, anybody my age will know, that it's not long ago they just didn't see it, notice it. It was just part of the background. Now, at least you see it. The problems are there, but it's a moral advance that the problems are recognized to be there. There's some effort to come to terms with them.”

Human NatureHuman RightsWage Slavery
Author:Noam Chomsky
Create image

“The idea of conformism among animals is increasingly supported for social behavior as well. One study tested both children and chimpanzees on generosity. The goal was to see if they were prepared to do a member of their own species a favor at no cost to themselves. They indeed did so, and their willingness increased if they themselves had received generosity from others—any others, not just their testing partner. Is kind behavior contagious? Love begets love, we say, or as the investigators put it more dryly, primates tend to adopt the most commonly perceived responses in the population.”

Human NatureConformityReciprocity
Book:Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?
Create image