Does anybody know when was this talk given? it was definitely not 8 years ago when the vid was published, he looks too young and he's talking about fiduciary responsibility as if its some new thing...
I'm investigating Chomsky at present, and while I consider myself liberal, I haven't seen very much substance yet. It seems more like political rhetoric, and of the form that Ayn Rand very much ridiculed with the label that everything is nothing. I of course have my problems with the whole Rand theory of objectivism, as being more a cartoon than a reality. I'd like to see more, something to tell me what is the metaphysics that is being adopted? What are we basing our experience upon? How are we determining truth and rationality? These are vital questions that need answered before we can progress to judgements.
I took the time to do some research, and I found what I think is a decent answer. chomsky.info/wp-content/uploads/195503-.pdf "The point is that while these relations are formal in the sense that they hold between linguistic expressions, they do not have the further property, as far as we know, that systematic investigation of linguistic expression alone will suffice to determine the linguistic expressions of what they hold. Thus logical syntax and semantics provide no ground for determining synonymy and consequence relations. The only assistance that these disciplines offer to linguistics is to point out that consequence is a relation between sentences, and synonymy a relation between words." Taking awhile to digest what he is saying. It's actually quite profound. He is arguing that words as a thing in themselves do not imply causality, that causality is a result of the interaction of these things in themselves. For instance, if we take the words, john car and store, we could say that John drove his car to the store, or we could say that john crashed his car into the store. Likewise, we could all out with the Illiad, and say that John dismounted from his car pulling a spear from his weapon store, and boldly faced Hector. All these sentences have very different consequences. While that seems obvious, that is a really good starting point.
Chomsky sometimes talks about an intellectuals responsibility as being one where they search for elementary moral truisms, in this category he puts at least Edward Said and Howard Zinn... he also talks about moral responsibility as being responsible for your own actions and the actions of those you affect, and I would add the adage treat others how you would like to be treated. IMO I would start here, at least from a moral philosophy, but this does get tied back into enlightenment values of empiricism, rationality and humanism
If you’re new to Chomsky, check out this video. It goes through most of his ideas and analyses. Politics and foreign policy as well as language and philosophy. ruclips.net/video/urq2RCvP2Us/видео.html
What I like is that there is research in this area of linguistics. Its actually a central feature of my Thesis. This is a great study. I will take a look at your link. Not tonight, I'm taking a break for the GOT premier. The story is grand Shakespearian theatre. (A good deal of the cast stars in the Hollow Crown) www.edge.org/conversation/how-does-our-language-shape-the-way-we-think
I think Chomsky often writes and speaks simply (or clearly?) because he wants to communicate to a general audience. That might make you feel like it is political rhetoric because it is, if we discount the negative flavour of 'political rhetoric' because I happen to like what he's saying :D As for the metaphysics etc. are they really necessary? Cam Mackay brings up Chomsky's talk of moral truisms. I think that for a lot of what Chomsky talks about the ideas have, or are meant to have, an immediate quality--"We should stop napalming peasants in Vietnam" shouldn't need more theory behind it than "You should hit the brakes, there's a child in front of your car". These are practical questions.
![Sean Rii, Karyon, Sharzkii - Taungule [My Love] (Official Music Video)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eJoMuypbSzQ/mqdefault.jpg)
End Corporate Personhood!
He mentions POCLAD at the end. 'Defying Corporations, Defending Democracy: A Book of History & Strategy' is immense.
do you have the video of the whole talk pls? if so can you send a link. thank you for all the videos!
check the description
What’re we going to do when we lose him?
Upload his brain
Look to all the other people who had been saying literally the same things before he was born.
corporations need a shelf life- then distribute assets
Does anybody know when was this talk given? it was definitely not 8 years ago when the vid was published, he looks too young and he's talking about fiduciary responsibility as if its some new thing...
0:25
people, who knows how to attend events with Chomsky? Can't find his schedule by basic googling.
❤️🇵🇹❤️
The lawyers, increased the breadth & scope of corporations thru power of contract. i sense sophistry.
Introduce a federal corporate equalization tax.
a really lousy studio for a great speaker
PARASITE LAWS
I'm investigating Chomsky at present, and while I consider myself liberal, I haven't seen very much substance yet. It seems more like political rhetoric, and of the form that Ayn Rand very much ridiculed with the label that everything is nothing. I of course have my problems with the whole Rand theory of objectivism, as being more a cartoon than a reality. I'd like to see more, something to tell me what is the metaphysics that is being adopted? What are we basing our experience upon? How are we determining truth and rationality? These are vital questions that need answered before we can progress to judgements.
I took the time to do some research, and I found what I think is a decent answer.
chomsky.info/wp-content/uploads/195503-.pdf
"The point is that while these relations are formal in the sense that they hold between linguistic expressions, they do not have the further property, as far as we know, that systematic investigation of linguistic expression alone will suffice to determine the linguistic expressions of what they hold. Thus logical syntax and semantics provide no ground for determining synonymy and consequence relations. The only assistance that these disciplines offer to linguistics is to point out that consequence is a relation between sentences, and synonymy a relation between words."
Taking awhile to digest what he is saying. It's actually quite profound. He is arguing that words as a thing in themselves do not imply causality, that causality is a result of the interaction of these things in themselves. For instance, if we take the words, john car and store, we could say that John drove his car to the store, or we could say that john crashed his car into the store. Likewise, we could all out with the Illiad, and say that John dismounted from his car pulling a spear from his weapon store, and boldly faced Hector. All these sentences have very different consequences.
While that seems obvious, that is a really good starting point.
Chomsky sometimes talks about an intellectuals responsibility as being one where they search for elementary moral truisms, in this category he puts at least Edward Said and Howard Zinn... he also talks about moral responsibility as being responsible for your own actions and the actions of those you affect, and I would add the adage treat others how you would like to be treated. IMO I would start here, at least from a moral philosophy, but this does get tied back into enlightenment values of empiricism, rationality and humanism
If you’re new to Chomsky, check out this video. It goes through most of his ideas and analyses. Politics and foreign policy as well as language and philosophy.
ruclips.net/video/urq2RCvP2Us/видео.html
What I like is that there is research in this area of linguistics. Its actually a central feature of my Thesis. This is a great study. I will take a look at your link. Not tonight, I'm taking a break for the GOT premier. The story is grand Shakespearian theatre. (A good deal of the cast stars in the Hollow Crown)
www.edge.org/conversation/how-does-our-language-shape-the-way-we-think
I think Chomsky often writes and speaks simply (or clearly?) because he wants to communicate to a general audience. That might make you feel like it is political rhetoric because it is, if we discount the negative flavour of 'political rhetoric' because I happen to like what he's saying :D
As for the metaphysics etc. are they really necessary? Cam Mackay brings up Chomsky's talk of moral truisms. I think that for a lot of what Chomsky talks about the ideas have, or are meant to have, an immediate quality--"We should stop napalming peasants in Vietnam" shouldn't need more theory behind it than "You should hit the brakes, there's a child in front of your car". These are practical questions.