@@veryskeptical2409 They know each other as he was a student of Chomsky. I'm guessing that's part of the reason for the overly comfortable demeanour he's displaying as an interviewer here.
@@veryskeptical2409 Krauss is the sort of “presupper” which new atheists often accuse people of faith of having. He was affronted but held back when Noam rejected his assertion that today is the best & safest time to live, a false argument made by many who support secularism ardently as Krauss does.
Rousseau's second discourse on equality most liberal writting . Then come thesis, Any structure of authority should be subject to challenge nd should not be self justifying. The creative character to the conclusion are illegitimate until prove
and that's saying alot when it comes to NC's reputation to ramble. i know it's important to reign in NC, but to pretty much heckle him using other peoples' quotes is just mean-spirited and clearly NOT jovial as the interviewer implies by casting constant meaningful side glances at the audience like they're in the know about his inside jokes.
Well yeah... Imagine switching things around and having some professor of linguistics, philosophy, or political science from the University of Arizona interviewing Stephen Hawking on astrophysics. Unsurprisingly, it actually matters whether someone is or isn't a trained expert in the area being discussed.
But that's the whole Noam Chomsky shtick, at least in his old age, he projects a tranquil certainty about everything, even when he says things that are questionnable, or vague or trite. It is a very effective trick, it makes interviewers nervous and inspires awe in audiences (in the room and on RUclips).
At least part of what underlies it, sadly, is the widespread presumption that when it comes to the humanities (especially political science, philosophy, etc.) expertise somehow doesn't matter-- that the untrained non-expert wishing to dabble in these areas (if he is sufficiently loud, and opinionated, and authoritative some unrelated scientific field) can simply jump into their debates and make contributions on par with the considered views of experts who have spent years and decades focused on nothing else.
@@mathias4851 Man, who started the french reovlution and built something called: the cult of the divine being.. AKA divine worship of the existance of humanity. otherwise known as the first recorded personality cult of a dictatorship.
institutional intellectuals frame it implicitly as comparing to European society before the enlightenment, which is like saying that moral progress world wide is affected by the moral progress in your state. to a small degree that's true, but it's erasing the contribution of other cultures, which were completely wiped out by our society. david graeber goes over this in his book, "the dawn of everything." it show's that many enlightenment thinker's got their ideas from the discourse with many of the societies that their empires wiped out, such as the great lake indigenous.
Moral progress is real. Millions of people demonstraded that in occurence with the Iraq war. Never before have people taken a stand BEFORE a war. We evolve but not Texas. Have you got thumbs there already?
Professor Chomsky, probably one the most brilliant men of modern times, a great intellectual and humanitarian, the subject “illegitimate authority” moral progress, a most interesting subject, unless justified, is illegitimate, his example is perfect, to save someone’s life, yet society creates rules and laws that protects wealth and power and stifles moral progress, etc etc, to bad this interview was cut short, curious, those in power who say that no one should have the authority to tell them what to do, especially if it interferes with their freedom,yet these same people when in power do the same thing to others in the name of moral authority, I.e. wearing of masks, and restricting the freedom of women’s rights in the name of “right to life” etc etc…humans are very competitive animals, who crave wealth and power over others and often stifles creativity to protect and increase their wealth, I.e. intellectual property and patients laws….no doubt a controversial subject which protects wealth and power, at the expense of freedom, moral and human progress, in my opinion !!
Well not everyone is so narcissistic but many do have a God complex and then say God gives people free will don't interfere with all the sinning? Or else they judge as though they are God and are biased themselves. Anything other than aggression is viewed as weak though aggression is often counter productive to progress it just is used excessively for control.
Logan Anderson you're right. His disdain for reason distinguishes him from the other philosophers of the enlightenment. He's much more inclined to talk about passion. That's why I think he's the best haha
Except that he's perfectly comfortable with the oppression of dissident political minorities (general will, tyranny of the majority, etc). It's sort of the main criticism of his political work. He's not exactly perfect. Also, his idea of man's natural state is the very origin of modern utopian thinking - as long as we sweep away all our civilized rules, man will be free to behave in the saccharine, loving, noble-savage fashion that is his nature. I don't think that's the best way to look at people. Rousseau was a great thinker and writer, but with the benefit of hindsight, and of a couple centuries of philosophical criticism, the holes in his case are as Swiss cheese.
@@AbCDef-zs6uj The enlightenment is a term used for 18th Century Philosophy and although Locke had a tremendous influence on 18th century philosophy, he himself isn't usually seen as an enlightenment philosopher but as one who laid the foundations for enlightenment philosophy since he died in 1704.
This really didn't seem even remotely bad. Chomsky easily got 90% of the time, if not more. And the interviewer was asking pertinent questions too, even though perhaps he spent too long formulating them, it's hardly like Chomsky was more concise in answering them!
There were definitely wars between hunter-gatherers. It was limited because there were few of them, and because they didn`t really have anything to fight about.
@Andrew Hawthorne Conflcits between groups of a few dozen people with 4-5 dead is even worse than a war. In order to survive it was essential to be prepared for the worst
People watching this really have an issue understanding the idea that someone could have a conversation with Chomsky and not think of it as an interview.
Just one thing: science was already born before the Enlightenment. What the Enlightenment did for science, was to make it a little more popular to the whole of society. But please understand that the Enlightenment was principally about litterature, ethics and politics, and not so much about reason.
@@mlokosss No, the principal figures of the Enlightenment, such as Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau, etc. were not even scientists, except probably D'Alambert. The point Is that this period was juste really enthusiastic with science, but really did not produce anything for ir. 19th Century was much more important for science.
@@nicolasruiz4643 while i would agree with the fact that 19th century was more exciting in its findings and def it it also easier to associate with current state of affairs I think you reducing Enlightenment to just being about popularising science is kind of ignorant. Ive just checked it and the scientific method (the one about ' systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.'; hardly a thing less important than what you've made out to be the main point of Enlightenment) was established in 17th century. Before that doctors were affraid to work under the dog star out of fear of that fact somehow affecting the quality of their work (?) Luckily this kind of superstition got eliminated, not thanks to Voltaire, deffinetely not thanks to Rousseau. Nevertheless get your facts straight before stating anything with such a confidence.
@@mlokosss Well, I wasn´t asserting anything with "such a confidence"; I could just as easily satated the opposite opinion, so you could agree and you could be just fine with the facts you already know. Nevertheless, I appreciate you giving me some examples in your last comments, which is very nice since I haven´t yet got my facts straight. Maybe I could restate another opinion, which is that, if science is caracterised by careful observation, hasn´t all humanity since ancient times been in posession of science? Certainly, it would be very difficult to deny that there have been all kinds of people very fond of careful observation, such as artisans, strategicians, etc. Also, wouldn´t you call "experimentation" what people did to find out how to make out bronze? Or musical instruments? Maybe it was not very careful experimentation, but it would be interesting to find out what you think experimentation is. Also, aren´t doctors today also very much afraid of doing so called unethical experiments? If in the future, some technology would be invented so that they could be carried out. would you then call today doctors "superstitious"? Much more importantly, what do you think about Manchester City future? Why have they surrender under arab influence, even knowing very much that Enlightenment did not occur in the East during the Modern Age, so it would be very probable they would make irrational speculations with our technology?
05:30 LOL. well, to be fair to the interviewer, he's very good at interrupting. unfortunately, i doubt he even understands how to bridge "freedom" and "language", let alone form the proper questions about it. TL;DW - they don't 'discuss' as much as this insipient toad throws quotes at NC with constant interruptions to quote snippets at him in order to keep him off balance, thus make it even easier to interrupt - and throw jovial glances at the audience like they're sharing his inside joke.
Like Marx, Chomsky's analysis is super brilliant. Like Marx, his Eutopian tendencies seem to overestimate human capacity for reason and goodness and do not reckon with our amoral will to power...Which has surely revealed itself again and again in th 20th and 21st century. He also suffers from the Greco Judea Christian notions of free will in agency. For the most part humans seem to be conformist and psychophants that is why the huge attrocities from Maoism, Nazism, and Stalinism and even Americanism have been so easy...
Those things are power structers with connection to society. Reason and pity is a human attribute that needs to be cared of in a sense of growing. That is not our reality. We have all of our life been subjigated to slavery of our minds trained to hate and kill each other. That is not human nature that is societys power
Krauss is such a narcissistic egoist! As Chomsky begins to inspire (in what Krauss would have a hunch is) leading to an impending spontaneous applause at 7.51 Krauss checks his watch! Thinking 'Oh Fuck Chomski is taking the limelight again and I'm nowhere near dazzling him with my scientific check matery!.
What are you talking about? Krauss set this whole thing up so Chomsky could express some of his ideas. Right at the beginning of the presentation he introduced Chomsky as his intellectual hero. He re-read a bunch of Chomsky's books just before before this conversation and had a big pile of notes sitting next to him. And what does it matter if he checked his watch? They were under a time constraint and Krauss was trying to get through all of his questions. Also, you act as if Krauss was offended by the applause. Based on what? Chomsky was the one who talked right through the clapping, causing it to stop.
@@finewinedaily4997 keep your lies short, that's the key. you might want to edit out the last paragraph cuz it gives the game away that you're an ignorant troll.
"We'll get to that" ? Will we. Don't cut the man off!
i want more
Awesome that Noam Chomsky is referencing Brian Ferguson and calling out Steve Pinker as WRONG!! yes!
No, no, no and no.
@@owlnyc666 cope
This man is not a great interviewer. He talks over his guest, his questions meander, it's borderline insufferable.
He is kind of insecure isn't he. He is well known for sure but in the presence of Noam he is playing catchup
@@veryskeptical2409 They know each other as he was a student of Chomsky. I'm guessing that's part of the reason for the overly comfortable demeanour he's displaying as an interviewer here.
I agree. Open up some topics, and let Chomsky talk. Not too hard. Why constantly come in and break it up?
@@veryskeptical2409 Krauss is the sort of “presupper” which new atheists often accuse people of faith of having. He was affronted but held back when Noam rejected his assertion that today is the best & safest time to live, a false argument made by many who support secularism ardently as Krauss does.
@@naveed210 i love the wiki about presuppositionalism. lol
Rousseau's second discourse on equality most liberal writting . Then come thesis, Any structure of authority should be subject to challenge nd should not be self justifying. The creative character to the conclusion are illegitimate until prove
Krauss with those Chuck Taylors.. steaze
the question should never be longer than the answer.
and that's saying alot when it comes to NC's reputation to ramble. i know it's important to reign in NC, but to pretty much heckle him using other peoples' quotes is just mean-spirited and clearly NOT jovial as the interviewer implies by casting constant meaningful side glances at the audience like they're in the know about his inside jokes.
Re pinker, read edward Herrman’s ‘review’ of ‘our better nature.’
Wow. Next to Chomsky, Lawrence Krauss looks like a frantic little boy struggling to keep up.
That's just crazy. He is a smart guy with humility and good questions, Cattie Lynn.
Well yeah... Imagine switching things around and having some professor of linguistics, philosophy, or political science from the University of Arizona interviewing Stephen Hawking on astrophysics. Unsurprisingly, it actually matters whether someone is or isn't a trained expert in the area being discussed.
c4p0ne Michel Foucault did not look like a frantic little boy in his conversation with Chomsky.
But that's the whole Noam Chomsky shtick, at least in his old age, he projects a tranquil certainty about everything, even when he says things that are questionnable, or vague or trite. It is a very effective trick, it makes interviewers nervous and inspires awe in audiences (in the room and on RUclips).
That comment was unnecessary.
Full interview PLEASE...
More Chomsky, less talky interview dude
Krauss is also a big time intellectual, he earned his speaking time.
🤣👍
David Graeber's last book backs Ferguson up. Ancient cultures were not war like and some were egalitarian.
Let Noam talk, dammit. Back off Mr. Tennis Shoes.
Why Krauss?
Bill Wilkie Indeed! What an annoyance.
At least part of what underlies it, sadly, is the widespread presumption that when it comes to the humanities (especially political science, philosophy, etc.) expertise somehow doesn't matter-- that the untrained non-expert wishing to dabble in these areas (if he is sufficiently loud, and opinionated, and authoritative some unrelated scientific field) can simply jump into their debates and make contributions on par with the considered views of experts who have spent years and decades focused on nothing else.
Krause was Chomsky’s student back in the day.
You know who else was fascinated by Rousseau?
Maximilien Robespierre.
Ye and so fk what?
@@mathias4851 Man, who started the french reovlution and built something called: the cult of the divine being.. AKA divine worship of the existance of humanity. otherwise known as the first recorded personality cult of a dictatorship.
Moral progress? That's an illusion...
institutional intellectuals frame it implicitly as comparing to European society before the enlightenment, which is like saying that moral progress world wide is affected by the moral progress in your state. to a small degree that's true, but it's erasing the contribution of other cultures, which were completely wiped out by our society. david graeber goes over this in his book, "the dawn of everything." it show's that many enlightenment thinker's got their ideas from the discourse with many of the societies that their empires wiped out, such as the great lake indigenous.
Morality itself is an illusion.
Moral progress is real. Millions of people demonstraded that in occurence with the Iraq war. Never before have people taken a stand BEFORE a war. We evolve but not Texas. Have you got thumbs there already?
Professor Chomsky, probably one the most brilliant men of modern times, a great intellectual and humanitarian, the subject “illegitimate authority” moral progress, a most interesting subject, unless justified, is illegitimate, his example is perfect, to save someone’s life, yet society creates rules and laws that protects wealth and power and stifles moral progress, etc etc, to bad this interview was cut short, curious, those in power who say that no one should have the authority to tell them what to do, especially if it interferes with their freedom,yet these same people when in power do the same thing to others in the name of moral authority, I.e. wearing of masks, and restricting the freedom of women’s rights in the name of “right to life” etc etc…humans are very competitive animals, who crave wealth and power over others and often stifles creativity to protect and increase their wealth, I.e. intellectual property and patients laws….no doubt a controversial subject which protects wealth and power, at the expense of freedom, moral and human progress, in my opinion !!
Well not everyone is so narcissistic but many do have a God complex and then say God gives people free will don't interfere with all the sinning? Or else they judge as though they are God and are biased themselves. Anything other than aggression is viewed as weak though aggression is often counter productive to progress it just is used excessively for control.
A question that lasts two minutes is not a question.
Ah Rousseau, the only philosopher from the enlightenment that had ideas that could build into something.
Logan Anderson you're right. His disdain for reason distinguishes him from the other philosophers of the enlightenment. He's much more inclined to talk about passion. That's why I think he's the best haha
Except that he's perfectly comfortable with the oppression of dissident political minorities (general will, tyranny of the majority, etc). It's sort of the main criticism of his political work. He's not exactly perfect. Also, his idea of man's natural state is the very origin of modern utopian thinking - as long as we sweep away all our civilized rules, man will be free to behave in the saccharine, loving, noble-savage fashion that is his nature.
I don't think that's the best way to look at people. Rousseau was a great thinker and writer, but with the benefit of hindsight, and of a couple centuries of philosophical criticism, the holes in his case are as Swiss cheese.
What about Locke? He was hugely influential upon America's Founding Fathers.
@@AbCDef-zs6uj The enlightenment is a term used for 18th Century Philosophy and although Locke had a tremendous influence on 18th century philosophy, he himself isn't usually seen as an enlightenment philosopher but as one who laid the foundations for enlightenment philosophy since he died in 1704.
@@monsieurali8484 More like Hobbes.
Wow. The interviewer loves the sound of his own voice more than listening to the words of a legend. Horrible interviewer.
Lawrence Krause was Noam Chomsky’s student and is a physicist. Not a professional interviewer. This is a discussion not an interview imo.
This really didn't seem even remotely bad. Chomsky easily got 90% of the time, if not more. And the interviewer was asking pertinent questions too, even though perhaps he spent too long formulating them, it's hardly like Chomsky was more concise in answering them!
There were definitely wars between hunter-gatherers. It was limited because there were few of them, and because they didn`t really have anything to fight about.
@Andrew Hawthorne Conflcits between groups of a few dozen people with 4-5 dead is even worse than a war. In order to survive it was essential to be prepared for the worst
Andrew Hawthorne most wars are fought for what is perceived, survival.
Fu Fu maybe upto WW1 but that is no longer the case. The Great War changed thaf
Fu Fu let me get back to you in a few hours - day. I’m deep in space travel and avoiding politics and ethics for the moment.
6:30
People watching this really have an issue understanding the idea that someone could have a conversation with Chomsky and not think of it as an interview.
Krause treated this like a debate
@@TheJonnyEnglish i'd 'love' to have a conversation with Richard Hill *rollseyes*
Krauss, big mouth.
Krauss needs to drink less coffee and listen more
Just one thing: science was already born before the Enlightenment. What the Enlightenment did for science, was to make it a little more popular to the whole of society. But please understand that the Enlightenment was principally about litterature, ethics and politics, and not so much about reason.
Didnt it establish the scientific method that is so important that it could almost define science as we know it today?
@@mlokosss No, the principal figures of the Enlightenment, such as Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau, etc. were not even scientists, except probably D'Alambert. The point Is that this period was juste really enthusiastic with science, but really did not produce anything for ir.
19th Century was much more important for science.
@@nicolasruiz4643 while i would agree with the fact that 19th century was more exciting in its findings and def it it also easier to associate with current state of affairs I think you reducing Enlightenment to just being about popularising science is kind of ignorant. Ive just checked it and the scientific method (the one about ' systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.'; hardly a thing less important than what you've made out to be the main point of Enlightenment) was established in 17th century. Before that doctors were affraid to work under the dog star out of fear of that fact somehow affecting the quality of their work (?) Luckily this kind of superstition got eliminated, not thanks to Voltaire, deffinetely not thanks to Rousseau. Nevertheless get your facts straight before stating anything with such a confidence.
@@mlokosss Well, I wasn´t asserting anything with "such a confidence"; I could just as easily satated the opposite opinion, so you could agree and you could be just fine with the facts you already know. Nevertheless, I appreciate you giving me some examples in your last comments, which is very nice since I haven´t yet got my facts straight.
Maybe I could restate another opinion, which is that, if science is caracterised by careful observation, hasn´t all humanity since ancient times been in posession of science? Certainly, it would be very difficult to deny that there have been all kinds of people very fond of careful observation, such as artisans, strategicians, etc.
Also, wouldn´t you call "experimentation" what people did to find out how to make out bronze? Or musical instruments? Maybe it was not very careful experimentation, but it would be interesting to find out what you think experimentation is.
Also, aren´t doctors today also very much afraid of doing so called unethical experiments? If in the future, some technology would be invented so that they could be carried out. would you then call today doctors "superstitious"?
Much more importantly, what do you think about Manchester City future? Why have they surrender under arab influence, even knowing very much that Enlightenment did not occur in the East during the Modern Age, so it would be very probable they would make irrational speculations with our technology?
@@nicolasruiz4643 Ok, now I can shut off, thank you
Another Chomsky video down the pipe.
Those big red shoes are so distracting.
Well, he is a clown...
Is Krauss displaying more of an appreciation for philsophy here?
Wow, there are quite a few VERY INTELLIGENT people in this comment section.
05:30 LOL. well, to be fair to the interviewer, he's very good at interrupting. unfortunately, i doubt he even understands how to bridge "freedom" and "language", let alone form the proper questions about it.
TL;DW - they don't 'discuss' as much as this insipient toad throws quotes at NC with constant interruptions to quote snippets at him in order to keep him off balance, thus make it even easier to interrupt - and throw jovial glances at the audience like they're sharing his inside joke.
This guy is confused
And your comment is extremely enlightening.
Like Marx, Chomsky's analysis is super brilliant. Like Marx, his Eutopian tendencies seem to overestimate human capacity for reason and goodness and do not reckon with our amoral will to power...Which has surely revealed itself again and again in th 20th and 21st century. He also suffers from the Greco Judea Christian notions of free will in agency. For the most part humans seem to be conformist and psychophants that is why the huge attrocities from Maoism, Nazism, and Stalinism and even Americanism have been so easy...
Those things are power structers with connection to society. Reason and pity is a human attribute that needs to be cared of in a sense of growing. That is not our reality. We have all of our life been subjigated to slavery of our minds trained to hate and kill each other. That is not human nature that is societys power
Krauss is such a narcissistic egoist! As Chomsky begins to inspire (in what Krauss would have a hunch is) leading to an impending spontaneous applause at 7.51 Krauss checks his watch! Thinking 'Oh Fuck Chomski is taking the limelight again and I'm nowhere near dazzling him with my scientific check matery!.
What are you talking about? Krauss set this whole thing up so Chomsky could express some of his ideas. Right at the beginning of the presentation he introduced Chomsky as his intellectual hero. He re-read a bunch of Chomsky's books just before before this conversation and had a big pile of notes sitting next to him. And what does it matter if he checked his watch? They were under a time constraint and Krauss was trying to get through all of his questions.
Also, you act as if Krauss was offended by the applause. Based on what? Chomsky was the one who talked right through the clapping, causing it to stop.
@@finewinedaily4997 keep your lies short, that's the key. you might want to edit out the last paragraph cuz it gives the game away that you're an ignorant troll.
i'm amazed by your patience with the man. i gave up this horrible video at the 6 minute mark.
I'd like to see Noam Chomsky live to his age without indoor plumbing.
That's not the episomolgical claim of Rousseau
Probably wouldn't be if he were born in Germany...
Wow... Chomsky loves to hear his own voice... the art of saying nothing!
Wow another 1 of waste of human flesh