Noam Chomsky - Why Philosophy?

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 7 лют 2025
  • Chomsky on philosophy.

КОМЕНТАРІ • 85

  • @Hollowsmith
    @Hollowsmith 5 років тому +180

    Whenever Noam takes both of his hands pointed inward and fans them outward, you know he is about to say something important.

  • @laskieg
    @laskieg 4 роки тому +36

    Skip intro: 1:10

  • @dorianphilotheates3769
    @dorianphilotheates3769 6 років тому +170

    Science begins and ends with philosophy.

    • @HeathWatts
      @HeathWatts 4 роки тому +8

      I'm a big fan of philosophy, Western and Eastern, but philosophy hasn't kept up with science. One hundred years ago, it was possible to learn all of science and all of philosophy. It's still possible to study most of philosophy in a lifetime, but it is not possible to study all of science. The social sciences are easier to understand, but the hard sciences became too complicated for most to dabble in after relativity, quantum theory, and molecular biology/biochemistry became the dominant fields in science.

    • @dorianphilotheates3769
      @dorianphilotheates3769 4 роки тому +17

      Heath Watts - Agreed. I’m saying that science was born out of philosophical speculation - there can be no science without philosophy. Scientific knowledge begins where philosophical inquiry ends, and philosophy takes over again once the limits of scientific knowledge have been reached. Beyond what is currently scientifically knowable, we are in the same place the first philosophers were twenty-six centuries ago: we must rely solely on the power of human reason - on theory. This is why philosophical thought both precedes and succeeds the corpus of scientific knowledge.

    • @dorianphilotheates3769
      @dorianphilotheates3769 4 роки тому +3

      Heath Watts - Certainly not a hundred years ago; by then, the body of technical and scientific knowledge - together with new approaches in philosophy - was already vast; perhaps a hundred and fifty to two hundred years ago.

    • @HeathWatts
      @HeathWatts 4 роки тому +2

      Dorian Philotheates Yes, that could be. The math of thermodynamics theory was likely beyond the skills of most 19th Century philosophers.

    • @HeathWatts
      @HeathWatts 4 роки тому +1

      Dorian Philotheates The limitations of philosophy is that it's not based on empiricism as science is. Aristotle, if I'm remembering correctly, was against empiricism. It's difficult for me to imagine a scenario where philosophy will take over for science, unless civilization collapses and we have to start over.

  • @SeanandTres
    @SeanandTres 2 роки тому +4

    James Stewart the actor used the same gesture when his character is trying to calm things down and get people focused. The Savings and Loan office scene after the run on the bank is one example.

  • @williamjc7195
    @williamjc7195 2 роки тому +16

    science and philosophy have to come together in order to have a reasonable society.

    • @warrenbradford2597
      @warrenbradford2597 2 роки тому +3

      I strongly agree with you. We would have avoid having so many enablers in our society if that happened. We need to destroy the toxic culture first to combine science and philosophy.

    • @Khan_is_mongol
      @Khan_is_mongol Рік тому

      THIS IS SO WRONG...WHY DOES PHILOSOPHY NEED TO COME TOGETHER WITH SCIENCE. SCIENCE IS TRIAL ERROR/TECHNICAL STUFF. PHILOSPHY IS PURE THOUGHT, IT IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF HUMAN INTELLECT. OUR MODERN HISTORY TIL TODAY IS SHAPED BY POLITICAL THOUGHT, EITHER WESTER OR EASTERN, EITHER MARXISM OR LBERALISM, HUMANS ARENT JUST BORN SCIENTISTS, THEY ARE BORN TO PARENTS/FAMILIES/SOCIETY/COMMUNITY/CULTURE/COUNTRY THAT LEADS THEM TO LIVE THIER LIVES IN CERTAIN WAYS.

    • @ffffffffffffffff5840
      @ffffffffffffffff5840 Рік тому

      You both gave me hope for humanity

    • @williamjc7195
      @williamjc7195 Рік тому +1

      @@ffffffffffffffff5840 :)

  • @RetakeRemakeAlanSmithee
    @RetakeRemakeAlanSmithee 3 роки тому +9

    I think most scientists enter their field because they become interested in a question they know that only science can answer. They know the scientific method has a good track in that respect while the same can't be said about philosophical inquiry.

    • @brendonlkhiangte410
      @brendonlkhiangte410 3 роки тому +12

      maybe philosophy is not about providing answers, as philosophers would often describe it- but to ask the right questions.

    • @confusedpozole406
      @confusedpozole406 3 місяці тому

      That’s because philosophy isn’t about providing answers, it’s about questioning things and creating or delving into concepts. Philosophy’s job is literally to create problems, it’s why Greek Citizens didn’t like to be questioned by Socrates

  • @armandofernandezguillermet8996
    @armandofernandezguillermet8996 2 роки тому

    Thank You Mr. Chomsky for these comments!

  • @GazaFloatilla
    @GazaFloatilla 10 років тому +41

    lol this interview is amazing in full; the interviewer gets slammed dunked on the whole time

    • @EtherealExposition
      @EtherealExposition 9 років тому +1

      +youcreatea Do you have a link?

    • @skarioffszky
      @skarioffszky 8 років тому +5

      It's on UA-cam, called The Stony Brook Interviews: Part Two

    • @EtherealExposition
      @EtherealExposition 8 років тому

      Thankyou, I used a clip from it in an upload with other audio from Terence McKenna

    • @skarioffszky
      @skarioffszky 8 років тому

      He often quotes Wilhem von Humboldt, both his works on language and on politics. I also think he rates Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality.

    • @skarioffszky
      @skarioffszky 8 років тому

      I have not been studying much philosophy recently, but I read a lot of Badiou in the past.

  • @thewaterbearer6402
    @thewaterbearer6402 5 років тому +21

    I'm an Atheist because I can philosophize and even if for a second let's say God made everything then, Thank you God for making philosophy.

    • @thewaterbearer6402
      @thewaterbearer6402 5 років тому +1

      @@McRingil I am considering it. Thank you.

    • @McRingil
      @McRingil 5 років тому +1

      @@thewaterbearer6402 I`m a Catholic but I think these types of arguments do have flaws. The biggest would be broadly speaking: language - reality isomorphism, object change realism, part - feature identity. These kind of things the sceptic would just reject but they`re pretty commonsensical and do have deeper metaphysical justification - for example in Real Essentialism by Oderberg.

    • @McRingil
      @McRingil 4 роки тому +4

      @Language and Programming Channel ah so you don`t believe reality exists or something? Metaphysics is the study of what exists and why. I doubt physics can give you an answer to whether persons exist.

    • @michaellangan4450
      @michaellangan4450 4 роки тому

      @Language and Programming Channel Who cares!

  • @TILDEPSYCHOLOGY
    @TILDEPSYCHOLOGY 3 роки тому

    Interesting

  • @williamtell5365
    @williamtell5365 3 роки тому +1

    I urge anyone interested in this question to become familiar with Boethius. It may sound a bit obscure but it's apt. Anyway, many philosophers have addressed this question and many oth those answers are with hearing.

  • @michaelboylan5308
    @michaelboylan5308 5 років тому +9

    Why Chomsky ?

    • @RetakeRemakeAlanSmithee
      @RetakeRemakeAlanSmithee 3 роки тому +7

      His linguistic work while not strictly philosophical, offers a credible challenge to epistemology.

  • @Gian-ni
    @Gian-ni Рік тому +2

    They way philosophy is done by most is a total waste of time. Daniel Dennet does it right, but most teachers and students, don't seem to ever arrive at conclusions, and seem to lack the needed rationality and capability to understand logical steps..

  • @kawaljeetsingh9866
    @kawaljeetsingh9866 3 роки тому +5

    Science and philosophy are the 2 hands of a cosmic being

  • @GeorgWilde
    @GeorgWilde 2 роки тому +4

    Chomsky speaking starts at 3:09

  • @johnelliott1167
    @johnelliott1167 6 років тому +2

    It fits ; Ref Isaiah 11v10 small K, (War Bob Marley)🦁 UN speech1967, Rev18v21, 3v12" new name" ( Lord's Prayer?) ,Isaiah35.? Jeremiah's 51v28 "kings of Media" 🎶

  • @waindayoungthain2147
    @waindayoungthain2147 3 роки тому +1

    If’s success is no answer whatsoever it’s aggression with weakness depending and demand for the Warriors justifying, how’s its image with the power Slav, please. How’s about the Ambassador’s day for the relationship and relaxing, invents for the reasons of the democratic, please .

  • @waindayoungthain2147
    @waindayoungthain2147 3 роки тому

    Please help me if’s the education in down of the faith without conscious and respect means you are in manipulation😊, in truth twisted for faith well-being on the anger farm, please.