The Ideas of Chomsky - Bryan Magee & Noam Chomsky (1977)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 чер 2024
- In this program, Noam Chomsky discusses his work and its philosophical implications for knowledge and thought with Bryan Magee. This is from a 1977 series on Modern Philosophy called Men of Ideas.
00:00 Introduction
03:43 The Language Faculty
14:50 Rigid Pre-Programming
34:22 The Empirical Tradition
39:35 Liberalism
#Philosophy #Chomsky #BryanMagee
This is Noam's best linguistics and philosophy interview out there. Why? Because Magee's questions are penetrating and completely up to speed.
I found this depressing to watch, Magee tries to get something out of this guy and all he does is to repeat the same 2 points over and over again about how things are predetermined, but that's good actually, and so good things must also predetermined and then the other point about how all philosophy but Descartes is obviously wrong, and Descartes is also wrong, but still mostly right.
And it just goes on and on and on.
@@johnramsko4535 either you have no idea what he was talking about or you're just unhappy that he resolutely rejects irrealist, social-constructivist theories, which you could be more intuitively aligned with. His criticism of empiricism and dualism are not unfounded, arrogant claims. He has stated at least 4 or 5 different critiques of empiricm in this short interview itself. And he also clearly conveys the idea here that he's not just parroting the Laplacian determinism and that he gives a lot of credence to contingency and emergence, but the interviewer kept corralling him into that position to make it sound like he's just another mechanistic determinist (probably because making it simple for the audience entails stripping off nuances)
@@johnramsko4535 Are you sure you're not approaching this with strong preheld opinions? If you listen to the response at 17:05 (where Chomsky clearly indicates skepticism towards determinism)this would seem to be the exact opposite of what you're suggesting.
If we look at our species I think it's pretty clear we have a huge tendency to identify with certain positions to the exclusion of all else given the diametrically opposed positions people are so certain are correct.
One by one I suggest we start really examining our own thought processes and recognizing our tendency toward strong bias.
Not sure how much we agree...
Often Magee's questions seem too loaded/leading in nature; IMO.
@@johnramsko4535 I think the interview required for more time in each category to better map out his thoughts. Chomsky being such a brilliant thinker but also a historian of classical philosophy is a fantastic opponent of Mcgee as he articulately defines eras of thought and his contradictions to established philosophies. I disagree with you that the interview was poor as Mcgee rightful presented his astonishment at Chomsky's radical departure from classicaly held ideas and he very succientlenty and sensibly posed the issues of earlier philosophers attempt at understanding the nature of the mind through the limitations of thier current knowledge of science and experimentation. And he was right to constantly hit those walls. Whcih is why I would have loved a much longer diallogue which would sus out better what the implications of those philoophers theories would mean . Do you know of any better interviews of Chomsky and his philophies on this current line of inquiry and do you know of any othe parrellel modern thinkers as Chomsky in these fields (ie not the political stuff)?
This is such a great discussion. Eons ahead of Eric Weinstein and Lex Fridman bumbling through 2 hours of UA-cam.
Absolutely. There is this weird idea that UA-cam and Joe Rogan et al. have somehow lifted the public discourse. But when you look at this it proves the shallowness of current debates, online and mainstream
@@richardfraser7024 yeah, the stumbling, bumbling UA-cam idiocracy is running amok. It’s amateur hour all over the place. I came across the youthfully stunted musing of Michael Malice the other day for the first time. He argues like a first year uni student. Have you been unfortunate enough to hear his rubbish?
I sure enjoy there more than Lex'es, but grant him some credit, he atleast poses interesting questions and invites interesting people
Lex Fridman is a bumbling bafoon. With a wholly unintelligible show.
@@richardfraser7024 well, sadly I think Rogan _et al_ have lifted the public discourse, precisely because interviews like the one in this show largely were no longer featured anywhere on TV after about the 1990s or so. All that was there was Charlie Rose, C-SPAN and Oprah until UA-cam came along and you had something like _Democracy Now_ which was more news oriented anyway.
Men of Ideas, 1978!!!! Is there a tv show in 2022 that gets close to this quality? No. And we think we're evolving...
Thank you, Sir, for uploading these miracles and greetings from Romania!
What makes Magee special is his impersonality and, in nearly every case, his disinterest. It is never about him, it is never about his guests, it is about ideas. Philosophical and political discussions can be so enervating now because the gap between the public and the private has been critically eroded. It’s not the fault of any one “side”, because the problem is so pervasive that it crosses every divide.
Gold standard
The smile of Bryan at the end of Chomsky's take on liberalism is just wonderful. It says a lot about the admiration of a former labor party member for a theorist of socialism. Just amazing. 🤘
God keep it in yr pants
My knowledge and understanding of philosophy and related subjects expands immensely only from hearing the introductions from Mr. Magee. Clearly well qualified , yet accessible interviewing style, well suited for laymen such as meself.
One can exercise one's innate cognitive capacities so much more effectively on a non-monetized channel like this that spares us the random interruptions of commercials that is the usual annoying UA-cam experience. Thank you, Philosophy Overdose!
You'll have to go premium lol
@@kayriz5838Yeah I finally capitulated to this evil platform about a month ago as well
Wow this Magee dude is next level...
Always such a learning experience to listen to Chomsky...
And to Magee, for me as novitiate.
Excellent, the interviewer has the ability to ask THE most relevant questions and Chomsky has such an agility in the way he thinks to explain what is very difficult to comprehend.
15:25 This is a brilliant twist. The rigid constraints of our language ability are what make the power and creativity of language possible.
an unbelievably deep insight. astonishing.
Yup, __"This is a brilliant twist".__ When one gets convinced of having a cake and also eat it, the setting of being manipulated becomes exponentially multi dimensional.
It's amazing just how Kantian Chomsky comes across in this interview, including on this point.
Although he's talking about 'creativity' as if that itself isn't determined by some other part of the brain. Idk, Chomsky seems overly optimistic about free will in this whole thing
Bryan Magee is such a Legend; always got the best conversations goings with the right questions and responses . BBC values nonsense in our life time which is extremely sad.
I would love to hear Chomsky’s opinion on how grammar, unlike the rest of human creations, has progressively deteriorated through the ages from what was a very complex structure in ancient times. In particular, the grammar of Sanskrit was more evolved than Ancient Greek, which was more evolved than Latin, which was more evolved than any of its modern day derivative languages. English itself was spoken and written better a century ago than it is now. The same goes for Arabic. Fusha dates back to Koranic times, while modern day spoken Arabic has lost so much of its original grammar. Modern day Chinese characters are simplifications of those developed through the ages by their forefathers. It seems everywhere language tends towards becoming more basic, or less sophisticated, at least as far as grammar is concerned. So the question is, how did the ancients evolve such complex grammars that modern day humans find too challenging…?
Made my day.
Wow. That bit at the end about the line between classical liberalism in post-feudal yet pre-capitalist economy and then modern libertarian socialism in an industrial capitalist world blew Magee's mind. Mine too but in the following sense: classical liberalism always resonated but I have never been capable of analyzing its application to shifting global economic paradigms. Thank you AGAIN Professor Chomsky.
It seems to me inevitable that the conglomeration of executive function, be it state or corporation, must need always outweigh the individual that classical liberalism demands; is that not a priori? At what point does anarchy preclude betterment 🤷♂
What an amazing interview - both at the top of their game in their own right
As someone said somewhere online, Chomsky gives the impression of being casually superhuman.
I am very appreciative of this channel. Thank you.
Love this series and so thankful it's been posted. As to Chompsky's statement around 21 minutes that superior language capacities were not selected, I doubt that's true, because they entail clear competitive advantage.
Magee was 47 here, 2 years younger than Chomsky! Absolutely baffling beyond even this remarkable and thought provoking discussion!
his last few lines were for me the most important.
A very interesting conversation. Thank you.
Superb! again
Thank you for this rigorous talk.
Chomsky was up to something here and predicting the evolution of Liberalism to authoritarianism
i think you are twisting hi words a bit but whatever
Great interview but for me it stopped just as it became interesting. Would've liked to hear an expansion on the implication of his linguistic view for his politics.
A really probative and generous interview
Brilliant programme. I think that it was on a Sunday afternoon on BBC 2. I still have the hard back book.
Does anyone know if the tables were turned and Bryan Magee was interviewed? Himself also having a great mind!
"I don't want to pursue the musical analogy too far, because (I'm going right down the tubes with it)..."
It's a cruel trick of nature that we can ask (if Chomsky is correct) questions that we are unable to answer.
This is a very interesting discussion - Chomsky is way ahead of his time. My only exception is to the use of the term "pre-programmed" which implies the "mind/self as computer" metaphor. We are more than computing machines. We might also ask "who is the programmer?" and then we get into that whole cosmological debate.
Chomsky obviously has so much to say and Magee has his hands full steering him into making clear the implications of his work for philosophy. Another five hours might do this justice.
Chomsky would never advocate the mind as a computer. We are born highly enriched, with a genetic predisposition for symbolic thought, then external language derives from that. That is the opposite of a computer. We are no more taught language than we are taught to smell. This is called internalism. All homo sapiens are born with the same capacity in the last 100 to 150 thousand years or so. That genetic disposition could only have been a mutation in one person tens of thousands years ago. Hence we all have it. That is it in a nut shell. Obviously there is more to it. But the last thing Ckomsky would ever say is that the mind is a computer.
I'm also by chance watching Robert Paul Wolff series on the Critique of Pure Reason and had similar thoughts re. Bryan when covering the Categories of the Understanding - I did AI as my final year dissertation on syntactic pattern recognition and of course Chomsky was ever present - pity Bryan / Noam and Emmanuel never made it to Celebrity Catchphrase 😊
The biggest point taken from this interview is wishing I had read and studied more, but amor fati, right? If anyone else was curious who the British Platonist is who Chomsky mentioned (if heard correctly):
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Cudworth
Magee lived and breathed philosophy all his waking moment s.
how were you able to obtain this superior quality version of this!!!
probably some anarchistic BBC chaps back when copped some of the original tapes or early digital recording before the morons in charge BLOODY ERASED THEM for re-use.
I cry thinking of the musical performances lost, and this kind of quality intellectual material.
the BBC had, i believe at the time, early digital recording equipment.
@@MarkTarmannPianoCheck_it_out The BBC stopped routine degaussing in 1976; this is from 1978. This looks like a PAL to NSTC conversion, which suggests it was possibly licensed to PBS.
Quadruplex VT cost £400. for a 30 minute reel in the early 70s, which meant that it was financially impossible for the BBC to keep everything it produced. Nobody took pop music seriously in the early 70s and TOTP was viewed in the same way as a weekly magazine.
I love Noam.. such a good man.
The wonderful Noam Chomsky.
If there is something like an ideal for human beings, it would be Chomsky
There is no aggressive repetition of questions. How are we meant to learn from this.
There’s a lot going on here, but I’d like to focus on a minor point, delivered more or less en passant by Chomsky. Chomsky suggests that our capacity to manipulate number systems is unlikely to have been specifically selected and thus must be a concomitant of something else that IS selected. This particularly strikes me because I reasoned precisely the same way, even adopting the term “concomitant”, when I was sixteen (some years before this interview originally took place) attempting to resolve the paradox of homosexuality-why a trait with seemingly no evolutionary value should nevertheless persist in disparate cultures throughout human history. It occurred to me that although homosexuality itself is of no specific evolutionary value, the malleability and adaptability of human sexuality in general is of considerable evolutionary value. The tendency toward sexual fixation is the engine of mating, sexual bonding, and mating is necessary in a species in which the offspring take such a comparatively long time to develop into maturity. I’m not a biologist or a psychologist and thus have no particular means or motivation to try prove or disprove this theory empirically, but you’d think that in all this time others would have at least publicly considered it, even if only to reject it, but to this day I still see no evidence that they have.
I think there is some research on the evolutionary role of homosexuality. There is a thoughtful Ted Talk video about one viewpoint. Cant find it right now, but you should be able to find it. The speaker focuses on the observed role of gay boys in the family as protectors and nurturers - - and notes they are often born late among children. This is quite a different point from your very interesting one about the malleability of sexuality. Which I suspect has been written about too!
Ba ba
Are you really telling me that Magee was 48 years in this video? He looks and sounds at least 75.
Magee distills and trims the fat so well. The design of his question articulation is unparalleled. It must be nice for these people to sit with Magee. (Peirs Morgan and Tucker Carlson by comparison are clunky 5 year olds)
He should have given him another program.
It's kind of interesting that Chomsky is actually two years older than Magee.
Choamsky❤
Why, did Chomsky choose what he chose? And what is classical liberalism? Great now I have to go and learn these things.
30:00 ... and that is why the 'Stream of Thought / of Consciousness'-Representations of 'mind processes' are really just a literary technique
I watched these programmes first as a teenager and the quality simply highlights how UK television has descended since into a soup of mediocrity treating the audience as cretins - having said that I still watch Celebrity Catchphrase 😂
Also I think very telling, as far as I know, this quality of programming never existed in the United States.
❤❤❤❤❤
It does also seem true that we don't know what we don't know, and certainly that which is so completely removed our ability to experience it because of the nature of our senses is something which we can neither think about nor discuss. Well, except as a general category, we can discuss it. Which is what I am doing here.
38:16 those “17th-century tradition of the Continental Cartesians and the British neo-Platonists”
- Who are these people? Do you guys know any names?
If you're interested, read Chomsky's "Cartesian Linguistics" where all this is discussed with references.
Ralph Cudworth is a British neo-Platonist whom Chomsky mentions by name in this interview. Henry More, whom Chomsky does not mention, is another well-known (among historians of ideas) British neo-Platonist.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesianism
This article contains a list of "Notable Cartesians".
@@KhubbaS I will check it out! - Thank you so much!
...Gosh, I have studied philosophy for a decade, and I only know of Arnauld and Malebranche, as if the 17th Century only had 5 philosophers in total...
@@JonSebastianF
I've also studied philosophy for about a decade.
I haven't heard of most of the people on that list either - though I do know Antoine Arnauld, a leading disciple of Descartes, and Malebranche, whose philosophy is a synthesis of Descartes and Saint Augustine.
Cudworth takes a lot of effort to read and understand (Chomsky himself said so--by which he probably had in mind that he wasn't able to more or less instantly absorb each page upon giving it a single look over, as is no doubt normal for him) and probably not worth reading without some special research interest. If you found what you heard in this interview intellectually stimulating, "Cartesian Linguistics" is perhaps the better way to go.
Activate the automatic subtitles
I wish I could, but I don't think that is something under my control. Eventually what I'll do though is just add captions manually. They'll be way more accurate than the automatic ones anyway.
@@Philosophy_Overdose you can activate the automatics, is better than none.
@@daimon00000 How?
@@Philosophy_Overdose ua-cam.com/video/Ad_TEk94B9Q/v-deo.html
Well, it looks like they are there now. I have no idea why it took so long (4 days), but they finally showed up!
I've actually learned something.
@11:30 through @ 12:23 - that was, of course, before the Internet!
I'm 5 minutes in and I'm already percolating. Are the two opposing positions actually mutually exclusive? It could be that we are born with an algorithm of accumulated information that is self programing. I think we call that genetics. We do informally teach children language through interaction. In fact, I believe there is research about language development and adult interaction with children. This could be resolved with some highly unethical experiments, or with ones that might reveal animal consciousness. However, our current precision of measurement can only detect what we think of as 'brain waves'. I'm not sure the state of brain wave research in animals or in utero. Also, I believe there are cases where children grow up in isolation, but those cases may not be helpful. (Oh good, he addressed most of that)
.
Hmmm, Noam gives short shrift to the idea of genetic variance (19:00) and random mutation, but also the accumulation on information both genetic and non genetic. Our accumulation of demonstrable scientific knowledge over the last 3000 years and more suggests that we have compounded understanding down the generations. I've often wondered about the differences in symbology between language and maths. (Damn Magee! 28:43 start) It may be that the musical capacity predates the linguistic capacity, and aided in it's development. Hominids certainly all had an instrument they carried with them always, the voice. I imagine a great chorus of gatherers being conducted by some long forgotten maestro driving some beastly heard toward the hunters with their tremendous and discordant noise.
.
Wait, up, straight up, hold up, this is 1978; How much did they know about human genetics during this discussion? It seems to me that our biological endowment, as Noam calls it, is not as rigid as we might guess. I think there may be a certain amount of self programming capacity, but the nature of free will is the actual question, in my very humble opinion. If we do not, in fact, have free will but are only deluded into believing that we do because of how we make sense of the world, then we may see what we think of as evidence that we may exist in a simulation. This could be the beginning of our understanding the limits of our imagination. If, however, we do have free will, that fact does not eliminate the possibility of simulation, nor the possibility of our genetics being self programming, just that our actions have agency, and are not merely a rigid processing of stimuli, differentiated only by individual instance.
.
Damn Noam Chomsky makes me think.
thinking a little too much bro
I get that a lot @@radscorpion8 and it makes me think average intelligence isn't that smart, really. Which is fine. Can't help that. Be nice if folks realized they're thinking too little but such is life, war, and man ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
26:30 1978 --- 2022 hold my beer.
Scientists have been learning this by bashing their heads against the wall to the point they fully believe in essentially religious style determinism.
Hold my stem cells, artificial organs, immunotherapy, genome sequencing, AI-machine learning, and neural-networks. Chomsky's still around -I'm sure he's aware and probably even contributed (directly or indirectly) to the development of the scientific achievements of today.
Chomsky was just gettin fired up to talk about syndicalism and the producer only Magee could see , over chomsky's shoulder, was furiously jamming a finger towards the picture of the Queen all british folk have to carry with them at all times, and furrowing his brow as britishly as possible. and Magee's gotta eat, so he smiled coyly and wound ol' Chomsky down.
After decades listening to Chomsky, I'm so happy that the present day, in fact the Chomsky of 20 years ago, developed his verbal speech in a way that was more inclusive. I always found it very difficult to understand the younger Chomsky. Older Chomsky cuts the fat and is straight to the point. Still delightful to listen to though. I especially enjoyed the last part - I'm not sure if Bryan Magee's discomfort was due to Chomsky's ideas going over his head or if he saw himself as the type of modern day liberal (for the time) that resembles the ones who are subservient to power in all of its 20th Century 'day' forms.
I wouldn’t worry about Chomsky going over Magee’s head. It didn’t. Other interviews will show you this.
Or he saw it for the absolute drivel it is?
16:50 and 19:00 is key to understanding Chomsky.
The analogy with puberty that is not formally taught but a function of biological development might not hold water. Puberty may occur to an individual in the absence of other people present experiencing it, but language can not appear in an individual never exposed to language usage of a kind.
I'm not familiar at all with either Chomsky's work nor biology in general, but from what I can understand from this interview is that he argues that very little stimulus is required to induce the development of those biological phenomena. So with puberty, I imagine there are still some stimuli conditions that need to be satisfied in order for the process to occur. Very little, but still necessary.
@@alexanderwung8311 correct. Recent studies in precocious puberty suggest a link with a certain tipping point in endocrinology related to fat cells influence on hormone production, ie a modern diet is more likely to induce puberty, and therefore puberty is, like language, genetically preprogrammed and also dependent on certain external inputs.
Birth of everything possess a language
What kept going through my mind as I watched this is how wrong Chomsky's view of the mind is. He seems to claim that our preprogramming somehow developed (without any apparent bounds) to produce minds that are strictly fixed in certain ways. In contrast mathematics and computer science show that a few simple primitives can produce all of math or computable functions. Chomsky's innovation in the world of syntax did a great service to computer science, but perhaps led linguistics down to excessively rigid approach leading to the current endless winter of GOFAI.
To their defence, Nell only came out in 1994.
What constitutes the difference between say a chess genius like Bobby Fisher and the average person who sucks at chess? In other words, what does Fisher have, what about his brain structure or chemistry was different which allowed him to be arguable the greatest player of all time?
Mad skillz
Almost nothing. Given the right resources you could train a pig to do it - if you recreated the circumstances of Fisher’s development, digitised Fischer’s DNA, and cultivated the pig brain in a simulation that gave it the means to do so.
Genetics to a certain degree, as you have to have an incredible to intelligence become world champion in chess, but also temperament (which one could of course argue is partly genetic partly environment). He was obsessed with the game in a way no one else on the planet was. He put more hours into it then anyone else, he learnt Russian to be able to read their magazine reviews of games as a teenager, he competed in grueling tournament after tournament. He had an incredible self belief in his abilities that intimidated many. He swam and worked out vigorously believing that the mind couldn’t perform its best if the body wasn’t up to par (ahead of his time for sure, nowadays magnus is praised for this). He is truly an obsessed individual with the right genetic makeup and education to be champion.
Schizophrenia caused by thousands of years of chosen inbreeding.
Noam says the rules of Chess are trivial. I would be hard pressed to even tell you moves each piece is allowed to make and even less able to remember them during a game
What’s interesting is that great philosophical framing of the human condition is really just humans banging on the walls of human conceptualization limitations and saying “let me out of here!”
Chomsky in this interview is like schwarzenegger in the long goodbye...
O QUE SERIA DAS PALAVRAS,SE NÃO FOSSEM OS OUVIDOS ?
For a short period of time, behavioral psychology was dethroned by Noam Chomsky's linguistic theory. But in recent years, behavioral psychology has gained strength again. This occurred because it began to be used to segment consumers based on the clues they provide as a result of their virtual habits so that internet platforms could maximize the effect of online advertising through its individualization. When this technique began to be used for political purposes, social engineering programs began to be put into practice, causing true violent revolutions in Arab countries. In a subsequent moment, this was used to guarantee the victory of Brexit in England, to overthrow Dilma Rousseff in Brazil, to elect Trump, Bolsonaro, etc... with all the negative consequences that are known. Chomsky's linguistics was now unable to provide adequate tools to opponents of behavioral psychology empowered by algorithms and widely used on the world wide web for private and political purposes. This will still need to be considered, but unfortunately the elderly Chomsky is no longer in a position to do so.
I love how Magee chuckles when Chomsky says "Socialist Anarchism".
....I am so so inable to understand this.
A Central Man 184
Crazy to think he was on that Island; to think he wired 300k+ to JEpstein, aswell.
*as well.
It’s like Arthur “Two Sheds” Jackson on steroids
Cats think without language? Though that statement seems obvious, it seems to me that humans must also in fact think without language on some very primordial evolutionary level, and that in fact the extent to which we do think with language is actually sitting on top of that older system, like the way Windows runs on DOS. Or rather one might say that for many animals, it seems likely, to me, that they might be thought of as thinking with language, though not a spoken/written one, but that they may in fact have some capacity for mentally representing the world as image pictures, derived from seeing, or as other types of brain constructs based on the amalgam of whatever their chief sense characteristics are, smell, sound, etc. and that this function is rooted in certain genetic instinct reflexes. It seems logical to me that this would be so because it seems like the chief business of a brain and being alive, for more complex animals, is intrinsically linked to perceiving the environment, and just like people, having (represented somehow) a map of that environment which is stored in memory. Such that language might be thought of as first a way that the brain perceives and categorizes chunks of meaning about the world within itself symbolically (an internal organic symbolic structure), and for people all of the perceptive activity which builds up that memory structure just happens to include the sounds of the words for things being always present as we learn and grow. And of course, we have the capacity for reproducing the sound. Does it not seem that some pets, like dogs, do in fact have the ability to understand the sound of a word and associate that with the concrete thing it names, like walk, or vet, or whatever. They just can't then speak.
I've slightly altered my view. Chomsky is a good right Heideggerian. Chomsky says we "grow" into language. This is the Geworfenheit or thrown character of ourselves as we wake out of childhood. Chomsky, (it woild be boring to say he simply is stupid), noticed that this growth could be controlled by the powers that be (according to Chomsky business/corporations) and so systematically suppressed the significance of his own finding all his life in order to make a Platonic lie which would help in the struggle to overpower the elite configuration.
all the sceince have the only source is the leroning and take this cognitives frome the basic is language fro exemple the philosophy the thoughting it golden processe of brain it translation with language to ideas.
Chomsky’s too good to be interesting.
Apparently chomsky has always been dull
6:21 here he utters the essentialist basis for his theory. He conflates genetic expression with genetic determination. This is pivotal to his theory because if you pull that pin, the rest of it is pure conjecture. Well articulated, true, but pure conjecture from there forward. If you don’t hold with essentialism and positivism, his theory is dogmatism in so many words.
Bear in mind, this exact kind of thinking validates eugenics. If there’s a specific apparatus that’s genetically determined and results in language + language is the means through which thought occurs = wrong thinking is a the result of a genetic deficiency.
Be careful mixing up Noam’s stated politics with his philosophy.
1st paragraph: Using conjecture to accuse Chomsky of conjecturing.
2nd paragraph: Complete clusterfuck of logical failure.
3rd paragraph: Vile insinuation.
Congratulations, you win the terrible comment bingo. Unfortunately there's no prize.
pity, that in his dotage, he saw fit to criminalise intelligent persons, who didn't believe gangsters and their STOOGES; and so, kept their bodies safe from their poison..
Nothing but unfounded speculation and talking in word salad circles with this guy, despite the interviewer's best efforts.
12:12 / 44:55 Isolated people have been discovered, and their ability to speak was gone.
47 years ago ❤
A thinker of complex connections but does not rest on a point.
So, what's the point?!!!
If everything is preprogrammed, that is intelligent design, 18:47 / 44:55, just quick talking Noam, you have a very loose theory.
I have never heard an individual make so many statements and still somehow say nothing
All these poor old westerners really should study the yogic philosophies and psycho-mechanical processes of sound >>> vocalisation >>> language -- such as nada and mantra. Chomsky says "we don't yet know the ways ....". Oh yes we do. They have been known for millenia by yogic scientists and meditators.
European languages are so far from the proto languages like Sanscrit that they hide the true development of ideation becoming speech, or the formless taking form, which is what any language is. Their proposition that you can't experiment on live humans to discover mechanisms of language, and that science has no answers for, is just plain wrong. You can. It must be a psycho-biological experiment, ie, a hybrid inteface between mind and matter, NOT purely neurological, physiological.
yeeeyy pseudo science!!
Iris Murdoch destroyed this project. She may have been a Wiccan.
Noam barely said shit here. Pretty much void of any substance besides that sentence he keeps repeating but won't elaborate on
Chomsky's shtick is charming but mostly BS. Libertarian socialism 😂😂😂😂
Chomsky is always impressive. But for someone who studies how ordinary people communicate, he makes no attempt to adapt his manner of communication so that ordinary people can understand. Complicated Sentences that go on for weeks with references that most intelligent people cannot understand. I worry that some of this constitutes an intellectual slight of hand where we don’t focus on key phrases such as “it seems reasonable to assume” which are really ways of saying “my guess is”….
And frankly, if you strip aside the verbosity, very little was actually said here. His theory that language is a biologically developed function begs for concrete evidence. The argument that we learn language quickly without specific instruction is a plausible argument but hardly constitutes strong evidence. A plain-spoken explanation of the most compelling evidence for this theory would have been far more preferable. This is a TV show after all. The goal is to try and invite regular intelligent people into the conversation. For someone who claims to be so concerned about “normal people” it’s weird that he can’t bring himself to talk to them.
You know, I agree with what you say. Unfortunately here, there are two opposites. Simple and complex.
Brian Magee who has the ability to ask questions that we all can understand and Chomsky, who's explanations are speedy and a bit more opaque to follow.
A question. Please.
If Columbus, in 1492, had not 'discovered' another continent, say his ships sank or whatever and nobody else bothered to sail in the direction of the Americas. Where would Europe be now? In terms of its thinking and it's Science?
Moreover, totally untouched by Europe thus, no horses, no cattle, pigs, goats, steel or germs.....where would those that populated the American continent be now?
Would they have moved on from the hunter gatherer, basic farming, relatively large civilisations,...even larger civilisations Maya, Aztec, Inca and others yet unknown etc. that may come about?.
Or simply remained in the groups, tribe's, allies, conquests that existed in 1492 (including the Caribbean islands) and not moved on very much at all?
They certainly wouldn't be using language like these two.
I've thought about it and conclude that in the 500 years or so without European influence, they'd be much the same as they were in 1492.
I really have no idea what you're listening to, but it can't be this. There's nothing esoteric or intentionally vague; and Chomsky has been a life-long critic of those who engage in silly displays of intellectual pomposity as opposed to speaking plainly. He's exceptionally clear and concise in this, and his writings.
It is my view that such statements by Chomsky are simply him pointing out what are his (and our collective) assumptions on any given topic vs fact(s). It is an act of intellectual humility and integrity and not a "slight of hand."
I greatly admire Chomsky the scientist. Almost every sentence he utters is a new and interesting way of looking at things thought to be familiar. Chomsky the political thinker seems an unfortunate accident.
What exactly do you object to in his work as a political thinker?
@@ponzipuppet he said right here he is an anarchist socialist!!!! xD
Chomsky was a very fine thinker of linguistics. A pity he lost his way in his political thought.
Exactly.
....oh, what terrible irony:
our leading linguist
yet what a drone
Chomsky is
ps
...so utterly brilliant
yet soporific in
the extreme
Philosophy is dumb
Like u
Deep insight. Thank you for your contribution to discourse.
@@LEMONS884 your more than welcome
@@pauldaniels2179 i think is the other way around, may be you are too dumb to understand philosophy.
Been here! 1.
Chomsky comin' in all sexy and sh*t @3:36