Chomsky basically says that intellectuals have a responsibility to expose the lies said by those in power. Hard to argue with, but maybe kind of a platitude.
I think I’d answer this question differently in 2026. The responsibility of intellectuals to society at large today, in an era overwhelmed with information, propaganda, immensely complex issues, etc. is – communicate the issues of the day in a way that is clear and accessible. With the assumption that intellectuals are “experts in ideas.”
I say this because so many contemporary debates seem really mangled and unclear, which makes them basically impossible to solve intellectually. Instead they just turn into battles of will where one side seeks to defeat the other in toto, not actually arrive at a solution that overcomes the conflict.
Unfortunately the academic system is explicitly designed to create specialists, not people that can effectively communicate to the Everyman.
SilverElfin 9 minutes ago [-]
I agree with your suggestion, but I wonder if it is enough. Look at what happened today. Moments after the shooting, there was a coordinated campaign to flood the zone with misinformation. Twitter accounts for Trump, DHS (Kristi Noem), Vance, Miller all said someone tried to assassinate ICE officers and was shot in self defense. This was completely the opposite of what happened and given how quickly they put out these messages, they had no way of knowing either.
They simply put it out there because no matter what, this is what they will say in response to an ICE shooting. It is a way of confusing the messaging and preventing their side from being convinced by anyone else or any evidence. Once their base form that initial opinion, it is very hard to change their mind. So will intellectually actually reach those people effectively?
Remember, this base has been told to distrust the academics and distrust science and distrust the news media.
I would say that one has as much responsibility to society, as that society accepts for the individual.
As a previously homeless veteran, I'd say that is zero. Why should intellectuals, or in fact anyone have any duty to help a system that doesn't help them?
Now I know a lot of people will grandstand and say that if people just started taking on responsibility, then that would improve the system so that it would help more, but again, I did my part and was promised to be taken care of by society with its fingers crossed behind its back.
godelski 12 minutes ago [-]
This only results in a race to the bottom. A self fulfilling prophecy. The unfortunate truth is that if you want the world to be better you need to be better to it than it is to you. It's the only way that can even work.
You can just do nothing and things will get better when others do more than they get, but by you doing nothing you've just shifted your burden to others. The burden of each individual is small. Almost insignificant even. It's not hard to be kinder to others than they are to you. But the burden accumulates and compounds. You don't have to pick up the slack, but you do need to do your part. The future is made by all of us
rented_mule 2 minutes ago [-]
> you need to be better to it than it is to you
If the person you are responding to hasn't screwed society over, then it sounds like they have easily cleared that bar, even by doing nothing.
0928374082 5 minutes ago [-]
> I'd say that is zero.
That's your society, not all societies. People, veterans or not, aren't homeless in mine.
droopyEyelids 1 hours ago [-]
This makes sense if you are ok with your life making the world a worse place. Other people want to try and make it nicer.
hekkle 54 minutes ago [-]
Of course, anyone always has the option to volunteer to make the world a better place; but the idea that anyone has a responsibility, or moral obligation to help a society that is actively hostile towards them is insanity.
jeezfrk 10 minutes ago [-]
The important point is what a deserter would use as logic when asked "What if everyone gave up and only responded to selfish fear?"
Then, sir, it would be foolhardy to contribute any part to that service because soon it will all collapse.
That's, in a historically commonplace fashioned see today, is what the top 10% are doing when seeing the top 1% abdicate all responsibility.
Low or no taxes? Sounds good ... but it's going to burn down soon.
Paracompact 45 minutes ago [-]
I feel people failed you in your situation. They had an obligation to help you, and they did not.
godelski 6 minutes ago [-]
I'll add that this is the whole purpose of a society. The social contract is that of a coalition. Our combined utility is greater than the sum of our individual utility.
To not have an obligation to society is to be a drain on it. Even if you don't recognize it you still get a lot of benefit from society. It could be better. It should be better. But that will never happen if you never put in your part.
glitchc 48 minutes ago [-]
Get off your high horse. This person bled for their country and once their service ended, was discarded without a second thought. They are entitled to feel the way they feel and have earned the privilege to voice their outrage. It is our duty to listen.
s5300 1 hours ago [-]
[dead]
zabzonk 2 hours ago [-]
Seem to be missing some plausible definition of "intellectuals".
hcrean 2 hours ago [-]
When this was written there was a clearer divide between people with higher educational training, qualifications and interest and those without.
doganugurlu 2 hours ago [-]
I think it includes anyone who cares to read it.
chilmers 2 hours ago [-]
I suppose it assumes the reader already understands the word, or has access to a dictionary.
badc0ffee 2 hours ago [-]
(1967)
1 hours ago [-]
1 hours ago [-]
127 2 hours ago [-]
Responsibility of intellectuals, or wise men/women, has always been to guide the tribe towards security, happiness and prosperity. Not to sow dissent inside the tribe by moralizing, while completely ignoring all the ills in other tribes.
So called "intellectuals" who do it just to further their own selfish goals, should not be awarded high ranking positions.
roenxi 5 minutes ago [-]
One of the major lessons of the 1900s is that the moral ills of your own tribe are more important than the problems other people might have. You don't live in some other country, you live in your own. Local concerns are by far the #1 issue.
Even in the 2000s, one of the most ironic outcomes is that US hegemony forced a bunch of countries into really dominant regional positions (thinking especially of Japan, China and Germany) because they had nothing else to do but fix their own internal problems and it turns out that is a dominant strategy over militarism. Moral positions like peace, law, consistency and fairness aren't vague nice-to-haves, they are principles that lead to better outcomes for the people who stick with them.
gsf_emergency_6 2 hours ago [-]
Another perspective:
"You know, I ran into Henry Kissinger years ago and I asked him if he enjoyed the intellectual stimulation of the work, and he said in effect, 'I am working with the ideas that I formed at Harvard years ago. I haven't had a real idea since I've been on this; I just work with the old ideas."
127 2 hours ago [-]
I don't see how that is related to my comment in any way.
gsf_emergency_6 1 hours ago [-]
Sorry. I see responsibility of the intellectual is first of all to enjoy the stimulation. If not, putting quotes around the term, as you did, is correct.
lifeformed 1 hours ago [-]
If morals or ethics aren't an equal partner in security, happiness, and prosperity, then the tribe deserves to fall.
praptak 22 minutes ago [-]
How far are you prepared to go with the "loyalty to the tribe" argument? If your "tribe" is 1942 Germany and you know about the ongoing Holocaust, does your line of thinking imply that you should keep quiet about it? You know, not to sow dissent by moralizing.
Rendered at 06:23:48 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
I think I’d answer this question differently in 2026. The responsibility of intellectuals to society at large today, in an era overwhelmed with information, propaganda, immensely complex issues, etc. is – communicate the issues of the day in a way that is clear and accessible. With the assumption that intellectuals are “experts in ideas.”
I say this because so many contemporary debates seem really mangled and unclear, which makes them basically impossible to solve intellectually. Instead they just turn into battles of will where one side seeks to defeat the other in toto, not actually arrive at a solution that overcomes the conflict.
Unfortunately the academic system is explicitly designed to create specialists, not people that can effectively communicate to the Everyman.
They simply put it out there because no matter what, this is what they will say in response to an ICE shooting. It is a way of confusing the messaging and preventing their side from being convinced by anyone else or any evidence. Once their base form that initial opinion, it is very hard to change their mind. So will intellectually actually reach those people effectively?
Remember, this base has been told to distrust the academics and distrust science and distrust the news media.
As a previously homeless veteran, I'd say that is zero. Why should intellectuals, or in fact anyone have any duty to help a system that doesn't help them?
Now I know a lot of people will grandstand and say that if people just started taking on responsibility, then that would improve the system so that it would help more, but again, I did my part and was promised to be taken care of by society with its fingers crossed behind its back.
You can just do nothing and things will get better when others do more than they get, but by you doing nothing you've just shifted your burden to others. The burden of each individual is small. Almost insignificant even. It's not hard to be kinder to others than they are to you. But the burden accumulates and compounds. You don't have to pick up the slack, but you do need to do your part. The future is made by all of us
If the person you are responding to hasn't screwed society over, then it sounds like they have easily cleared that bar, even by doing nothing.
That's your society, not all societies. People, veterans or not, aren't homeless in mine.
Then, sir, it would be foolhardy to contribute any part to that service because soon it will all collapse.
That's, in a historically commonplace fashioned see today, is what the top 10% are doing when seeing the top 1% abdicate all responsibility.
Low or no taxes? Sounds good ... but it's going to burn down soon.
To not have an obligation to society is to be a drain on it. Even if you don't recognize it you still get a lot of benefit from society. It could be better. It should be better. But that will never happen if you never put in your part.
So called "intellectuals" who do it just to further their own selfish goals, should not be awarded high ranking positions.
Even in the 2000s, one of the most ironic outcomes is that US hegemony forced a bunch of countries into really dominant regional positions (thinking especially of Japan, China and Germany) because they had nothing else to do but fix their own internal problems and it turns out that is a dominant strategy over militarism. Moral positions like peace, law, consistency and fairness aren't vague nice-to-haves, they are principles that lead to better outcomes for the people who stick with them.
"You know, I ran into Henry Kissinger years ago and I asked him if he enjoyed the intellectual stimulation of the work, and he said in effect, 'I am working with the ideas that I formed at Harvard years ago. I haven't had a real idea since I've been on this; I just work with the old ideas."