He's so lightning fast because he's done the work of struggling with all the ideas and considering all possible perspectives, and most importantly, which is often neglected, at the end he's managed to come up with clear-headed and well-integrated conclusions. If there are goals in philosophy I think he's nailed them - clear thinking together with (what is often lacking) philosophical completeness.

@skiphoffenflaven8004

3 жыл бұрын

“Done the work” is exactly it, and that is what I’ve found lacking in so many over the past 20 years or so in my attempts at dialogue such as what is presented here in the video.

@murrayscott3513

2 жыл бұрын

Done the work and come correct.

@Itraininthebogs

2 жыл бұрын

Doesn’t hurt his cause that he has a higher IQ than everyone else

@henryulric

Жыл бұрын

Right on the money.

@harshkumar2473

11 ай бұрын

​@@Itraininthebogsi don't think it has something to do with iq..... He is a logician like his predecessors bertrend russell and wittgenstein.... And they present there work very clearly

I love to see intelligent, perceptive people disagreeing yet remaining able to exchange ideas in a productive way. So rare on KZread.

@paulvandall1363

7 жыл бұрын

iDemandU90 or irl

@cbishop41483

6 жыл бұрын

What about joe rogan? Oh wait you said intelligent haha!!

@JSB103

5 жыл бұрын

Just like in "real life" in the "real world" where the fate of mankind is being decided by "intelligent" and "constructive" people, huh? God help us all!

@jimwuhan5336

5 жыл бұрын

you are remarkable too, exactly, I feel the same way.

@edreyes894

4 жыл бұрын

Well stated.

(note to self: if you ever happen to interview noam chomsky, don't put him in front of fake books.)

@theodorebartley9776

6 жыл бұрын

georg wachberg i

@coreycox2345

6 жыл бұрын

Book wallpaper.

@all_is_1485

5 жыл бұрын

georg wachberg he can probably still quote them, verbatim 😳

@coreycox2345

5 жыл бұрын

Good point, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa1. He wouldn't need the actual books. I have never seen a man with such an infallible seeming memory. He is human so he must make an error once in a while, but I can't imagine this.

@galactic904

5 жыл бұрын

Haha, good one!

Learning from Noam Chomsky makes life meaningful. My deepest respect.

I’ve had an inkling that I’m an idiot for nearly my entire life. This video gave me irrefutable evidence that I was correct. I’m gonna go listen to an episode of the joe organ experience podcast and rebuild my self esteem.

@kantvishi

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah. Also, don't forget to look up what Chomsky has to say about the language rogan.

@danloredo8229

4 жыл бұрын

I’m sure you are being too hard on yourself. Watching this video is like jumping into a middle of a conversation. Or it would be like turning to the middle of a random book and starting to read. You need the set-up. In this dialogue they are using a lot of super specific academic terms you would need to be familiar with to follow along. Chomsky’s lectures are usually quite clear and deliberate.

@JonathanDavisKookaburra

4 жыл бұрын

missing vocabulary is not lack of intelligence. just pause everytimr you hit a word you don't understand and google it. p.s. Joe Rogan get Chomsky on his show 'have you tried DMT?'

@samslaby4882

3 жыл бұрын

lololol

@HauntingTheHoly

3 жыл бұрын

Haha!!

The real genius here is the set designer

Guys, he's pushing Chomsky like any good interviewer should. He's damn good at it.

@abhineetmaurya4334

4 жыл бұрын

He is a philospher himself, not a journalist.

@johnnonamegibbon3580

4 жыл бұрын

He seems top be in a scenario where he's interviewing Chomsky.

@melskilove

3 жыл бұрын

I like that they share this kind of back and forth you get to see what Chomsky is made of and in my opinion it’s refreshing

@reimannx33

Жыл бұрын

@@abhineetmaurya4334 Towards the end, the interviewer was about to cry .

When I watch Noam talk, a large portion of my body goes into a trance, my mind becomes the most active participant. That is a very rewarding unique experience. Thank you Noam Chomsky.

@JohnSmith-cv5pj

5 жыл бұрын

Coyote Fur Trumpet What a stylish comment.

@ButterflyLiondance

5 жыл бұрын

Body is mind

@fabiengerard8142

Жыл бұрын

👌👌👌👌👌 Exactly! 🤗 I’d a huge pleasure to read him 19:27 decades ago….till I happened to ‘meet’ the man on YT. Then I kind of fell in love of his exceptionally lucid mind and most remarkable humanity. Couldn’t probably survive without listening to some Noam speech on a daily base. Best teacher ever.

Really good interviewer for once with Chomsky, actually made him really explain specifically what his position was.

This interviewer is great - yes Chomsky has a better argument. duh, but its the journalist job to be critical and ask those questions that gives Chomsky more room to elaborate. He did great. He confronted him on his earlier words and got the replies he wanted. Good stuff. The other professor is much more open to dialogue and hearing new ideas, while Chomsky only wants to talk about truth

@TheBornnaked

6 жыл бұрын

skankhunt42 could not agree more. Whenever Chomsky speaks unopposed he often says “if we were to go into it”. This guy makes him “go into it”. Although I don’t fully understand everything said in this video (lol), I feel I’m much closer to understanding the content than I normally would have

@JerryBisMe

6 жыл бұрын

Definitely, of course people criticize him for not being able to keep up with Chomsky, he is still a critical thinker who came prepared and would smoke 99% if people in the comment section making over generalizations on his ability. Matching Chomsky requires profound context derived from profound knowledge and profound intellectual endowment in my book

@usxnews1834

2 жыл бұрын

the 'journalist' is Peter Ludlow, a well distinguished philosopher and linguist and information-rights + digital-rights activist

Chomsky is so good at explaining complex philosophies from the 17th and 18th centuries. I am grateful he does not treat non-philosophers as unintelligent he finds interest in lower class writings, as well as upper classes.

@jeremyreagan9085

7 жыл бұрын

Damm Right sir!

@cp9105

7 жыл бұрын

He's interested in content only, not the status of the writer

@jeremyreagan9085

7 жыл бұрын

Yes content is all that mattrers.

After reading the comments, it's clear that even people who watch Chomsky mostly sit around and "feel" that he's impressive. The interviewer wasn't "destroyed" or "embarrassed" -- he asked deep, probing questions with sources and he should be commended for running such a thoughtful interview. Try to check your biases when you watch these discussions. We all feel a bias toward Chomsky because he's famous and we like him. The other guy is unknown and looks unimpressive, so we assume he's wrong on an emotional level. Try to just sit back and listen to the discussion as an intellectual discussion between two anonymous parties rather than a boxing match between a celebrity and an unknown.

@unclehectorandtheboys8043

7 жыл бұрын

you nailed it

@AymanB

6 жыл бұрын

Couldn't have put it better.

@1nothingmatters

6 жыл бұрын

Chomsky was arrogant and supercilious.

@milascave2

5 жыл бұрын

I listen to chompsky because he seems to me to be right, mostly. Somtimes I disagree with him. I don't see myself having the celebrity worshipping attitude you wseem to sugest.

@coreycox2345

5 жыл бұрын

I enjoyed this interview. It is a skilled interviewer who can bring out this kind of slightly heightened response. If the reaction is the measure, he did a good job.

For those dismissing the interviewer, or assuming he's a journalist, or that he's "getting destroyed" by Chomsky, please know that he is Peter Ludlow, a prominent philosopher of language, and an expert on Chomsky's work. He's doing what any good interviewer does on behalf of the audience: asking probing questions to tease out additional details and information. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ludlow

@JoshuaSobel

Жыл бұрын

@C L I don't think he comes across as combative at all. The socratic method is a good thing; I'm a huge Chomsky fan, and I'd probably (try to) interview him in the same way.

This discussion is so far above me it would take 100 years to understand it. This is amazing!

Absolutely the deepest discussion I have ever heard on KZread.

5:45 "Real is basically used as an honorific" "what about morality, is that the same?" "No, morality is something real"

@BLUEGENE13

5 жыл бұрын

lol

@Maarttttt

5 жыл бұрын

also made me laugh

@TheCommono

4 жыл бұрын

Reminds me of the 'guy from Athen asserts that Athenians are liars'. Pure folk science of course!

@tartanhandbag

4 жыл бұрын

As i understand it (and im not 100% sure i do), Chomsky claims the word "real" is used as an honorific term. Chomsky then refers to morality as "real", rather than honorific, using the term "real" honorifically, consistent with his earlier assertion. Chomsky is using the term "real" honorifically to describe morality as having value, and so "real", whereas "real" is not real, but honorific. Maybe the best way to think of it is that Chomsky is suggesting that the term "morality" holds more value than "real".

@dj098

4 жыл бұрын

First of all, Chomsky does not want to deny that there is a distinction between our concepts (our minds) and the external world. What he rejects is the unscientific use of the term 'real' when describing not only properties of our own concepts, but the actual stuff in the external world picked out by those concepts; he finds every such attempt to be impossible, since it necessarily leads back to the reflexive investigation of our own language and its properties (the mistake is metaphorically similar to that of a dog not realizing that the tail which it chases is its own).

He is a goddam genius

having watched this video a few times i realise it's difficult to understand without appreciating Chomsky's Pragmatic influence. The argument goes something like this: "things that have predictive qualities are more important than things that don't. don't worry too much about what is and isn't QUOTE real UNQUOTE. worry about what explains the world in a manner that leads to useful predictions. everything else is stories. they're fine, just don't get hung up on it"

@alexross5714

9 ай бұрын

I’m not well-versed enough in philosophy or in Chomsky’s linguistic writings to say whether or not your interpretation is accurate, but it makes a lot of sense to me and is very well expressed. Thanks for your synthesis of a complex issue.

Thank God for Bertrand Russell... without his History of Western Philosophy this conversation would have made no sense to me! (and thank God for Chomsky, who led me to Russell in the first place) (and Thank Buddha for Sam Harris... for providing comic relief)

@igodinoel

7 жыл бұрын

lol

@santosd6065

7 жыл бұрын

yabadabadu About as funny as a wax enema I suppose

@jassohal4273

7 жыл бұрын

Anyone know what's Chomsky's contributions to computer science ?

@santosd6065

7 жыл бұрын

Jas Sohal I don't think he's worked directly in anything computer science related. His main focus is on thought itself, an effort to try and understand how the brain "produces" thoughts. He focuses on linguistics specifically because in that aspect we have a very specific and easily observed mental "object", language itself, with all sorts of complex rules and interactions. In order for computer scientists to develop Artificial Intelligence it would make sense for them to make an effort to understand actual biological intelligence itself... but computers and brains are such totally different systems that talking about computers "thinking" is kind of like talking about submarines "swimming" (Chomsky's words, not mine).

@santosd6065

7 жыл бұрын

Mionysus I think Centrist Liberals all round are having a hard time. They've abandoned most of what makes them liberal in a vain effort to suck up to Neo Cons and right wingers, and the right wingers don't want them. Instead they mock them relentlessly and call them cucks. Pretty pathetic

Would love to see Chomsky and Socrates having a discussion.

@zgb3l

4 жыл бұрын

Socrates is plato's wet dream, I'd rather see him discus with someone else haha

@Curitive

4 жыл бұрын

Maybe with Gore Vidal and Alan Watts.

@Johnconno

4 жыл бұрын

Never happen.

@Johnconno

4 жыл бұрын

@@Curitive There is a 30min? discussion with Chomsky and Vidal on KZread.

@HughMorristheJoker

4 жыл бұрын

@@Johnconno cool thanks for mentioning

Chomsky's powerful intellect ranges with deep understanding across many fields of knowledge, so he is able to be extremely precise in discussing many complex topics with total clarity. For us mere mortals, we can quickly get lost in these discussions because we have not delved deeply enough or broadly enough in all of these disciplines to understand the precise meanings of terminologies, processes, descriptors, properties, etc. Still, by hanging on every word we can expand our understanding just by trying to follow where Chomsky's academically trained teaching style leads us. Absolutely breathtaking to any cultivated mind that can respond to utter brilliance...

How is it possible to acquire so much mastery over so much information?

@neoseyes

7 жыл бұрын

Its not. Its an illusion. The intellect is just scratching the surface of reality.

@MattSingh1

7 жыл бұрын

I often ask the same question in regard to Christopher Hitchens and his power of recall. It is/was astounding.

@maxschlepzig641

7 жыл бұрын

essentially 8 decades of continuous work and being in the most prolific scientific institution (MIT) for 6 of those sure helps.

@tjm937

7 жыл бұрын

It is dedicated work to build a relationship with a body of knowledge. We are fortunate to have Chomsky's foundation and like minded soul such as Chris Hedges et al.

@neoseyes

7 жыл бұрын

TJ M They both vote for Hillary.

MY god, this guy is unbeatable. It leaves you breathless.

8:56 In 1753 the Seneca leader Tanacharison called George Washington Conotocaurious or "Town Destroyer. " Living up to his Indian reputation, during the American Revolutionary War, in 1779, Washington ordered the Major General John Sullivan to destroy at least 40 Iroquois villages in New York. ... High School history texts have forgotten this atrocity. Will history remember President Donald Trump in order to "make America great again" re-instituted the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline ignoring the appeals of the Native Americans at Standing Rock to protect not only their water but also the water supply of millions of Americans living downstream on the Mississippi River?

Respectful yet probing, pressing in a coherent fashion. Loved this interview.

On the issue of what is “real,” Chomsky elsewhere has said that we use “water” and “H2O” interchangeably, but they in fact belong to separate languages and are incommensurable concepts. This doesn’t mean that “H2O” is real and “water” isn’t, however-it just means “H2O” refers to, as he puts it, “the way the world works,” and “water” is a more fungible term with all sorts of associations that are useful in everyday language.

@Primitarian

2 жыл бұрын

H2O is the way the world works under the strictest scrutiny that our science and mathematics can muster, but both remain edifices of the mind that are largely though not quite complete. "Water" is the empirical reference to the same thing that is rougher and thus far less useful, though it leaves open the possibility for additional discoveries through observation that may necessitate revision of the present formulas, even if such revisions are likely to lead to nothing but modifications of an extraordinarily subtle kind.

"There is no such thing as a stupid question" - Your Kindergarten teacher. Don't think the interviewer is a dummy

Really fascinating, challenging stuff. Thanks for sharing!

When I listen to professor Chomsky dissect language and his interpretation. I realize how stupid I really am.

how lucky every student of this man is. thanks KZread!

Such a beautiful conversation. So true in the meaning of life. Love all his work

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🧠 Donald Davidson argued that there's no single concept of language, but Chomsky disagrees, distinguishing between technical and community notions of language. 01:20 🌎 Chomsky emphasizes that understanding language requires a different approach than trying to grasp abstract concepts like the meaning of life, relating it to folk science and ethnoscience. 04:51 💡 Chomsky clarifies that the term "real" is used honorifically, emphasizing the importance of science in understanding how the world works while discarding common-sense notions. 08:49 🌐 Chomsky discusses the ambiguity of defining events in the external world and the influence of perspective and interests on their characterization. 13:50 🖥️ Chomsky distinguishes between externalistic and internalistic viewpoints, highlighting that discussions on computational states apply differently to insects and humans. 17:19 🐘 Chomsky argues that even in studies involving external objects, like elephants, the focus is on the internal processes of cognition, emphasizing the importance of the "occasion of sense." Made with HARPA AI

GENIUS

Long live Noam Chomsky!

As long as mobile devices and social media exist, this type of genius will never appear again.

7:42 - Chomsky is quite the elegant stipulator. He has such a lovely (late) Wittgenstein-esque wit to him.

It's so fun hearing Chomsky argue. The videos of him being pressed are rare. Love it.

Chomsky has no chill

@mikell.6064

7 жыл бұрын

Idriss M'Bodou 😂😂😂

I'm amazed at noams recall, he has an incredible short and also long term memory..

i speak 3 languages, english, french, and my native language tagalog, currently i'm self studying japanese, and as far as i can tell, japanese is more tied to reality ( what we see, people. humbleness, kindness, respect, politeness ), as far as english goes, in my opinion, it's a language that became arrogant itself, french is a little between the two, but french is more close to japanese, my native language is a mixed of everything.. but in the end, we all try to express what's in our heart,,,vs those who express and manipulate with their head... this is why asians are more sensitive and more connected with their feelings,,, they die happy,,, look at westerners, they put their old parents at some factory and die alone which makes sense if you want to progress in life ( enslaved by money, life priorities etc ) but if you look outside these complications, we have unemployment and its because of competition,, rising cost of life while salary stays the same,,, the only one who profits from this system are those who are above everyone else and it's only a minority,... if we break this word called "privilege" give work to everyone, remove the currency system,,, everyone will only be working at most 2h per day for basic needs..the rest of the time can be attributed to a chosen field of speciality for human progress,,,, clean house,, learn how to cook, learn arts, learn anything you want.... These big corporations have been living in a delusional mathematical logic world that they've have forgotten that the real world doesn't translate to numbers, it does scientifically, but humans aren't made from numbers, that's why the human mind is unpredictable because there exist consciousness, and consciousness isn't mathematics, and they've trapped themselves along with everyone in it..I'm not good at expressing words and i'm very sorry for my english but People need to wake up from this madness.

Is anyone reminded of Plato's book Cratylus, where they discuss the origin of language?

Wow I would shit my pants matching wits with Mr Chomsky...this interviewer was drowning almost from the first second!

@daver5120

7 жыл бұрын

Quiet down, cueball.

@AntonKuznetsovMusic

7 жыл бұрын

I'd be relaxed because he's a human, too. And quite a humane one as well.

@justdamo

7 жыл бұрын

Anton Kuznetsov Agreed. The calm of the wise.

@AntonKuznetsovMusic

7 жыл бұрын

Dave R DamoThinks I think you're not interpreting what he says correctly, Dave R. I seriously don't think he would claim something so one-sided. Could you please specify the source which left you with that impression? After all, It's his credo that a healthy society has to question all authority at any time, and if it doesn't work for the common good to replace it.

@kennethmarshall306

7 жыл бұрын

Yes, it took nerve to tell Chomsky that he did not want to admit what he really thought. But the interviewer perhaps thought that by confronting Chomsky so directly it might help to give the conversation more spice. Like waving a red rag at a bull.

What's the title of the book on the table?

basically, no matter what you say to chomsky, he'll disagree.

I like the American Revolution example. The way I see it, is that events are not representations. Representations, in the scientific field, is an internal construction, not a relation between an outside event and internal event. To note further, scientifically an event does not relate to anything external, but what is what is an event is highly determined by various preferences and values of the people internally involved. From what I gather these preferences and values determine our perceptions. Thus, the key idea here is that there are no external events of knowing, but rather there are perceptions of knowing. This reminds me of Humberto Maturana's Theory of cognition, but more so Santiago's Theory of cognition, since I don't know his stance on consciences yet. The former sees conscience as being social phenomena within language, while the latter regards conscience as something that can be determined neurophysiologically. If someone reads this and wants to either correct me or build upon what I said, I will be glad to engage.

@nblumer

6 жыл бұрын

Yes, an event is an internal construction but to carry this further, our conscience is a bundle of internal constructions that determine our perception of entities and they do not rely on external objects, although they play a role in altering them. That would mean we are predisposed towards individuating to construct our picture of the world. The fact that creatures like humans can do this is both enhancing and restricting. Enhancing because we we don't have to be fed external experience but restricting because there must be some cognitive limitations, preventing us from fully understanding the way the world and humans work

@GreenMorningDragonProductions

5 жыл бұрын

The American Revolution example is a bad one - Washington was dubbed the "Town Destroyer" a long, long, long time before the revolution began. 1753 in fact. You can't say why do we blindly praise Churchill for WW2 when he was responsible for the debacle at Gallipolli? They're two entirely separate events which happen to involve the same person.

Dementia and age don't appear to be synonymous with Chomsky. Amazing Human Being.

@patrickvanmeter2922

11 ай бұрын

@@remotefaith Maybe.

a wonderful channel for fans of Chomsky's SANE BUT RADICAL ideas about human thinking

'You think there is such a thing as language?' What kind of question is that? Of course there is. The question is, what is it? That is what has concerned Professor Chomsky.

@suejak1

7 жыл бұрын

Huh? Did you listen to the lead-in discussion? He was asking for Chomsky's opinion on another scholar's assertion that there is no such thing as language.

@ishmaelforester9825

7 жыл бұрын

A scholar had that opinion?! Who the fuck asserts the idea there is no such thing as language? It is like a tabloid leading with the headline, 'The sky isn't blue.'

@suejak1

7 жыл бұрын

Not much of a thinker huh

@ishmaelforester9825

7 жыл бұрын

suejak1 Don't be facetious. I think alright. The suggestion that language does not exist is absurd. No scholar would believe that.

@ishmaelforester9825

7 жыл бұрын

Who say's the sea is blue? lol. Are you thinking of the sky?

8:33 Who would have thought: the quest for truth faces obstacles like interests and stuff... unheard of!

Rationality is something which we can understand, morality is inbuilt in us. 😊😍

Is the difference Hume made between objects in the outside world and our individuation of them cognate with Heidegger's difference between the ontic (objects) and the ontological?

At 11:18 Chomsky says "there's a long discussion of that in here". He is, presumably, referring to a book. Does anyone know which one?

Which Chomsky book are they referencing here? I need this for my dissertation. Thanks!

Mr. Chomsky is a minigod of the mind!!

The Master teaching the grasshopper. Noam is so intelligent the he shines in the company of intelligent people.

It is very sad that with all the technology the sound with Chomsky's talks is barely audible. He has much to say but what good is it if it cannot be heard.

@GeordiLaForgery

7 жыл бұрын

It sounds fine to me, check your ears!

@cesarbravo822

7 жыл бұрын

Try turning up the bass on your system's audio settings.

@gauravmahajan5094

7 жыл бұрын

you r hearing, just not comprehending...try again!

Chomsky is that dude's teacher and bus driver.

@iceydaywalker9198

7 жыл бұрын

topkek

@Rdelrio19

6 жыл бұрын

As in chonsky being the bus driver and him telling teach, bitch sit your ass down you on my bus😂

!6:00

The world doesn't deserve this man

~ 11:00... But the box or so called events are not _in the head or the mind,_ but in the environment. And the picture our brains produce is ourselves in the environment with the box

Does anyone know the name of the book on the table noam refers to a couple of times?

Rare....

18:40 "The cognoscitive powers of the mind construct complicated internal structures [that represent the outside world]"

@Disentropic1

6 жыл бұрын

Your edited wording is a terrible misrepresentation.

really makes me wish that Peirce's categories and theory of signs were better known when Chomsky was younger.

Chomsky does well here describing how psychologists speak of representations.

have no idea what they're talking about gonna have to come back on this one lmao

yes it showed up but havent had time to answer and was just about to. Stand by;-)

"... and it's called metaphysics" "... no" hahaha so good

Chomsky is a fucking legend.

My boy Noam is wicked smaht.

Chomsky and other students of classical Western philosophy are still struggling with questions that were answered by Eastern philosophy thousands of years ago. I was amazed once to talk to a person with a masters in philosophy from Ivy-League USA universities after he stated that in all his schooling Eastern Thought was never brought up. This severely limits those schooled in traditional Western philosophy. Chomsky has many useful things to say about the small world he has spent his life in, but he nor his peers have anything new or useful to say outside the narrow sphere of their training.

@evanprinsloo6412

7 жыл бұрын

Amen sister (or brother)

@billilkovski7928

7 жыл бұрын

Yes, you just cant compete with the solid foundations of eastern wisdom, born about by thousands of years of culture and tradition. Western philosophy has little idea about the paths upon which it blindly travels. Chomsky may be a sober mind but it doesn't appear as tho he has danced like a drunk with the ecstasy of exultation.

@neil6477

5 жыл бұрын

Absolutely agree. Despite my admiration for Chomsky I find that some of his statements are very shallow when compared to the depths that they have been explored and uncovered by minds in the East. For example I recently heard Chomsky say that it was only through an act of extreme will that thoughts could be stopped - this is the exact opposite to the process used by serious meditators who allow the thoughts to simply die down. In my (Zen) training we were taught that trying to force thoughts to stop is not only a waste of time but self defeating. My experience shows that thoughts cease when they are not focused upon.

@ButterflyLiondance

5 жыл бұрын

Well said

The One and only "True reality" that is consciously accessible is music as our common instinct. The joy of creating music transcends the individuality of most other happenings. As One the "mob mentality" will exert miraculous potentials.

@fluentpiffle

2 жыл бұрын

Close! Vibration will do it.. spaceandmotion

We are all on a train looking out of different windows; this is reality. Same world, different perspectives; all good.

Chomsky is literally giving this guy a class session.

@maxschlepzig641

7 жыл бұрын

Which is sad since the guy is a "renowned" Philosophy professor.

@newyork1975ful

7 жыл бұрын

Max Schlepzig Lol ikr

@newsletter4826

7 жыл бұрын

chomsky gift is that he can talk and talk an issue to death/obscurity-- a lot of times dominating the conversation from the sheer quantity of words. history has proven him wrong on nearly any issue i've heard him talk on, but he's a heck of a talker.

@maxschlepzig641

7 жыл бұрын

fukugoogle "history has proven him wrong on nearly any issue i've heard him talk on" ................ oh no, one of you again (sigh)

@newsletter4826

7 жыл бұрын

sigh all you want, but skinner was correct.

suejak is exactly right in his replies to other comments.. The interviewer was great, knew which aspects of Chomsky's position to press, uncovered space for skepticism, and left me unconvinced of Chomsky's position. His idea that science is the sovereign source of knowledge w/r/t "how the world works" came off excessively brash. It would've been good to have a Williams/Chomsky debate on common sense notions of reality. Williams's demeanor alone probably would've convinced a lot of commenters on this video that Chomsky was wrong, seeing as that the subject matter itself seems beyond their sound evaluation.

At 19:30 Chomsky says the American Revolution included the year 1979. I love Chomsky, but I always feel proud to catch his minor errors. He's like Socrates if only we had video footage of Socrates.

@deandalton8482

4 жыл бұрын

he does that a lot for some reason

This discussion went a little bit over my head, maybe due to my inadequate knowledge about philosophy. But I am trying to understand things better, and would really appreciate it if someone can maybe simplify this discussion for people like me that are not that well-versed in philosophy...

Truth is arrived ONLY through civil discussion. Love hearing Chomsky's ideas.

We have to engage in the reality our culture puts forward through various mediums like political entities, businesses, or the actions of our neighbors. We can also shift what reality our culture creates through our actions in these areas. Our reality is perceived by our senses, which can changer - for instance when we are dreaming or under the influence of a drug.

@evanprinsloo6412

7 жыл бұрын

Agreed. So reality is the consequence of perception; perception the consequence of perspective; and perspective the unique position of observation that the perceiver occupies in a specific space-time instance? No? Can reality ever be a monolithic singularity?

@demoninbed

7 жыл бұрын

There are some things that do not change whether an individual observes them or not. Gravity remains at 9.8 m/s2, the law of conservation of energy, etc. As a result some parts of reality remain as a monolithic singularity, as you said. The last two years have broken the records we had on temperature. Whether your perspective is that climate change is a hoax or not, reality will not change to suit your perception. Small things that humans worry about like potential for nuclear war, corruption, or the difference between a justified protest or violent riot are likely to change with a change in perspective.

@evanprinsloo6412

7 жыл бұрын

.. as might gravity ;-)

@demoninbed

7 жыл бұрын

Yeah, could be fun to experience the change of perspective a change in gravity could bring.

The properties of the outside world are the product of the human mind working. It IS external but the senses and the mind create the interpretation and give meaning. Therefore every mind will have a different experience, as intended. The physical sensing organs are but filter and tuner for the brain

Well, listening more, this video is not too bad.

There is nothing outside of us that is not at the same time in us, as the external words has colors, the eye too, has colors. - Goethe

Science is the study of the material universe and the use of that knowledge. It’s not everything, only what exist in the material perspective. That’s what the interview was trying to communicate to him. The guest of course would have that bias. We exist in multiple planes of reality, the physical universe is one of the most dense. Cannot use material equipment to observe the immaterial.

I am soothed by seeing an interview with Chomsky that doesn't *crucify* me with an (empathetic) cringe response at the interviewer's failures

It's statistically amazing that the interviewer got everything wrong.

Professor Chomsky can deny that he and Hume are Idealists all he wants, the coffee cup is as good as not there if it is simply a fictitious construct of the human mind. Essences are either de re or the external world is beyond our ken. Thrilled to have lunch with Professor Chomsky at Henry Ford Community College in 1992. We discussed innate ideas.

How many goes does it take to fully understand all this?

what is the book on the table they are talking about?

What are tachistoscopic images and what does he mean by that?

What's the name of the book they're referring to /pointing to on the table? Thanks.

@olliemoore11

Жыл бұрын

I think it's the Holy Bible

The book the guy is quoting from is called Chomsky and His Critics, co-authored by at least 10 people.

In my humble opinion, Noam Chomsky may have been the most intelligent AND the most generous person in the history of all mankind.

Noam is a handsome man!

If by language he means the "primordial sound", then there is no notion of language... but in the world, there are languages, just as we are also in the world. And, to feel the UNCHANGING inside of you IS to feel THE REAL...to FEEL the INFINITE...the IMMORTAL...while you are alive.

i was about to say the same thing

Does anybody know which of Chomsky's books they are discussing?

You got Chomsky on the ropes! He's going down!

Plato allegory shadows/cave walls

SENSE=mc2 DE'LIGHT🌅WITHIN!

Keyword: distinguish. Read the last few verses of B8 e B9 of Parmenides poem on Nature to get some insight of the diferente kinds of difference. I'll give you a tip: the opposition between the adjective heavy and the adjective attributed to light has much to do with the Plato's principle od the diade. Only that the invisibile components of reality are not only invisible but also ungenerated, as the argoment about the unproductivity of nothingness, upon which Parmenides has imposed his inquiries on Nature.