The present day Aristotle we have here. Where have you been hiding that majestic beard all these days professor.

@forgerboy

3 жыл бұрын

I would argue he’s more present day Socrates

@andrewl14190

3 жыл бұрын

@Nim they were two generations apart. Socrates was the teacher of Plato and Aristotle studied at Plato's academy. Chomsky reminds me of Socrates because Socrates was known as the "gadfly" of ancient Athens. A pain in the side of the powers that were...constantly questioning common beliefs, encouraging people to think for themselves and understand the illusions that society imposes on us. Not being afraid of criticizing the powerful elites. Fighting against sophistry (persuasion based on appealing to people's emotions aka propaganda), emphasising living a virtuous life while avoiding materialism. And underlying all that, striving for knowledge of many aspects of humanity and society while recognising the limits of our understanding. And of Aristotle for some of the same reasons, but Aristotle was more wide ranging and meticulous in his philosophical output. Socrates didn't write anything but his history is recorded in dialogues written by Plato (which actually could just be Plato expressing his ideas). Aristotle wrote a lot about a lot of things and laid the foundation of philosophy and science for the centuries that followed. For example he basically invented the study of logic, which is key to Chomsky's own academic studies. His works covers biology, politics, metaphysics, rhetoric etc. Chomsky's work is also at the forefront of many fields of study (linguistics, politics, philosophy, cognitive science etc.) They all share common characteristics. Maybe politically Socrates and Chomsky could be more similar and academically Aristotle and Chomsky. Someone else might have a better idea on that though!

@aerobique

3 жыл бұрын

@@andrewl14190 interesting, tY x

@SaeedThaPraLem

3 жыл бұрын

@@andrewl14190 That's A Great Assessment.

@theblackdeath4398

3 жыл бұрын

More of Socrates than an Aristotle, or a combination of both. The reason being is that it is widely considered that Socrates was the world's first prominent anarchist-he questioned everything and anything under the sun. It was this questioning that eventually got him ostracised from the main echelons of society and subsequentally executed. Noam Chomsky continues the same tradition-he calls himself an anarchist as well.

No one breaks down natural law better then mark passio

@herbertsacrament2520

Жыл бұрын

Chomsky should visit Marks school first before elaborating on anarchy and natural law.

@jhdd9341

Жыл бұрын

Passio's work is great!

@mysterybotts

Жыл бұрын

Passio is a freakin beast.

@unbroken1010

Жыл бұрын

He talks a lot and doesn't actually break down a thing😂

@heartandmindovercome3214

Жыл бұрын

👍🔥

Chomsky we need more vids from u before u leave us please :(

@logia7

2 жыл бұрын

Leave us?

@hex2637

Жыл бұрын

@@logia7 he's 93.

@dankhelmet9973

Жыл бұрын

there are hundreds if not thousands. Y u need more? Don’t u have a mind of ur own?

@BrownEyePinch

Жыл бұрын

He's tired. Hes watched nothing change for 92 years.

@alchemybyangela

Жыл бұрын

It's a big club as George Carlin said, and Chomsky is certainly in it, but we're all not. He was controlled opposition all along.

Mr. Chomsky is a living legend...

Matthias Mahlmann "Elemente einer ethischen Grundrechtstheorie" "Konkrete Gerechtigkeit"

@jemandoondame2581

3 жыл бұрын

Is that what Chomsky refers to?

@atik.3011

3 жыл бұрын

@@jemandoondame2581 yes

@jemandoondame2581

3 жыл бұрын

@@atik.3011 It seems like he is pursuing some moral realism. Do you know more about the literature.

Bruh this nigga is genius I've known of Noam chomsky for a while now but I never listened to him speak. It's crazy that he is arguably one of the smartest and most well verse philosophers of our time. Living legend for sure

Can I add subtitle to this video? Because his voice has become muffled..

@richtusser

3 жыл бұрын

plz yes

@MattLuceen

3 жыл бұрын

The auto-generated subtitles are good! Try them

@jaw0608

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah... it's really difficult to hear Professor Chomsky these days. However, I will continue to try.

@cilla5277

3 жыл бұрын

His voice has always been low, or gentle.

@angelaseise3

3 ай бұрын

Definitely. Have always had a hard time listening to Chomsky's voice though haha

Mr. Chomsky, you're a great inspiration. Not quite sure if you read the posts of this 'tribute' channel, but I want to thank you for all the information you've put out there in an easily accessible way. It's akin to being given a map whenever you're starting to get lost.

@stormsurge1

3 жыл бұрын

Gnome Chumpksy isn't the one running this channel

@jesusislukeskywalker4294

3 жыл бұрын

we must be kind to one and other, and also educate ourselves .

@anurawimalasiri7110

3 жыл бұрын

Appreciate it if we can have subtitles, please.

@SyncrisisVideos

3 жыл бұрын

@@anurawimalasiri7110 I just watched it with subtitles!

@maxzjj

3 жыл бұрын

@@stormsurge1 I called it a 'tribute' channel did I not?

The audio quality is all over the place. Very difficult to hear him speak even at full volume.

Please keep uploading new videos. These are great and help people understand the world better. You are doing us a great favor. Thank You.

@oppothumbs1

Жыл бұрын

Chomsky has declared himself a libertarian and anarchist but has defended some of the most authoritarian and murderous regimes in human history. His political philosophy is purportedly based on empowering the oppressed and toiling masses but he has contempt for ordinary people who he regards as ignorant dupes of the privileged and the powerful. He has defined the responsibility of the intellectual as the pursuit of truth and the exposure of lies but has supported the regimes he admires by suppressing the truth and perpetrating falsehoods. He has endorsed universal moral principles but has only applied them to Western liberal democracies while continuing to rationalize the crimes of his own political favorites. When caught out making culpably irresponsible misjudgments he has never admitted he was wrong. Today, Chomsky’s hypocrisy stands as the most revealing measure of the sorry depths to which the left-wing political activism he has done so much to propagate has now sunk.

0:46 (natural law) is what our nature tells us 0:56 (even) infants have such a concept 1:10 one of the first things children understand is "that's not fair" 1:35 there is a concept of fairness and justice -- that's as close as we can get to "natural" law 2:00 how do we know we have the correct concept (of what's "right" and "fair" [God's law may be different]) 2:46 the same questions arrive in epistemology

@VitorMadeira

10 ай бұрын

Excellent work. Thank you.

@Cecile33369

9 ай бұрын

Great thanks. 3 minutes more meaningful than 10 hrs of Mark passio

He's looking like some wise sage with that beard hahaha

Hello there! Could someone tell me who is mentioned at minute 1:00 by Noam Chomsky. He mentions a person, but I couldnt understand. Could someone write down his name? Thanks a lot!

I love listening to Chomsky but now it's always so difficult to hear what he's saying.

@94josema

3 жыл бұрын

Automatic subtitles

@k.p.8955

3 жыл бұрын

@@94josema my point is his age but thanks for the suggestion

@k.p.8955

3 жыл бұрын

@Pappy Chulo You're wrong that I'm classless. You're wrong that I was trying to cheap shot Chomsky. You're wrong that I was trying to use a facade because I clarified the misunderstanding. I am realize with age should come more knowledge. I'm glad that you value Chomsky's voice as do I. Be well ( :

ATTENTION! Not Sure if the person running this channel just abandoned it or has passed away, either ways thanks for compiling all of Chomsky's thoughts. RIP!

Much respect to you Sir Chomsky. Yes, children understand the concept of fairness.

@myhatmygandhi6217

2 жыл бұрын

Not any of the children I've seen. Kids actually need to be taught fairness and guided by good parenting.

@Codex7777

2 жыл бұрын

They have A concept of fairness but it's not really fairness, in any real sense. It's 'fairness' in the sense of 'I want", "give me", 'that's mine's. It has more to do with a self-control, selfish view of the World. Even older children and teens, when saying 'that's not fair!' frequently mean 'it's not fair that I can't have exactly what I want, regardless of consequences to others, or myself" :)

@myhatmygandhi6217

2 жыл бұрын

@@Codex7777 Exactly!

@christopherstein2024

Жыл бұрын

@@Codex7777 I disagree. I very much remember having the perception of unfairness before I could articulate it. I remember that on a summers day something unfortunate happened to me in the living room that I can't remember. What I do remember is that I was looking to my mother in hope that she would comfort be me but she seemed to think that the mishap was insignificant so she wasn't empathatic but amused. I thought that this was very unfair. I thought it was unfair because she was my mother and supposed to help me, I thought it was unfair because I was very small and she was very big and very powerfull and while I struggled with my situation, it would have been effortless for her to give me a bit of support. I thought it is unfair to be happy about someone else being sad even more in their presence. I wasn't angry at her, I was a bit hurt and dissapointed and I mostly wanted her to stop making me feeling bullied. I couldn't explain to her that I felt bullied wich made me feel even more powerless. I thought that we knew what was the right thing to do in that situation and when it didn't happen felt like some kind of treason. I couldn't imagine that my mother would be mean to me on purpose so I also felt insecure about my expectations. This is just one particular memory wich I think happened before I could run. Another thing I remember is that my older sibling would pick fights with me to get me in trouble sometimes and that getting scolded for defending myself felt unfair while being scolded for something that I started didn't. Why would kids have trouble understanding that?

@unbroken1010

Жыл бұрын

Ñoam was for mandates and friends with Epstein

This is a nice, concise encounter with the question of origins. Notice that, at the outset, Professor Chomsky asks where natural law comes from. He proposes that it may come from God, then in the same breath rules that out as unacceptable. Within 2 minutes, he concludes that, “all” things considered, the question is probably “impenetrable”. Purely as a matter of intellectual rigour, and With great respect for Professor Chomsky, is it not painfully obvious that one should reconsider the existence of a creator that created us with his qualities, including justice?

What was the name of the infant psychologist ? I couldn't hear the name

@jorrendykstra4194

3 жыл бұрын

I think he's referring to Lila R. Gleitman: Her studies in developmental psycholinguistics in the late '60s provided early support for Chomsky's epistemic nativism. See esp. Shipley, Smith & Gleitman in Language, 45 (2), Part 1, 1969 (a study of how well-formedness of utterances affects responses to commands among telegraphic & holophrastic speaker-hearers).

@stepananokhin693

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, me either. May be Lightman? Can't find it...

@deplaneetegmont

3 жыл бұрын

According to the subtitles it's Dr. Twilight Lightning. What a name!

@monietz

3 жыл бұрын

@@jorrendykstra4194 thank you

@niclasrachow

3 жыл бұрын

@@deplaneetegmont XD

Dear Chomsky’s Philosophy, is there an email where you can be reached? It’s about subtitling.

Títulos por favor en español

I cant get over how over caffeinated Fabian is in this 😂 Great questions, great video.

92 and he is still sharp as a tack. One of my great heroes. Thank you dearly to they who run this channel.

@unbroken1010

Жыл бұрын

The dude was for mandates and friends with Epstein 😂

@ZacharyBittner

6 ай бұрын

The guy was actually asking a question about Aquintas' natural law. He didn't know what natural law was so he just guessed.

He is the greatest intellectual man on the earth, this man has huge impact on me

@IAmHereForeve

3 жыл бұрын

The biggest impact ftom a person has been my dad and David Goggins.

@khalidalsulaimi1821

3 жыл бұрын

@@IAmHereForeve David Goggins is a great teacher

@TasteMyStinkholeAndLikeIt

3 жыл бұрын

Then you've missed a diaper load of much better intellects, particularly if you have the slightest interest in what the hail YOU are, what consciousness, awareness, and reality are. There are no bigger questions, and they've been solidly answered by numerous greater minds.

@xavieryates9782

3 жыл бұрын

I agree. He is one of only two people (the other one being Zlavoj Zizek) I personally regard as currently representing the two best exponents of intellectualism. It is a shame that, with 8 billion of us on the planet, there should be only 2 left. I also regard [the late] Harold Bloom as another member of that tiny group; too bad he is no longer with us. Of course there are other interesting people (Yanis Varoufakis comes to mind), but they are just not anywhere near the same intellectual level. I don't see anyone who can take over, and it saddens me no end.

@Jozaaaa

3 жыл бұрын

Xavier Yates dude 3 of the names you dropped are public intellectuals who are popular on KZread. There are not only 3 smart guys alive today😂 please just look up a university faculty or something 😂

Noah Chomsky? Step out onto the deck of the Ark once in a while @_@

@subsonic9854

3 жыл бұрын

@Jane Doe Lol you do you, friend.

Professor Chomsky, what is your opinion on the theories of Jacque Fresco, creator of the Venus Project ?

@YoungO-un8ul

3 жыл бұрын

Utopias cannot exist based on the nature of human desire.

You can literally ask this man anything and he will give you an educated answer. The sheer breath of his knowledge is incredible.

@BearSoetero

2 жыл бұрын

The world is a worse place since he's been alive. He's all talk no action and has been protecting his in MIT Masters for years.

@lucverheijden2005

Жыл бұрын

@@BearSoetero do you have beef with this old man?

@AK4SHGaming

Жыл бұрын

​@@BearSoetero true that

@michaelmiller7160

Жыл бұрын

@@lucverheijden2005 And old dangerous perhaps well-intentioned man. Chomsky has declared himself a libertarian and anarchist but has defended some of the most authoritarian and murderous regimes in human history. Do you have a beef with this? His political philosophy is purportedly based on empowering the oppressed and toiling masses but he has contempt for ordinary people who he regards as ignorant dupes of the privileged and the powerful. He has defined the responsibility of the intellectual as the pursuit of truth and the exposure of lies but has supported the regimes he admires by suppressing the truth and perpetrating falsehoods. He has endorsed universal moral principles but has only applied them to Western liberal democracies while continuing to rationalize the crimes of his own political favorites. When caught out making culpably irresponsible misjudgments he has never admitted he was wrong. Today, Chomsky’s hypocrisy stands as the most revealing measure of the sorry depths to which the left-wing political activism he has done so much to propagate has now sunk.

@unbroken1010

Жыл бұрын

Ask him about illegal mandates and Epstein island 😂

You have great impact on me the great the movement of internalism.

you (and by 'you' I mean those who are managing the channel) should think about translating these valuable documents for the Hispanic-American public. Not many important philosophers of the last century are left alive, the lucidity that this man maintains at his age is impressive, he reminds me of Plato who also lived a long life

I’d never even heard of ‘positive law’ I just had to look it up. What a misnomer. 🤨

@Jzscrstsprstr

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, from ius positum, a law that is posited, man-made (within a State) basically, but it makes you think like it's all sunshine and butterflies by definition. Legal positivism can be used to legitimize the status quo. Some legal positivists say natural law is non-sense. They point out that every valid positive law derives from the validity of a higher ranked positive law that establishes it etc. to the Constitution which derives from the first Constitution. Here we face a problem because some law has to give validity to that first constitution (because no law can be derived from a fact (Hume, was it?) and we take that as a big problem... ). The thing is that law has to lay beyond the State (and the Positive Law). So they say, well, we must imagine that there exists such a basic law (Hans Kelsen) and move on. We don't know anything about this presumed law, about it's contents and we don't care. And here comes the "genius" part. Some say since we don't know the nature of the basic law then... it could be anything!... and any law system (no matter how rotten) is therefore valid since it derives from a made-up basic norm that can be anything in nature. The only thing, they also say, necessary for a valid law system is its effectiveness - the Fact (ironic?) that it's observed more that it is violated. If, say, the slaves can't win their freedom, that means the legal system is valid and they not only must obey their more powerful masters (common sense), but they are also legally required do so. And If the slaves don't revolt (knowing they are underpowered) - well, that means they accept the legal system and are fine with how things are. Moral principles and values, of course, have no place in the discussion of the validity of law - only detached from reality logical operations and power relations do.

@BEENIECRIS

Жыл бұрын

💯

the thumbnail looks like the healthcare pls wojak.

Can you Mic up NC better. Can't hear very well.

Noam. How do you feel about the Frankfurt school of thought?

Morality is Objective and that is the standard to live under natural law.

@rootstriker1618

Жыл бұрын

Correct ! Morality is objective and truth is singular!

@Lizardwizard2112

4 ай бұрын

Do what thou Wilt shall be the whole Law. Love is the Law. Love under will

@someonenotnoone

3 ай бұрын

Can't understand what you mean by "morality is objective" because in my mind objectively true things can be objectively proven. E.g. Eddington proved that gravitational lensing occurs, verifying some of Einstein's predictions. How is morality objective like that? What are the units of morality?

A perfect example, I speak English fluently and decide to then drop out of English as a major course of study. This can happen...or I speak Spanish so I will pursue Spanish for that perfect grade. Or I'm American and decide that obviously French is closer to English than to Spanish..whom comes up with these theories..I know they're shallow but they're quite significant when we consider that grammar rules are not natural they are rather learned rules. The perfect example is to ask an English speaker about English speaking grammar they never learned at school but speak perfectly enough English or better yet switch their vernacular in NYC to relearn their regionalism or identify as they completely and utterly switch to a different dialect. You may say the rules didn't change enough, you're right, but I also didn't understand a thing a foreigner might reply or someone whom is unfamiliar with the area and manners of speech.

I need Chomsky Email contact to take his opinion about something in the theory of language aquisition.

❤❤❤❤

2. We can learn from history of our own specie from the rise and fall of different civilizations.

I hate a group from bottom of my heart and I have concrete region for that and each passing day I hate more and more is it any psychological problem

Omg he's alive

RIP bro

@777mofo

22 күн бұрын

He is not passed away, this was FAKE NEWS!

The question is "What makes it incorrect if it's not already correct?" not, "Is it correct?". The answer is easy though... It's natural. Call it the parameters of the 3D Universe. It's the rules that govern reality at its' core.

I joined the IWW in 1965 while working in the SDS national office. Even then it bothered me that workers had so little right to benefit from the means of production hard won from shared human experience.

@Shut_up_Sheena

2 жыл бұрын

iWW?

@tommasoprocida4348

Жыл бұрын

​@@Shut_up_Sheena Industrial Workers of the World

It is so great to see Chomsky talk about legal theory! Thanks for this. On my channel I deal a lot with the problem of anarchism and positive law.

Steptoes let himself go

At 0:56 Chomsky references a child psychologist (presumably well-known) who says that children become aware of "fairness" at a very young age. I cant make out her name. I've tried 'violet lytton', and some variants, to no effect. Can somebody help me out? I'd like to read what she has to say about it.

@syourke3

3 жыл бұрын

You don’t need to study child psychology to figure out that children have an innate sense of fairness. Just observe them. Or reflect back to when you were a child and your own sense of fairness. But while people do have an innate sense of fairness, they are loath to apply it when their own selfish interests are at stake. This no one can be a fair judge in his own cause. That’s why we have a judges and juries comprised of people with no stake in the cause being tried.

@gamingwithslacker

3 жыл бұрын

@@syourke3 I don't deny that people have an innate sense of fairness. I want to find the academic responsibile for the research because I think it is of potentially large benefit to our conceptions of how society is organised

@syourke3

3 жыл бұрын

Gabriel Ward Capitalism is obviously unfair. A tiny handful of people who do no productive labor at all own and control all the world’s wealth, and the political system. They keep the wars going because they profit from them. They have no conscience at all. The world is run by psychopaths.

@gamingwithslacker

3 жыл бұрын

@@syourke3 I pretty much agree with you. But there are large numbers of people who do not. I want to try and convince them of the decensies of socialism and the miseries of capitalism. This is better done with sources and evidence which counters the capitalist "we are all selfish" narrative. This psychologists research appears to do that. Therefore, I am interested in reading and understanding it.

@davegreene8588

3 жыл бұрын

@@syourke3 - Though _others'_ judgements aren't necessarily fairer than one's own.

Türkçe veya Kürtçe altyazı ekleyebilir misiniz :(

@sibeltorun4902

3 жыл бұрын

Soru: Doğal Kanuna Karşı Pozitif Kanun. Yasallık kavramını nasıl anlamalıyız? Anarşist bir toplumda doğal hukuk ve pozitif hukuk hakkındaki ayrım hakkında nasıl düşünüyorsunuz? Chomsky'nin cevabı: Pozitif hukuku oldukça iyi anlıyoruz. Pozitif hukuk. Onu geliştirir ve inşa ederiz. Doğa kanunu. Bu ne? Bu kafa kariştirici. Tanrı tarafından mı verilir? Hayır, bunu kabul edebileceğimizi sanmıyorum. Doğamızın bize söylediği bu. Doğal hukuk kavramlarımızı inceleyebilirsiniz. Bebeklerin böyle bir konsepti var. Ana bebek araştırmacılarından biri, bunun çok erken yaşta çocukların anladığı ilk şeylerden biri olduğuna işaret etti. "Bu adil değil" kavramı. Bunu hemen biliyorlar. Her çocuk kendini ifade etmeye başlamadan önce bile bunu anlar. Öyleyse, bazı adalet ve adalet kavramları var. Böylece ne olduğunu anlamaya çalışabiliriz. Doğal hukuk kavramına olabildiğince yakın olduğunu düşünüyorum. O zaman şimdi, pozitif hukuk muhtemelen uygulamaya çalışmalıdır. Şimdi bu ciddi bir soruyu gündeme getiriyor. Neden doğal yasanın doğru olduğunu varsayıyoruz? Öyleyse, doğru konsepte sahip olduğumuzu nasıl bileceğiz? Adalet ve adalet kavramı? Evrensel olarak sahip olduğumuz ve yerleşik olanı olabilir. Ama onu doğru yapan nedir? Bu da bizi şu soruna götürür ... Kendi bilişsel ve ahlaki yapılarımızın dışında bir doğruluk kavramı var mı? Ve eğer varsa, o nedir? Matias Mahlmann adında çok iyi bir genç Alman filozof var. Bu konuda çok ilginç çalışmalar yaptı. Temelde aynı soruların epistemolojide de ortaya çıktığını savundu. Öyleyse, en iyi teoriye ulaşmanın yöntemlerini bulursak, tamam deriz, bunlar şimdi doğallaştırılmış epistemoloji olarak adlandırılan, en iyi yöntemler olduklarını söyleyen şeyde kullandığımız yöntemler. Temelde aynı soru. Bu yüzden muhtemelen giremeyeceğimiz şeylerden biri olduğunu düşünüyorum.

@abdullahbuzut484

3 жыл бұрын

@@sibeltorun4902 çok teşekkür ederim 😊😊

''In accordance with nature'' seems pretty straight forward to some, it's got F all to do with scientism btw

🙏✌

1:20 who did he mention here? Jack Kroll?

@nintendoharold

3 жыл бұрын

john rawls

Can you make one about his genocide denial?

He should be in icu

Mr Chomsky,did you make yourself,have you any recollection or other proof of that in other words,do you consider your mind or any human mind the most high in all of the cosmos?With certainty?

Aristotle, Aristotle, was a bugger for the bottle

O importante é Cada um detonar a sua própria Matrix.💣💥💣💥💣

1:52 ... ... ... From that raises more serious questions.... Who or what determines if a concept is *correctly* considered fair / unfair? Is/Are it/they correct? The problem with the term _correct_ is that is subjective, it is determined by many factors, and it is not universal across different societies / cultures. Conclusion: a positive law in one culture/society might be a negative law in another.

@brothergod6633

2 жыл бұрын

Emotions are a important factor in the structure of Moral Law but the Ability to Reason Logically is the most important. Natural Law as explained by Mark Passio uses the rules of Aristotelian Logic to deduce that we are all important as human beings and we all have different tastes/culture etc. Therefore the only rule we need to follow is adjacent to the Golden Rule…to NOT impose physical harm, duress, or coercion onto anyone. Emotional harm is given a smaller role because of our differences. Natural Law is spiritually based but it also stands on the firmest Logic and Truthful ground I’ve ever heard. Noam should check it out, but I doubt he has the moral compass to accept it.

Natural law is respecting the rights of others. Chomskys concept of fairness could mislead to redistribution.

Sounds a lot like plato, your brain contains these concepts of fairness and justice from birth but you remember them over your lifetime

Chomsky why were you linked to Epstein 😭😭😭

@Vincent_Sallow

9 ай бұрын

what?

@Somereasonstolive

7 ай бұрын

​@@Vincent_Sallowwhat's worse is he hates talking about it and avoids the question in the most suspicious way possible

@omnirath

2 ай бұрын

He is a world renowned scientist of course he probably got in touch with epstein at some point like hundreds of people who never harmed any childrens, epstein was a criminal and his network of other unconvinced criminals is wide af but Noam wasn’t r*ping kids on epstein island because he had a few appointments with him

@constantlychangin

Ай бұрын

He wasn't he just teaches at MIT

Damn, he grew a beard. Yet he still has the great mind.

@KISEwun

Жыл бұрын

What point could you possibly trying to make?

@sarmientoenricomiguelv.562

Жыл бұрын

@@KISEwun is there a problem or something? I'm complimenting the simple fact that time has caught up to him yet never lost his intellectual sharpness.

@KISEwun

Жыл бұрын

@@sarmientoenricomiguelv.562 Oh, I was thinking about how young men could grow beards as well.

its just a man telling you reality

👍

Natural law, and the idea of moral, and ethical ideals which make up right and wrong, without influence of theology, I would guess, are spawned from the deep, complex, intangible, albeit, very human conception of empathy. Which it appears that we begin to develop from a very young age. The ability to be able to understand, that pain, both physical and emotional; grievance, loss, concern, and liability caused by (a) person(s) to a third party, determines what is perceived to be the difference between right and wrong either by an individual, a group, or a populace. However, I would argue that, whether an individual would intentionally and knowingly break the said natural law of a populace for personal gain or gratification, would depend, not necessarily the individual’s willingness to admit to his abidance to the natural law, but rather the individual’s personal moral code and ability to break the natural law depends much on the individual’s ability to conceive of empathy. Not 100% empathy, although. The remaining factor being fear of reprisals from peers. Empathy - understanding that hurting someone, in some way, isn’t nice. We understand emotions, and they give us our moral compasses. Kebab and chips.

@brothergod6633

2 жыл бұрын

Emotions are a important factor in the structure of Moral Law but the Ability to Reason Logically is the most important. Natural Law as explained by Mark Passio uses the rules of Aristotelian Logic to deduce that we are all important as human beings and we all have different tastes/culture etc. Therefore the only rule we need to follow is adjacent to the Golden Rule…to NOT impose physical harm, duress, or coercion onto anyone. Emotional harm is given a smaller role because of our differences. Natural Law is spiritually based but it also stands on the firmest Logic and Truthful ground I’ve ever heard. Noam should check it out, but I doubt he has the moral compass to accept it.

@BearSoetero

2 жыл бұрын

@@brothergod6633 Noam is a created distraction who is paid to watch the gate.

Honestly would love to hear what he has to say about trumps legacy and Biden’s win of the election and how he has dealt with country since trump

What happened to Noam?

It is true to question if there is a universal system of justice, there are two ways, 1. Aquire the knowledge of your world and see if it works on the basis of definite laws. This humans have achieved when the laws were discovered and humans went outside their planet if those laws were unjust i. e. Changing from time to time then it would have been possible for all to access whenever and wherever they are. So that means there is a universal system of justice but can we figure it out the answer is no. Those laws which are standards for our society to follow we can't figure them out the way we can for the world around us.

@justgivemethetruth

3 жыл бұрын

I can't hear Chonsky, but I can't understand you? ;-)

@ishmaelforester9825

3 жыл бұрын

The principles of reciprocal morality are not found without so much as within. Just ask yourself with utmost sincerity what you consider a wrong should it be done to you, and positively refrain from doing it to others. And do unto others as you would be done by. This is entirely natural and intuitive. It is conscience which is undeveloped or atrophied in most human beings unfortunately.

@ishmaelforester9825

3 жыл бұрын

All effective principles and attitudes of right and wrong action are developed out of that insight and practice. It is ultimately a very heavy discipline for the ego though which is why people scorn or avoid it despite it being in the best interest of everybody. The discipline is not effectively taught to our children by enough of our parents which is why there is an ongoing moral catastrophe in our world.

@ishmaelforester9825

3 жыл бұрын

Professor Chomsky is correct that children understand basic morals intuitively, like they beam again the sunlight from their eyes. The fundamental problem is we are miseducating them against their better selves instead of inspiring and encouraging them. Often it is too late when an ego is already calcified and there is nothing you can do to restore or reorientate the original illumination. It is going to take an immense effort to turn things around for us at this point, and it begins with parents and little ones.

@brothergod6633

2 жыл бұрын

Emotions are a important factor in the structure of Moral Law but the Ability to Reason Logically is the most important. Natural Law as explained by Mark Passio uses the rules of Aristotelian Logic to deduce that we are all important as human beings and we all have different tastes/culture etc. Therefore the only rule we need to follow is adjacent to the Golden Rule…to NOT impose physical harm, duress, or coercion onto anyone. Emotional harm is given a smaller role because of our differences. Natural Law is spiritually based but it also stands on the firmest Logic and Truthful ground I’ve ever heard. Noam should check it out, but I doubt he has the moral compass to accept it.

The greatest yudenrat out there ! Thank you נועם חומסקי for betrayal of your own kind.

He's a controlled asset of the nwo, friends. He speaks many truths but none will truly ever set you free. Only entrap you further. Know thyself. This is necessity. Once you do, all else will fall in place.

@BEENIECRIS

Жыл бұрын

❤🔥💯

Wow. Ive never knew this. We have the concept of fairness and justice at such an early age. I wonder what the ultra religious would think about that

Rip

@777mofo

22 күн бұрын

He is not passed away, FAKE NEWS!

Agreed, and his influence is I think vastly greater than politicians and pundits acknowledge. I see and hear his influence across the academe and university campuses. Despite or perhaps because of this media never mention his name.

NOTHING IS BETTER THAN MY ❤ PROJECT COSY PLANET STILL A SECRET.❤

Can this noam guy speak a bit louder cos I can't hear shit

Damn, he looks so old 😢

I don't think Chomsky know what natural law is

It's interesting that no one is talking about what Chomsky is actually saying. I don't think they understand it. I suspect people think he is saying that we can't be sure our morality is correct. But if you listen again you will notice that he says inbuilt universal concept of fairness. Now it sounds a bit odd. If it's inbuilt and universal, why is he saying that we can't know if it's correct? Being inbuilt and universal sound like an argument for it being correct. He is comparing natural law to natural epistemology, which is basically the kind of things we can be most certain of. I.e. scientific facts. Or for that matter what we experience in our daily lives. What he is saying is that because we are limited we can not be certain about anything but to the degree that we can be certain about something science and our daily experience we can also be certain about our inbuilt universal fairness or natural law. So why is Chomsky saying it in such a cryptic way? Well the short answer is that it's a bit of passive aggressive behaviour because he is getting frustrated with the postmodernists. He is also avoiding confrontation with the not very smart post modernist because they won't understand what he is saying and at the same time he is giving his message across to people who do understand what he is saying. (And if someone is a postmodernist and does understand what he is saying it's not worth it for them to address it) It's almost like a call for help.

@smileyface702

3 жыл бұрын

To be purposefully cryptic so that the people you disagree with don't understand what you're saying seems intellectually dishonest to me. I hate passive aggressiveness in relationships let alone academic discourse. If he thought he had the stronger argument, why not just state it more clearly?

@nosson77

3 жыл бұрын

@@smileyface702 Personally I don't judge I'm just explaining what I think is going on.

@danialasadolahi

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you for this reply! I kept scrolling down through the other comments until I found one discussing what Chomsky was actually talking about!

@mcrotty

3 жыл бұрын

Is human nature and natural law really mysterious or impenetrable as Chomsky cryptically says, or even non-existent as the postmodernist would assert? Natural law states that something is correct/right by it following from its nature. The correctness of a thing outside of our own cognitive and moral structure is identifiable in infants in "fairness," or good proportions of a thing, as obvious as it is for any form to fit its function. For example, your legs are used for walking and its obvious when they are used incorrectly, like walking with your knees; This exists outside of your perception, because its natural law, and its could only be the correct concept if it identifies what works in the natural world. I think you could come up with numerous examples of what works in nature and what doesn't, even if they depend on your limited concepts, not just infants perceiving something is right or wrong for them. Like the concept of a wing or a flipper instead of a leg. Aristotle was a teleologist and said that everything in nature is done according to purpose and function (nature does nothing in vain), like logic done for the function of right conclusions, or any type of theatrical performance, or a biological form realizing its form in the world, using its parts by natural law, determined by intellect, or grasping the thing/realizing it's entelechia. If someone says something doesn't have a purpose/end, that's like saying it is non-existent or eternal (unmoved). In the human mind, realizing a thing's nature is done as passive intellect (positive law), and in the divine mind (nous), this is done as active intellect (natural law). Imagine a law that didn't have a goal and mind, and would that really be a law? Aristotle said that the active intellect was unmixed/separable with the body, and did not function out of a bodily/corporeal source, being the highest aspect of the soul which separates man from other forms of life. (De Anima III. 4-5). "Others, however, think that this active intellect is Aristotle's God, the unmoved mover of Metaphysics Lambda, or another entity outside of the human soul." philpapers.org/browse/aristotle-activepassive-intellect "Nature does nothing in vain. Therefore, it is imperative for persons to act in accordance with their nature and develop their latent talents, in order to be content and complete." ― Aristotle

@brothergod6633

2 жыл бұрын

Emotions are a important factor in the structure of Moral Law but the Ability to Reason Logically is the most important. Natural Law as explained by Mark Passio uses the rules of Aristotelian Logic to deduce that we are all important as human beings and we all have different tastes/culture etc. Therefore the only rule we need to follow is adjacent to the Golden Rule…to NOT impose physical harm, duress, or coercion onto anyone. Emotional harm is given a smaller role because of our differences. Natural Law is spiritually based but it also stands on the firmest Logic and Truthful ground I’ve ever heard. Noam should check it out, but I doubt he has the moral compass to accept it. It definitely takes some perseverance.

You say natural law is impenetrable but is it Noam? The USA constitution reflects aspects of natural law. We all know that human rights also reflect natural law. No, I disagree, we can do more than penetrate it, and precisely define it. We can amend human rights so that it reflects our current understanding of the human *condition* and our present technology.

@YoungO-un8ul

3 жыл бұрын

You can amend it, true. But eventually it will catch back up to you. It's like anything natural that you amend; natural order, natural health, natural breasts ...ect

@edwardhunia6315

3 жыл бұрын

@@YoungO-un8ul I think your is overly pessimistic.

@brothergod6633

2 жыл бұрын

Emotions are a important factor in the structure of Moral Law but the Ability to Reason Logically is the most important. Natural Law as explained by Mark Passio uses the rules of Aristotelian Logic to deduce that we are all important as human beings and we all have different tastes/culture etc. Therefore the only rule we need to follow is adjacent to the Golden Rule…to NOT impose physical harm, duress, or coercion onto anyone. Emotional harm is given a smaller role because of our differences. Natural Law is spiritually based but it also stands on the firmest Logic and Truthful ground I’ve ever heard. Noam should check it out, but I doubt he has the moral compass to accept it.

He reminds me of another wise person… Margaret Atwood.

dude stop nodding every second

@BEENIECRIS

Жыл бұрын

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Emotions are a important factor in the structure of Moral Law but the Ability to Reason Logically is the most important. Natural Law as explained by Mark Passio uses the rules of Aristotelian Logic to deduce that we are all important as human beings and we all have different tastes/culture etc. Therefore the only rule we need to follow is adjacent to the Golden Rule…to NOT impose physical harm, duress, or coercion onto anyone. Emotional harm is given a smaller role because of our differences. Natural Law is spiritually based but it also stands on the firmest Logic and Truthful ground I’ve ever heard. Noam should check it out, but I doubt he has the moral compass to accept it. It definitely takes some perseverance.

You get your payout from big pharma?

Anything that robs someone of there free will is inherently wrong under natural law , and all wrong doings are a form of theft in one way or another . Example killing someone is Robbin them of life, raping someone is robbing them of there choice who to sleep with, hurting someone physically is robbing them of there well-being / health, lien or with holding information from someone is robbing them of the ability to make an informed choice , you can go on an on an on . All wrong doings are a form of theft.

Does this host know that he doesn't have to gesture a nod of approval every time Chomsky says something?

@omnirath

2 ай бұрын

Yes but with meeting your idol that’s a normal reaction, I think I would do the same without even realizing

Do these guys know how to party or what

Infants don't understand anything naturally , no infant learns to speak even if not in the environment of it. Do ferrell children have any understanding of "it's not fair"? Even if so what about "everything is fair in love and war" is it natural?

@Panta8472

3 жыл бұрын

'all is fair in love and war' doesn't mean anything, it is just some dumb old timey saying. obviously it's still wrong to murder someone out of love, war crimes still exist. It's like 'it never rains but it pours'. It doesn't mean anything, its isjust something people like to say

@jonathand8585

3 жыл бұрын

Much of Chomsky's research in on how children have an innate ability for language. Just because an interaction with the environment is required to bring out an ability doesn't mean it isn't natural. If you raise a child in the dark, it's eyes won't properly develop and it will be blind as an adult, but that doesn't mean the eye is not a natural characteristic. No child's eye will ever develop to see ultraviolet or infrared, no matter how much you expose it to them as infants.

@HarryS77

3 жыл бұрын

@@jonathand8585 I agree with your point, but some humans can see ultraviolet as a result of congenital defect, damage to or surgical removal of the lens of the eye, a condition called aphakia. The painter Claude Monet is thought to've had it.

#CooperativeSocialism is the way to go, worldwide for a moneyless world. How to start small and make it big is the challenge? We need to start with one industry and make it successfull , and then move on to another industry... Just imagine Electric vehicle / Electric bike - Assume the scientists and experts unite and create an EV ecosystem to deliver affordable Electric bike (say for less than $500 dollars that can give a minimum range of 300 kms per 1 hour of charging. This will become a hit worldwide and it can capture 95% market, while the rest of the manufacturers will get 5% market.. Thats how we can eliminate money from the society, by eventually making the ebike available for Free, as all essential products and services will be a basic human right, guaranteed in the World Constitution.. Sounds simple, right ?

Check out what on Earth is happening for the one and only mark passio

oh the joke about us all suposedly being descended from monkees. it's a shocker. 😂

@armorlesscrustacean8445

3 жыл бұрын

No, that would be your spelling skills.

Rip, foucault ideology will prevail 🎉🎉 post modernism, cybernetics are the future of humanity

This is what we're dealing with today, beyond law: Covid 19 new test for Negative only results...created in Asia...Embossing Negative Covid 19 for those insecure souls that think they're the badass and boss of everyone...you get a negative everytime.

Its not more natural for me to prefer "well" over "good"....notice mostly those grammar syntax/semantics that are less natural are mostly used...and the natural correct grammar becomes archaic. In other words, grammar can become nongramatically correct and become a pigeon in suburban areas where they perceive their identity to be more natural over and above the natural rules of grammar. This is the reason why California perhaps abandonned English Achievement Testing like the SAT...because they saw it as natural....and thus they're not natural. That being the case, the non natural would naturally not pass the natural test of nature nor natural grammar? So yah, revolt and rebellion will always use grammar and law to attempt to prove they are more natural by turning into paranoid beasts of unnatural grammar. Yes, they failed to meet the standards and failed to get the point but are licensed by the state to practice professionally even at law. The university was not a complete and utter failure, but it did perhaps fail law and jurisprudence. English, Arabec nor Chinese are natural languages and a natural preference is not natural.

On Earth Action & Consequences Gravity Birth Death Copying Remix Passing Being Sun Moon Earth Good Genesis Knowing Feeling Dreaming Doing _Ol' Hank KNEW!_ Can anybody name a well-known old society with exceptional power that does no bad and all Good? Any living leading person and free? There's character and there is a public reputation. What is and what seems so. Hank Williams Said IT best. He said IT long ago. Unless YOU have made NO mistakes in your life, be careful of stones that you throw ° -•- Hank Williams Said It Best By Guy Clark [Verse 1] One man's hawk is another man's dove One man's hug is another man's shove One man's rock is man's sand One man's fist is another man's hand One man's tool is another man's toy One man's grief is another man's joy One man's squawk is another man's sing One man's crutch is another man's wing One man's pride is another man's humble One man's step is another man's stumble One man's pleasure is another man's pain One man's loss is another man's gain One man's can is another man's grail One man's anchor is another man's sail One man's right is another man's wrong One man's curse is another man's song [Chorus] For every father's daughter, for every mother's son The only thing the same is that it ain't for anyone Hank Williams said it best, he said it a long time ago- Unless you have made no mistakes in your life, be careful of stones that you throw [Verse 2] One man's deuce is another man's ace One man's back is another man's face One man's reason is another man's rhyme One man's dollar is another man's dime One man's tree is another man's post One man's angel is another man's ghost One man's rain is another man's drought One man's hope is another man's doubt One man's false is another man's fair One man's toupee is another man's hair One man's hand is another man's stub One man's feast is another man's grub One man's dread is another man's dream One man's sigh is another man's scream One man's water is another man's wine One man's daughter leave another man crying For every father's daughter, for every mother's son The only thing the same is that it ain't for anyone Hank Williams said it best, he said it a long time ago- Unless you have made no mistakes in your life, be careful of stones that you throw. [Verse 3] One man's famine is another man's feast One man's pet is another man's beast One man's bat is another man's ball One man's art is another man's scrawl One man's friend is another man's foe One man's Joseph is another man's Joe One man's hammer is another man's nail One man's freedom is another man's jail One man's road is another man's rut One man's if is another man's but One man's treasure is another man's trash One man's landing is another man's crash One man's word, another man's lie One man's dirt, another man's sky One man's skin is another man's color One man's killer is another man's brother [Chorus] For every father's daughter, for every mother's son The only thing the same is that it ain't for anyone Hank Williams said it best, he said it a long time ago- Unless you have made no mistakes in your life, be careful of stones that you throw. ☣️⚡💲🌐🕳️💩🏴‍☠️💲⚡☢️ VS 🌒🌎😍 Feel ~ Free‽™ OR Freely loving and living. *_NATUR🌏ALLY_* WE THE PEOPLE MAN Naturally Making Americas Nicer _NATUR❤ALLY_ AND We spell THAT M A Natur😍∆lly No federal taxes on the first 300K inc tx per human Reaquire NO LESS THAN HALF defrauded double dealing pelf starting with the wealthiest most culpable families of crooks and liars these past 3 years. No killing. No lying to the public under oath Lying kills Be nice. Don't make a mess for others or your health. For Goodness Sake. Naturally. Bring oneself together like a splash of cream and black coffee. 1+1 is 1 thousand fold Synergy. Genesis. G is NOT Genocidal OGs KNOW BEST

In the article "The politics of genocide: Rwanda & DR Congo" by Martin Shaw, the author criticizes a revisionist reading of the Rwandan genocide of 1994 that has been endorsed by Noam Chomsky. Shaw argues that this revisionist interpretation demonstrates the moral blindness of the "denialist left." Shaw contends that Chomsky and other left-wing intellectuals who support this revisionist view downplay the severity and scale of the Rwandan genocide. They argue that the responsibility for the genocide is not solely on the Hutu-led government of Rwanda at the time but also on the Tutsi-led Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) and Western powers. According to Shaw, this perspective minimizes the deliberate, systematic extermination of Tutsis and moderate Hutus and shifts the blame away from the primary perpetrators. Shaw asserts that this revisionist approach is morally problematic and reflects a broader issue within the left-wing intellectual community, which he labels the "denialist left." This group, Shaw argues, is more concerned with critiquing Western foreign policy and the mainstream media's portrayal of conflicts than with acknowledging and condemning the atrocities committed in genocides like the one in Rwanda. In doing so, Shaw believes that the denialist left is failing to take a morally responsible stance on these critical issues.

There is more of Noam Chomsky at his official website: chomsky.info

Will he never die?

@davegreene8588

3 жыл бұрын

He'll hopefully live, in good health, for much longer!

*You can just picture him in his robes, chanting and summoning his master.*

I love Noam but this said a whole lot of nothing.

Noam the sage has an impressive book collection there.

I think Natural Learning is quite disfunctional and unnatural. In other words, once we're born there is nothing natural about the learning process, its actually antisocial after breaking the womb bond. From there on, we'd like to call it bonding since there's definitely a distance and one must reconnect. So I do think language learning is far from natural while I do think it may be innate but that's a different theory Nature vs Nurture...and nature is not natural its far from natural and in fact its antisocial, so we then talk about combing and polishing and perfecting as we grow and become older. Yes, we are a natural being in a natural world but the rules of grammar are never natural hence the science of motherese and cross comparisons between languages etc and even sign language. Some, think to provide a head start with speech if they skip the adult talking for the first year of life and then instead teach sign language, while some devote their lifetime to paren'these.

Perdre Noam serait une énorme perte pour tout le monde, et moi

how do people listen to chomsky clips like this and actually understand what he's saying, deadass 😐 i can only hear 30% of what he's saying