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.
“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.
@@FreddyonAcidi 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
👌👌👌👌👌 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.
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!
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.
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
@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.
5 месяцев назад+1
Totally! I loved it. Peter did a brilliant job, obviously knows Noam well, and gave us a wonderful path to follow so the conversation could unfold. It wasn't a contest.
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".
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).
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?
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"
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.
🎯 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
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.
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.
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)
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).
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
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.
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...
'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.
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.
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.'
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.
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.
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
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.
What he is saying is that events are imprecise internal constructs comprised of groupings of occurrences in the world between which their is an apparent relation or theme. Cognitively, internal events are probably a heuristic for making sense of external occurrences. That's why a given person could define the event of the revolutionary war in a sentence or two. He is spot on in saying it's impossible to even define what an external event might be because, if such a thing existed in a technical sense, it would be far too complicated to discern. Like what was the revolutionary war out there in the world, like if an objective description of an event was possible, going beyond what he said about accounting for our biases? Is a singular battle that took place an event itself objectively, or do you have to be as specific as factoring in descriptions of the biomechanical and neurophysiological occurrences of every soldier on the battlefield?
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.
I don't think Prof Chomsky quite answered the interviewer's question, "What on earth is a representation if is not a representation of something?" (10:30). Prof Chomsky replies basically that the term "representation" requires no external object it could be referring to nothing more than what is going on inside of the head, as in the case of a perceptual psychologist. Sure, but even here he uses the term "inside the head," implying a greater context without which notions of representations, mental constructs and the mind itself lose comprehensibility. Yes, we can go a long way in reducing a problem to nothing more than a system of mental constructs, and this system can even be engineered into a computer. And yet the computer remains dependent on the greater context of its physically embodied operators. That is a different case, he says, without explanation, but let's accept that the we must focus instead on the insect, which admittedly function independently of a programmer. And yes, an insect's reactions to stimuli may be considered in as a system of mental constructs irrespective of whether there is a sun or just a light. Nevertheless, this insect is more than a mental construct, it is a specimen of a species that has originated through a process of evolution. Scientists have largely explained evolution, and thus reduced it to a system of mental constructs, and yet this process also continues to defy such understanding. As such, it stands beyond anything our minds have managed to conceive. Granted, the distinction between the internal and the external remains difficult to formulate, but it remains relevant.
~ 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
Jumping off from Donald Davidson's "A nice derangement of epitaphs". For Chomsky, Ludlow's question is not well-formulated, because (C wouldn't put it quite this way, but ...) it's not clear what exactly "language" in Davidson's sentence is meant to refer to. C would have to distinguish between e.g., the human faculty for language (does that not exist?), individual languages, for which descriptive linguists write grammars (e.g., English, Chinese, Navajo, etc.) or the internal "computational" system that allows individual speakers to learn and use particular versions of human language, etc. Davidson seems to be thinking about what would be called "speech-community norms", while Ludlow seems to be thinking about C's distinction between the grammars of individual languages and "Universal Grammar", where C would emphasize the common properties, and descriptive linguists the differences. So for C, L's Q is a non-starter. You could say that the enemy of science is folk-science in the sense of the pre-existing conventional resources a community has for understanding the world. And btw, conventional thinking is also the enemy of any serious art. If L had started from Wittgenstein instead of Davidson, he could have explored with C how W's apparently naive questions bring to light the possibility of scientifically important distinctions, which can then be formulated in a scientifically useful way, when it comes to understanding how human language works. (Up to 4:55)
an insect is not programmed by external manipulated sources- has its own internal ascribed senses- a computer does not have any internally ascribed senses.
the interviewer is simply using words very vaguely. Chompsky is pointing out that you can't have a sensible conversation unless you agree very specificaly on what the words you are using mean.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I was also wondering what does he mean real is like something thats actually real for example the table is there and its real but us calling it a table is something made up as a concept by us to differentiate it from other things? for example if i was holding a red hat its only a red hat because long long long ago everyone agreed that that particular colour would be called red. If we called that colour say ded then i would be holding a ded hat. So our references and names of things can change like concepts can change but reality of the colour of the hat would not change. So the colour of this heart if the whole world agreed was ded we would be calling this a ded heart instead of a red heart ❤?
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...
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.
6:17 "I mean, if we are talking about reality in the enterprise of trying to discover the way the world works in physics department or linguistics department or whatever, commonsense notions are irrelevant"
This guy falls short of Noam's profound understanding on the subject matter. His numerous errors stem from a confusion between ethnosciences and the subject of the "science of concrete", Precisely the kind of misconception Chomsky addresses when advocating for critical distance and disregarding intuition and common sense. Chomsky's intention is to elucidate phenomena more coherently, transcending the limitations of mere intuition and common sense.
I understand the comments backing the interviewer as being challenging but he comes across less as being challenging and more as being arrogant and under equipped.
I agree, if he were merely playing devils advocate he wouldn't be struggling to infer what's actually being argued in Chomsky's responses to his "probes." Even if he was, at best, he still woefully underwquipped to do so.
I had to watch this video a couple of times to get what was happening (why Professor Chomsky was so irritated with the interviewer's line of questioning). It wasn't just some arbitrary, knee-jerk reaction, and ultimately Chosmky had good reason to smell a rat. The interviewer, whose work I'm not familiar with, is not just trying to give Chomsky a chance to clarify his position on various issues. It's clear from the questions themselves, and the way they are presented, that he's trying to manoeuvre Chomsky into a corner where he (Chomsky) has to admit that his position on the question of whether objects do or do not exist is extreme (basically he's presupposing that Chomsky believes that objects do not exist). It’s the kind of approach that betrays the dangers of ‘armchair philosophy’ (Chomsky’s words, not mine). Chomsky's position is much more empirically anchored (as usual, let’s talk about what we know): sure, things exist in the informal way through which most people make sense of the world, though there are layers of knowing and understanding (folk science, modern science etc) that require further explication. When they get to the question of whether objects or events exist objectively in space in time, Chomsky tends towards subjectivity (‘Ask the Iroquois’), but from reading his views on explanatory gaps, I imagine he’d say that we’ll probably never have a satisfactory answer to the question. Instead, we can acknowledge that it’s only through our internal sense perceptions that representations can exist, and let that fact inform our understanding of real-world problems (for example, the way we teach the American revolution in schools). Ie, human life and organization, social relationships, science all require that we take it for granted that things exist, which is a fairly compelling reason to proceed as if they do, even if, intellectually, we can’t demonstrate that. Ultimately, it all culminates in Chomsky’s almost off-handed quip, ‘I don’t have any side’. I don't think he was trying to be hostile. He was, always the good professor, trying to teach: don’t waste your life tilting at windmills. He’s leaving it up to the ‘armchair philosophy’ interviewer to figure that out (I wonder if he learned the lesson). Now on to more urgent questions …
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.
“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.
Done the work and come correct.
Doesn’t hurt his cause that he has a higher IQ than everyone else
Right on the money.
@@FreddyonAcidi 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
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.
you nailed it
Couldn't have put it better.
Chomsky was arrogant and supercilious.
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.
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.
(note to self: if you ever happen to interview noam chomsky, don't put him in front of fake books.)
georg wachberg i
Book wallpaper.
georg wachberg he can probably still quote them, verbatim 😳
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.
Haha, good one!
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
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
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
the 'journalist' is Peter Ludlow, a well distinguished philosopher and linguist and information-rights + digital-rights activist
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.
Coyote Fur Trumpet What a stylish comment.
Body is mind
👌👌👌👌👌 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.
Learning from Noam Chomsky makes life meaningful. My deepest respect.
I love to see intelligent, perceptive people disagreeing yet remaining able to exchange ideas in a productive way. So rare on RUclips.
iDemandU90 or irl
What about joe rogan? Oh wait you said intelligent haha!!
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!
you are remarkable too, exactly, I feel the same way.
Well stated.
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.
Damm Right sir!
He's interested in content only, not the status of the writer
Yes content is all that mattrers.
The real genius here is the set designer
I miss this time in history. This is so much more fun than the fcking white room background filter in teams
Really good interviewer for once with Chomsky, actually made him really explain specifically what his position was.
Guys, he's pushing Chomsky like any good interviewer should. He's damn good at it.
He is a philospher himself, not a journalist.
He seems top be in a scenario where he's interviewing Chomsky.
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
@@abhineetmaurya4334 Towards the end, the interviewer was about to cry .
This discussion is so far above me it would take 100 years to understand it. This is amazing!
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
@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.
Totally! I loved it. Peter did a brilliant job, obviously knows Noam well, and gave us a wonderful path to follow so the conversation could unfold. It wasn't a contest.
It’s unbelievable the level of these deep minds in explaining experiences
Absolutely the deepest discussion I have ever heard on RUclips.
5:45
"Real is basically used as an honorific"
"what about morality, is that the same?"
"No, morality is something real"
lol
also made me laugh
Reminds me of the 'guy from Athen asserts that Athenians are liars'. Pure folk science of course!
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".
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).
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?
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"
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.
Man, thats exacly how I feel about the world right now and couldnt put it into words.
🎯 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
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.
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.
Love that point
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)
lol
yabadabadu
About as funny as a wax enema I suppose
Anyone know what's Chomsky's contributions to computer science ?
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).
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
How is it possible to acquire so much mastery over so much information?
Its not. Its an illusion. The intellect is just scratching the surface of reality.
I often ask the same question in regard to Christopher Hitchens and his power of recall. It is/was astounding.
essentially 8 decades of continuous work and being in the most prolific scientific institution (MIT) for 6 of those sure helps.
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.
TJ M They both vote for Hillary.
Would love to see Chomsky and Socrates having a discussion.
Socrates is plato's wet dream, I'd rather see him discus with someone else haha
Maybe with Gore Vidal and Alan Watts.
Never happen.
@@Curitive There is a 30min? discussion with Chomsky and Vidal on RUclips.
@@Johnconno cool thanks for mentioning
MY god, this guy is unbeatable. It leaves you breathless.
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...
He is a goddam genius
Respectful yet probing, pressing in a coherent fashion. Loved this interview.
Such a beautiful conversation. So true in the meaning of life. Love all his work
"There is no such thing as a stupid question" - Your Kindergarten teacher.
Don't think the interviewer is a dummy
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 RUclips!
It's so fun hearing Chomsky argue. The videos of him being pressed are rare. Love it.
That is an amazing interview from Peter Luldlow. Very interesting arguments from both.
'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.
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.
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.'
Not much of a thinker huh
suejak1 Don't be facetious. I think alright. The suggestion that language does not exist is absurd. No scholar would believe that.
Who say's the sea is blue? lol. Are you thinking of the sky?
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?
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.
Long live Noam Chomsky!
what is the book on the table they are talking about?
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.
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
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.
What he is saying is that events are imprecise internal constructs comprised of groupings of occurrences in the world between which their is an apparent relation or theme. Cognitively, internal events are probably a heuristic for making sense of external occurrences. That's why a given person could define the event of the revolutionary war in a sentence or two. He is spot on in saying it's impossible to even define what an external event might be because, if such a thing existed in a technical sense, it would be far too complicated to discern. Like what was the revolutionary war out there in the world, like if an objective description of an event was possible, going beyond what he said about accounting for our biases? Is a singular battle that took place an event itself objectively, or do you have to be as specific as factoring in descriptions of the biomechanical and neurophysiological occurrences of every soldier on the battlefield?
Chomsky has no chill
Idriss M'Bodou 😂😂😂
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.
It sounds fine to me, check your ears!
Try turning up the bass on your system's audio settings.
you r hearing, just not comprehending...try again!
Dementia and age don't appear to be synonymous with Chomsky. Amazing Human Being.
@@remotefaith Maybe.
Which Chomsky book are they referencing here? I need this for my dissertation. Thanks!
I don't think Prof Chomsky quite answered the interviewer's question, "What on earth is a representation if is not a representation of something?" (10:30). Prof Chomsky replies basically that the term "representation" requires no external object it could be referring to nothing more than what is going on inside of the head, as in the case of a perceptual psychologist. Sure, but even here he uses the term "inside the head," implying a greater context without which notions of representations, mental constructs and the mind itself lose comprehensibility. Yes, we can go a long way in reducing a problem to nothing more than a system of mental constructs, and this system can even be engineered into a computer. And yet the computer remains dependent on the greater context of its physically embodied operators. That is a different case, he says, without explanation, but let's accept that the we must focus instead on the insect, which admittedly function independently of a programmer. And yes, an insect's reactions to stimuli may be considered in as a system of mental constructs irrespective of whether there is a sun or just a light. Nevertheless, this insect is more than a mental construct, it is a specimen of a species that has originated through a process of evolution. Scientists have largely explained evolution, and thus reduced it to a system of mental constructs, and yet this process also continues to defy such understanding. As such, it stands beyond anything our minds have managed to conceive. Granted, the distinction between the internal and the external remains difficult to formulate, but it remains relevant.
!6:00
~ 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
7:42 - Chomsky is quite the elegant stipulator. He has such a lovely (late) Wittgenstein-esque wit to him.
Really fascinating, challenging stuff. Thanks for sharing!
Jumping off from Donald Davidson's "A nice derangement of epitaphs". For Chomsky, Ludlow's question is not well-formulated, because (C wouldn't put it quite this way, but ...) it's not clear what exactly "language" in Davidson's sentence is meant to refer to. C would have to distinguish between e.g., the human faculty for language (does that not exist?), individual languages, for which descriptive linguists write grammars (e.g., English, Chinese, Navajo, etc.) or the internal "computational" system that allows individual speakers to learn and use particular versions of human language, etc. Davidson seems to be thinking about what would be called "speech-community norms", while Ludlow seems to be thinking about C's distinction between the grammars of individual languages and "Universal Grammar", where C would emphasize the common properties, and descriptive linguists the differences. So for C, L's Q is a non-starter. You could say that the enemy of science is folk-science in the sense of the pre-existing conventional resources a community has for understanding the world. And btw, conventional thinking is also the enemy of any serious art. If L had started from Wittgenstein instead of Davidson, he could have explored with C how W's apparently naive questions bring to light the possibility of scientifically important distinctions, which can then be formulated in a scientifically useful way, when it comes to understanding how human language works. (Up to 4:55)
What is the word he uses at about 11:08? Sounds like "kistestophic"
“Tachistoscopic presentations” is the word, he’s referring to experiments done which study the visual system using tachistoscopes
As long as mobile devices and social media exist, this type of genius will never appear again.
a wonderful channel for fans of Chomsky's SANE BUT RADICAL ideas about human thinking
an insect is not programmed by external manipulated sources- has its own internal ascribed senses- a computer does not have any internally ascribed senses.
the interviewer is simply using words very vaguely. Chompsky is pointing out that you can't have a sensible conversation unless you agree very specificaly on what the words you are using mean.
GENIUS
Is anyone reminded of Plato's book Cratylus, where they discuss the origin of language?
Truth is arrived ONLY through civil discussion. Love hearing Chomsky's ideas.
The world doesn't deserve this man
Wow I would shit my pants matching wits with Mr Chomsky...this interviewer was drowning almost from the first second!
Quiet down, cueball.
I'd be relaxed because he's a human, too. And quite a humane one as well.
Anton Kuznetsov Agreed. The calm of the wise.
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.
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.
"... and it's called metaphysics" "... no" hahaha so good
Chomsky does well here describing how psychologists speak of representations.
Chomsky is that dude's teacher and bus driver.
topkek
As in chonsky being the bus driver and him telling teach, bitch sit your ass down you on my bus😂
Rationality is something which we can understand, morality is inbuilt in us. 😊😍
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.
he does that a lot for some reason
I'm amazed at noams recall, he has an incredible short and also long term memory..
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.
Close! Vibration will do it..
spaceandmotion
Chomsky is literally giving this guy a class session.
Which is sad since the guy is a "renowned" Philosophy professor.
Max Schlepzig Lol ikr
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.
fukugoogle "history has proven him wrong on nearly any issue i've heard him talk on"
................ oh no, one of you again (sigh)
sigh all you want, but skinner was correct.
I am soothed by seeing an interview with Chomsky that doesn't *crucify* me with an (empathetic) cringe response at the interviewer's failures
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.
basically, no matter what you say to chomsky, he'll disagree.
It's statistically amazing that the interviewer got everything wrong.
Around 9:54 Professor Chomsky says the massacre of the Iroquois occurred in 1979 during the American Revolution. He means 1779.
He still misspoke. It happens, not a big deal.
ah i noticed that. i scrolled this far in the comments for a corespondence reality check
The Master teaching the grasshopper. Noam is so intelligent the he shines in the company of intelligent people.
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?
8:33 Who would have thought: the quest for truth faces obstacles like interests and stuff... unheard of!
18:40
"The cognoscitive powers of the mind construct complicated internal structures [that represent the outside world]"
Your edited wording is a terrible misrepresentation.
The book the guy is quoting from is called Chomsky and His Critics, co-authored by at least 10 people.
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.
I think it's the Holy Bible
I was also wondering what does he mean real is like something thats actually real for example the table is there and its real but us calling it a table is something made up as a concept by us to differentiate it from other things? for example if i was holding a red hat its only a red hat because long long long ago everyone agreed that that particular colour would be called red. If we called that colour say ded then i would be holding a ded hat. So our references and names of things can change like concepts can change but reality of the colour of the hat would not change. So the colour of this heart if the whole world agreed was ded we would be calling this a ded heart instead of a red heart ❤?
Does anybody know which of Chomsky's books they are discussing?
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...
How many goes does it take to fully understand all this?
Why does Chomsky prefer differentiation to relation?
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.
6:17 "I mean, if we are talking about reality in the enterprise of trying to discover the way the world works in physics department or linguistics department or whatever, commonsense notions are irrelevant"
What's the title of the book on the table?
Does anyone know the name of the book on the table noam refers to a couple of times?
yes it showed up but havent had time to answer and was just about to. Stand by;-)
Anyone know what book they are discussing?
This guy falls short of Noam's profound understanding on the subject matter. His numerous errors stem from a confusion between ethnosciences and the subject of the "science of concrete", Precisely the kind of misconception Chomsky addresses when advocating for critical distance and disregarding intuition and common sense. Chomsky's intention is to elucidate phenomena more coherently, transcending the limitations of mere intuition and common sense.
I understand the comments backing the interviewer as being challenging but he comes across less as being challenging and more as being arrogant and under equipped.
I agree, if he were merely playing devils advocate he wouldn't be struggling to infer what's actually being argued in Chomsky's responses to his "probes." Even if he was, at best, he still woefully underwquipped to do so.
That which cannot be observed--directly or indirectly--cannot be explained. Science is about explaining observations.
Chomsky is a fucking legend.
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
I had to watch this video a couple of times to get what was happening (why Professor Chomsky was so irritated with the interviewer's line of questioning). It wasn't just some arbitrary, knee-jerk reaction, and ultimately Chosmky had good reason to smell a rat. The interviewer, whose work I'm not familiar with, is not just trying to give Chomsky a chance to clarify his position on various issues. It's clear from the questions themselves, and the way they are presented, that he's trying to manoeuvre Chomsky into a corner where he (Chomsky) has to admit that his position on the question of whether objects do or do not exist is extreme (basically he's presupposing that Chomsky believes that objects do not exist). It’s the kind of approach that betrays the dangers of ‘armchair philosophy’ (Chomsky’s words, not mine). Chomsky's position is much more empirically anchored (as usual, let’s talk about what we know): sure, things exist in the informal way through which most people make sense of the world, though there are layers of knowing and understanding (folk science, modern science etc) that require further explication. When they get to the question of whether objects or events exist objectively in space in time, Chomsky tends towards subjectivity (‘Ask the Iroquois’), but from reading his views on explanatory gaps, I imagine he’d say that we’ll probably never have a satisfactory answer to the question. Instead, we can acknowledge that it’s only through our internal sense perceptions that representations can exist, and let that fact inform our understanding of real-world problems (for example, the way we teach the American revolution in schools). Ie, human life and organization, social relationships, science all require that we take it for granted that things exist, which is a fairly compelling reason to proceed as if they do, even if, intellectually, we can’t demonstrate that.
Ultimately, it all culminates in Chomsky’s almost off-handed quip, ‘I don’t have any side’. I don't think he was trying to be hostile. He was, always the good professor, trying to teach: don’t waste your life tilting at windmills. He’s leaving it up to the ‘armchair philosophy’ interviewer to figure that out (I wonder if he learned the lesson).
Now on to more urgent questions …
In my humble opinion, Noam Chomsky may have been the most intelligent AND the most generous person in the history of all mankind.
really makes me wish that Peirce's categories and theory of signs were better known when Chomsky was younger.
From when is this interview? Haha, he mention the financial crisis in Argentina, so it must be around 2001.
If this is understanding reality, I haven't got a f***ing clue!
Interviewer: *reads aloud something Chomsky wrote*
Chomsky: "That's absolutely right."