Around 23:00 or 24:00 they discuss sectarianism and close-mindedness as a part of the intellectual community. I think it's supremely candid of Chomsky to admit that there is no structural antidote to this, except to be as open-minded and sympathetic as possible. In a time when human consciousness is fragmented on every level by religion, anti-religion, nationality, intellectual sectarianism, identity politics- and in short, violence of every kind, we should be remain aware if our thinking processes are bringing us closer to humanity at large and a broad compassionate mindset, or if we are merely getting caught up in the conflict of the ages and are closing ourselves from each other. Look beyond labels, my companions!
+Rishi Thomas Albert's pretty sectarian and closed-minded. Parecon sounds great until you get to the part about 'non-transferrable credits' instead of money.
This was the funniest of all Sessions. That Pharaoh's tuberculosis and Bush Bible stuff :))) And, as an ex-student of social science (Law) - I second that desire to "have theories" and use "big words". That used to drive me bonkers.
This is one of America’s last philosophers - we owe this WISE man great praise, the same way, he is appreciated and taken serious in Europe and abroad. But the interviewers , need providing him with a microphone.
this is day three now, where I've returned to watch this video. I really can't explain this;not yet, anyways. But watching this video, Chomsky's answers without delay. his conclusions of embrace- this video has changed me. I'm not trying to be over dramatic. I'm only here, in hopes of being that last little bit of inspiration for anyone who found this video, to sit down and listen. I promise, it's a dose of what we all need.
ErikVaughnDillinger I know you didn't say that, I'm wondering what you meant by what you did say. It sounds like maybe you're saying that it's just obvious that he is getting old and it will be sad when he dies.
ErikVaughnDillinger Watch his thing when he talks about the Bin Ladin raid and the supposed possibility of it starting a nuclear war. He doesn't seem too on the ball.
excellent series and Chomsky as incisive as ever. great to see Chomsky with well put open-ended questions and able to elaborate without much time restraint. I'd hope this series is followed up again by Albert and continues in this open ended fashion
For those who are interested, since it wasn't clear, at 8:40 Chomsky refers to "Intellectual Impostures" by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont. It examines Lacan, Baudrillard, Irigaray, Guattari, Deleuze e.t.c. and their statements about science.
Noam Chomsky and Mike Albert are two of the most insightful political thinkers of our age. I read Chomsky for detailed political analysis and Albert for his pioneering vision of the economic and social ordering of an anarchist society. Both these guys have taught me so much and it's great to see them come together on the same screen. Thanks to Tannhauser for these terrific uploads. You're performing a wonderful service.
The thing is, Chomsky has a degree in English and was an English Professor. He is quite amateur on politics. Lots of holes and inaccuracies and unfounded statements. He should really stick to English.
Not royalty! There are others, but not famous nor likely to be. The rareness of great intellects on the left are likely not the causes of your depression. Listen to the man! We all need a story. Human nature: the need for narrative, an explanation. That’s yours, apparently : that the world of reason will end when one great man/mind dies. I think not. Reason (explanation) exists for us to find it. We come and we go. “ we’re not angels…we’re organisms.”
"Is there something as human nature?" This question is towards the end, and as a biologist, who have actually read several papers of Robert Trivers, well, i just came in my pants.
I love what he says starting around 6:30 when he describes postmodern "theorists" and other pseudoscience that makes up so much of current academic work in the social sciences. Lots of big words that are essentially just fancy gibberish.
+james franklin I'm sure there are post modern thinkers that have something interesting to say. Just as there are Freudians who have interesting things to say. In both cases though the core ideas are fundamentally flawed and not science. Douglass Adams said something regarding astrology, I forget the exact words, but essentially that sometimes any system can yield some degree of truth... he said it more eloquently and humorously. But I don't agree that Postmodernism is a "philosophical structure for reasoning". Reasoning can be studied using the same formalisms as mathematics. Logic, set theory, etc. That is what gives us a philosophical structure for reasoning. Postmodernism gives us stuff like this: www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
+james franklin I absolutely have no problems with feminism. I'm a feminist as are most of the women I know and love. Feminism to me just means women should be treated equally. I can't see how anyone could have a problem with that. The problem I have with PM is really best described by Chomsky. Not sure if it will let me link to a video here. I don't think it will. Look for the video on RUclips: "Noam Chomsky: Exclusive interview with Reddit" at around minute 20. He talks about how POMO talks about high minded ideals but in reality all that rhetoric just gets in the way of effective political action. If POMO is nothing but a way to do art history or literary criticism better than fine, I have no interest in those things anyway. Frankly most of it seems pointless to me. I know Fitzgerald is a great writer and I would rather re-read one of his novels rather than read some POMO analysis of them. But I guess some people get something from that kind of work so fine. But when it attacks science or makes philosophic claims which it often does I think its just vacuous and incoherent. And as Chomsky says in that video, the one good thing it seems to have going for it: political goals that I share, you can make the case that all the POMO jargon gets in the way of that rather than helps. Its why Chomsky is always adamant that his linguistic work is completely separate from his political work and that no special knowledge (i.e. no POMO jargon) is needed to understand his political analysis.
+james franklin On the anti-science thing, there are definitely critiques of science from people who go under the banner of POMO. I don't think RUclips lets me post links but I'll try. Here is an essay from Dawkins that pretty much sums up my opinions on POMO and has examples of things that are anti-science: www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/dawkins.html
+Nicholas Dedless But in social sciences the more "sober" side can be even worse. At least huge part of sociology, anthropology, sociology not to mention pedagogy (if that is any science at all). you can also have sober bullshit, that is, bullshit that does not even pretend to be profound. And then you have the economics which is probably the worst because it has most power. Mathematically exact bulshit. And they give "Nobels" for that ...
It really makes me mad that on the point of religion, somebody edited the video.... anyway... Thank goodness we have Noam in our lives... it doesn't matter whether one agrees, it matters that it challenges the mind... for me, Prof. Chomsky and the much missed Hitchens are those that force you to question where we are and what we believe... appreciating doesn't have to mean agreeing... I'm really thankful that we've had the luck to have this wonderful thinker in our lives.
He was discussing the Anglo-centric views of the founders and how these ideas were passed on. Anglo basically means white person at this point in the US, usually a Protestant, not necessarily someone of English origin.
Speaking as an authority on so many subjects requires "painting with a wide brush" areas not a speciality of Chomsky demands such and as such wastes what is limited time with an important source of language and politics..I'm still enjoying it, the fault of being a fan.
Because you see it that way, ofcourse, your very own self deception, be proud of it, grow it, and face your annihilation with a smile knowing you did all you could.
0:57:25 01:01:30 and to the end, where he talks about the science of inquiry and principles and match "rationality" and "value judgements" (fuse the terms actually) about distributions of choices, whatever a choice is, being an ayn rand or dedicating yourself to helping others. Perhaps a sociobiologist would call it perhaps altruistic parameteres towards uncertain relatedness or something fancy like that, its an interesting idea, my guess is being monogamic and solidarity co-relates.
Great interview - I'm new to Norm Chomsky moreover new to the "intellectual "science although I am very scientific and a deep thinker - I am definitely going to look into this much much more as it is a position (profession )that is extremely appealing to me and I appreciate you posting the interview
Its awesome to see how Noam Chomsky though having alot of value judgements on various things (highly uncontroversial value judgements i must add) like genocide, its great to see this mans grasp of science (which again is no surprise considering thats hes from MIT) and how we all try to progress. He stands out among a climate where alot of leftists got the heart on the right place, but their brain is absent.
@Edmund Devine 6 years ago Please! It's Oct. 2022 and Chomsky is in Argentina and Still producing interviews !! #It really depresses me that he's getting so old
And oh, I also think that Franklin mistook swedes for finns, Finland was a Swedish subject and it were mainly finnish-swedes who Sweden colonized Delaware with, were Franklin got his impression of "Swedes".
***** I stand corrected, I didn't know that German and Irish were the predominant ethnicities in the USA. I'm from Australia where Anglo-Saxons are the predominant ethnicity. I should have said, "Americans of white, Western European heritage". Anyway, I think my point still stands...
"If a wound (and killing) has touched you, be sure a similar wound (and killing) has touched the others. And so are the days (good and not so good), We give to men by turns, that Allah may test those who believe, and that He may take martyrs from among you. And Allah likes not the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers)." ~ Quran 3:140
Human nature- as the word says, is determinated by nature. IT's called human ethology, and that's it. It's the character of humanity, acquired through evolution. What else.
Oh and btw, if you want to find out more about the "Delaware finns"; the one who was mistaken as "Swedes": read genealogia.fi/emi/art/article298be.htm#top. There are genetic differences between finnish people (western finns in particular) and swedes
In spite of the ineptness and professed ignorance of interviewer Michael Albert on the topics at hand, I was surprised that Chomsky gave a rather dismissive and weakly formulated response to his question about what religion is. Following this, neither man could remember the term 'quantum entanglement' when discussing Einstein's contribution to the testing of faster than light communication through his iconic EPR paper. I was also dismayed by Chomsky's rather specious metaphysical assertion about a "force for good" in the world, while at the same time disparaging what he calls French cafe philosophy. I was also a bit surprised that Chomsky cited out-dated Kin Selection models when providing a scientific context for the behavior of altruism rather than epigenetic factors in eusocial organizations. Lastly , Chomsky seemed to waffle between essentialism (humans have an unalterable essence) and existentialism (humans have no essence) when asserting his views on human nature.
+peskysushi Why do people keep saying Michael Albert is a bad interviewer? He's one of Chomsky's students.. He knows all this already. The rest of your post is incomprehensible, you're one of the Cafe Intellectuals he mentioned.. Literally just trying to sound smart on RUclips comments, dear god..
Chomsky is very correct about Einstein. Einstein was wrong but his pig headed opposition against quantum mechanics lead him to the discovery of quantum entanglement--- which he thought disproved quantum mechanics. In the end, thanks to Bell and later Aspect (etc...), experiments were made and Einstein was proven most likely wrong. In some ways, if we had let Bohr and others have it easy, quantum mechanics itself would have been less enriched. Of course this all happen because Einstein's heretical thoughts were not punished by death!!!
Chris Ramsbottom Isherwood Talking to me about Einstein? If so, google "quantum entanglement". Einstein published a paper with Rosen and Podolsky in which introduced "spooky action at a distance" as a prediction of QM. It was thought for years impossible to "untangle" (sorry for the pun). Then Bell produce his famous paper on the Bell inequality which is violated if QM is true.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem That lead to experiments which confirmed QM. Anyway as a result, scientists have been able to "teletransport" simple systems, like a single photon or electron as in Startrek or the Fly movie. So QM is true and spooky. The hidden variable of Einstein do not seem to be there....
On the human nature point, they bother to rationalize because they realize the implication of nature, the wolf doesn't, they're ashamed of what they are, but they also know it can not be changed due to physics.
Manifest destiny was the widely held belief that American settlers were destined to EXPAND across the continent in the 19th century. Historians have for the most part agreed that there are three basic themes to Manifest Destiny: 1. The special virtues of the American people and their institutions 2. America's mission to redeem and remake the world in the image of America 3. A divine destiny under God's direction to accomplish this wonderful task. Cited from Wikipedia"/wiki/Manifest_Destiny"
At 1:03:20 chomsky says you can address the view that human nature is fundamentally bad in two ways. The first way he says is to back up your factual claim with scientific evidence etc. Whats the second reason?
There is no ‘second reason’: there is simply the need to define what you mean and be prepared - as in the former- to back it up and not be lazy & fall on some generalization. The term ‘human nature’ is usually a pathetic cop-out/excuse that should have no place in honest & open discussion.
Chomsky's first reply about the question of religion is "what do you mean by religion? they are all very different." Contrast that with standard twitter idiots who lump everything together under one word and hate on that. If you can't tell the difference between two things, or lump thousands of religions and beliefs into one shallow word, then you're just starting a stupid conversation with stupid. Atheists think they are smart but they do that. Religious fundamentalists do it. The enjoyable thing about listening to Noam Chomsky is he doesn't dissapoint by just glossing over a little bit of stupid and proceeding.
I like this video the only thing i have to disagree with him on is that freedom has been the progression of people throughout history. This belief on freedom is a meme of the west. In fact people freedom fluctuate according to the needs from the environment.
I am looking at you sir, and you are correct with regards to American history, however in contemporary times the racial demographic has changed requiring more understanding and openness with regards to influence on public opinion. That is not necessarily a bad thing; however it does require a broader capacity for openness as well as adaptation. Respects.
Thought worth to point out that the evolutionary distance from our most "recent" ancestor is discussed and there is controversy, but lets agree on 5-6 million years ago. not 10+ millions which Chomsky guesses, true is true afterall. Besides there could be convergence between organisms of life that have a more remote ancestor than our most recent divergence so it doesnt follow that we are more similiar to what are now the current chimpanzees. Relative parental investment will affect our psyches.
I couldn't hear very clearly when he's talking about the elites conspiring, must be my speakers, but it sounds like he's saying post-whirl-world. Can somebody who heard him clearly tell me what he's actually saying?
Nee, although I agree that the numbers are more overexagerated and history oversimplified, there was a migration and conquest. That's why we have word like "Ginger" in english. The celts in the isles had larger amount of red haired people, and that's why it was commonly associated with celtic people by the anglo saxons. That's why "ginger" was used as an insult in English speaking countries. In other "white" societies, such as my own (Sweden), we have no such term for red haired people.
You're right, I have many romanticized views regarding the scandinavian culture and people, silly me. But we all need to escape into some kind of delusion to deal with all the misery around.
4.Germanic language was spoken in southern Britain before 400 and the roman sources who claim that there were people related to Germans). Take France. It changed its language(and self-percepted ethnic group) 3-4 times(depending on how you look at it) in some couple of hundred years. This was however a process of CULTURE and not genetics(since the genetics of the French show the same continuity as we have in Northern Germany and Saxons). Britain was isolated after the romans pulled out, but had
You're just speculkating as much as I am, I'm saying that there was conquest, men moving over and SOMETIMES bringing their familys, large enough to make cultural changes. And yes, red haired people are more common in Ireland and Scotland, read any study.
I guess you don't have any to counter with regarding the source and my argument about finns being mistaken for swedes because they were Swedish subjects. I guess "trolls" win sometimes.
Around 23:00 or 24:00 they discuss sectarianism and close-mindedness as a part of the intellectual community. I think it's supremely candid of Chomsky to admit that there is no structural antidote to this, except to be as open-minded and sympathetic as possible. In a time when human consciousness is fragmented on every level by religion, anti-religion, nationality, intellectual sectarianism, identity politics- and in short, violence of every kind, we should be remain aware if our thinking processes are bringing us closer to humanity at large and a broad compassionate mindset, or if we are merely getting caught up in the conflict of the ages and are closing ourselves from each other. Look beyond labels, my companions!
+Rishi Thomas Albert's pretty sectarian and closed-minded. Parecon sounds great until you get to the part about 'non-transferrable credits' instead of money.
It really depresses me that he's getting so old, we can't lose people like Noam now, we need hero's of logic and reasoning today more then ever!
+Ignus Darkwalker YES. I am also a bit depressed....
We should clone him, or make an Artificial Intelligence based in his brain... His brain is Heritage of Humanity, such a pride.
Or better, let's clone him twice, so he will have an equal discussion partner. :-)
We should cross his dna with lebron james' and create an army of LeNoam Jameskys
don't worry i am here
"The transition from magic to science is a pretty smooth transition."
The book mentioned at 8:40 is called "Fashionable Nonsense" (1997) by Jean Bricmont and Alan Sokal.
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/fashionable_nonsense)
This was the funniest of all Sessions. That Pharaoh's tuberculosis and Bush Bible stuff :)))
And, as an ex-student of social science (Law) - I second that desire to "have theories" and use "big words". That used to drive me bonkers.
This is one of America’s last philosophers - we owe this WISE man great praise, the same way, he is appreciated and taken serious in Europe and abroad. But the interviewers ,
need providing him with a microphone.
Lovely conversation. Love listening to Chomsky. Encouraging. What I love: he makes no excuses; he gives explanations.
this is day three now, where I've returned to watch this video.
I really can't explain this;not yet, anyways. But watching this video, Chomsky's answers without delay. his conclusions of embrace- this video has changed me.
I'm not trying to be over dramatic. I'm only here, in hopes of being that last little bit of inspiration for anyone who found this video, to sit down and listen. I promise, it's a dose of what we all need.
Man, this always makes me sad, Chomsky is getting old (as we all do) what is the world gonna do without him?
ErikVaughnDillinger You think he's not as smart as he used to be? I think I've noticed him getting more formulaic.
I don't think I said that, at all.
ErikVaughnDillinger I know you didn't say that, I'm wondering what you meant by what you did say. It sounds like maybe you're saying that it's just obvious that he is getting old and it will be sad when he dies.
Yes, that about covers it. But I do not think he's any less smart.
ErikVaughnDillinger Watch his thing when he talks about the Bin Ladin raid and the supposed possibility of it starting a nuclear war. He doesn't seem too on the ball.
It's a real pleasure to watch these sessions. Thank you
excellent series and Chomsky as incisive as ever. great to see Chomsky with well put open-ended questions and able to elaborate without much time restraint. I'd hope this series is followed up again by Albert and continues in this open ended fashion
For those who are interested, since it wasn't clear, at 8:40 Chomsky refers to "Intellectual Impostures" by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont. It examines Lacan, Baudrillard, Irigaray, Guattari, Deleuze e.t.c. and their statements about science.
Noam Chomsky and Mike Albert are two of the most insightful political thinkers of our age. I read Chomsky for detailed political analysis and Albert for his pioneering vision of the economic and social ordering of an anarchist society. Both these guys have taught me so much and it's great to see them come together on the same screen.
Thanks to Tannhauser for these terrific uploads. You're performing a wonderful service.
The thing is, Chomsky has a degree in English and was an English Professor. He is quite amateur on politics. Lots of holes and inaccuracies and unfounded statements. He should really stick to English.
Not royalty! There are others, but not famous nor likely to be. The rareness of great intellects on the left are likely not the causes of your depression. Listen to the man! We all need a story. Human nature: the need for narrative, an explanation. That’s yours, apparently : that the world of reason will end when one great man/mind dies. I think not. Reason (explanation) exists for us to find it. We come and we go. “ we’re not angels…we’re organisms.”
I would love to spend just a day with Professor Chomsky! What a day that will be.
Excellent video, thanks for uploading.
25:35 he’s talking about quantum entanglement 👍🏼
Thanks for uppload.
I should listen to this every other week, we all have a tendency to fall back to the "common sence" daily mind..
What a hero.
Thank you very much, pal.
thank you for the video
Thank You, so much!
I agree, he does this often to make a point within the context of the discussion.
"Is there something as human nature?" This question is towards the end, and as a biologist, who have actually read several papers of Robert Trivers, well, i just came in my pants.
Thank you Sir!!
Z Magazine had some great articles in its day.
Still exists
Thank You
chomsky is absolutely correct about these geniuses of the Internet.
So relevant right now
52:40 is amazing.
I love science and you've inspired me to start making educational videos much like yours! Hopefully in a few years I'll be jsut as big as you ;) haha!
I love what he says starting around 6:30 when he describes postmodern "theorists" and other pseudoscience that makes up so much of current academic work in the social sciences. Lots of big words that are essentially just fancy gibberish.
+james franklin I'm sure there are post modern thinkers that have something interesting to say. Just as there are Freudians who have interesting things to say. In both cases though the core ideas are fundamentally flawed and not science. Douglass Adams said something regarding astrology, I forget the exact words, but essentially that sometimes any system can yield some degree of truth... he said it more eloquently and humorously. But I don't agree that Postmodernism is a "philosophical structure for reasoning". Reasoning can be studied using the same formalisms as mathematics. Logic, set theory, etc. That is what gives us a philosophical structure for reasoning. Postmodernism gives us stuff like this: www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
+james franklin I absolutely have no problems with feminism. I'm a feminist as are most of the women I know and love. Feminism to me just means women should be treated equally. I can't see how anyone could have a problem with that. The problem I have with PM is really best described by Chomsky. Not sure if it will let me link to a video here. I don't think it will. Look for the video on RUclips: "Noam Chomsky: Exclusive interview with Reddit" at around minute 20. He talks about how POMO talks about high minded ideals but in reality all that rhetoric just gets in the way of effective political action.
If POMO is nothing but a way to do art history or literary criticism better than fine, I have no interest in those things anyway. Frankly most of it seems pointless to me. I know Fitzgerald is a great writer and I would rather re-read one of his novels rather than read some POMO analysis of them. But I guess some people get something from that kind of work so fine. But when it attacks science or makes philosophic claims which it often does I think its just vacuous and incoherent. And as Chomsky says in that video, the one good thing it seems to have going for it: political goals that I share, you can make the case that all the POMO jargon gets in the way of that rather than helps. Its why Chomsky is always adamant that his linguistic work is completely separate from his political work and that no special knowledge (i.e. no POMO jargon) is needed to understand his political analysis.
+james franklin On the anti-science thing, there are definitely critiques of science from people who go under the banner of POMO. I don't think RUclips lets me post links but I'll try. Here is an essay from Dawkins that pretty much sums up my opinions on POMO and has examples of things that are anti-science: www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/dawkins.html
+Nicholas Dedless But in social sciences the more "sober" side can be even worse. At least huge part of sociology, anthropology, sociology not to mention pedagogy (if that is any science at all). you can also have sober bullshit, that is, bullshit that does not even pretend to be profound. And then you have the economics which is probably the worst because it has most power. Mathematically exact bulshit. And they give "Nobels" for that ...
It really makes me mad that on the point of religion, somebody edited the video.... anyway... Thank goodness we have Noam in our lives... it doesn't matter whether one agrees, it matters that it challenges the mind... for me, Prof. Chomsky and the much missed Hitchens are those that force you to question where we are and what we believe... appreciating doesn't have to mean agreeing... I'm really thankful that we've had the luck to have this wonderful thinker in our lives.
He was discussing the Anglo-centric views of the founders and how these ideas were passed on. Anglo basically means white person at this point in the US, usually a Protestant, not necessarily someone of English origin.
Mingus and Chomsky? I could spend all day here. :-)
who is the interviewer?
Out of all 5 parts, this is my favorite without question.
Looking at 12:30 to 14:30, I can't help but hear Jordan Peterson talking about French "postmodern neomarxists" in the 70s.
People think Peterson is chasing ghosts. I'd love to see these two talk to each other.
Speaking as an authority on so many subjects requires "painting with a wide brush" areas not a speciality of Chomsky demands such and as such wastes what is limited time with an important source of language and politics..I'm still enjoying it, the fault of being a fan.
by "he" I meant Franklin. Not Chomsky. The original quote is much longer.
PS: could not send the PM. you set it on contact.
"Wilsonian idealism" (relating to Woodrow Wilson).
True science and religion do not mix.
Because you see it that way, ofcourse, your very own self deception, be proud of it, grow it, and face your annihilation with a smile knowing you did all you could.
0:57:25 01:01:30 and to the end, where he talks about the science of inquiry and principles and match "rationality" and "value judgements" (fuse the terms actually) about distributions of choices, whatever a choice is, being an ayn rand or dedicating yourself to helping others. Perhaps a sociobiologist would call it perhaps altruistic parameteres towards uncertain relatedness or something fancy like that, its an interesting idea, my guess is being monogamic and solidarity co-relates.
what is the name of the song in the beginning
Haitian Fight Song composed by Charles Mingus. Also recorded by the English group, Pentangle.
Great interview - I'm new to Norm Chomsky moreover new to the "intellectual "science although I am very scientific and a deep thinker - I am definitely going to look into this much much more as it is a position (profession )that is extremely appealing to me and I appreciate you posting the interview
Beautiful strings in the beginning. Who is that?
"Haitian Fight Song" performed by The Pentangle
Who did the intro music? Very good.
Charles Mingus - Haitian Fight Song
I wish I could get hold of Chomsky’s linguistic theory in layman’s terms.
I just wish you'd get your audio sorted out... really nerve wrecking, trying to hear what they say...
Nerve wracking
Good comment!
what is it he says about Einstein around 24:30? can't make it out.
Its awesome to see how Noam Chomsky though having alot of value judgements on various things (highly uncontroversial value judgements i must add) like genocide, its great to see this mans grasp of science (which again is no surprise considering thats hes from MIT) and how we all try to progress. He stands out among a climate where alot of leftists got the heart on the right place, but their brain is absent.
@Edmund Devine 6 years ago Please! It's Oct. 2022 and Chomsky is in Argentina and Still producing interviews !!
#It really depresses me that he's getting so old
And oh, I also think that Franklin mistook swedes for finns, Finland was a Swedish subject and it were mainly finnish-swedes who Sweden colonized Delaware with, were Franklin got his impression of "Swedes".
***** I stand corrected, I didn't know that German and Irish were the predominant ethnicities in the USA. I'm from Australia where Anglo-Saxons are the predominant ethnicity. I should have said, "Americans of white, Western European heritage". Anyway, I think my point still stands...
May sound geeky but this is a fucking awesome discussion!
1:02:35
who is the interviewer?
"If a wound (and killing) has touched you, be sure a similar wound (and killing) has touched the others. And so are the days (good and not so good), We give to men by turns, that Allah may test those who believe, and that He may take martyrs from among you. And Allah likes not the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers)."
~ Quran 3:140
Human nature- as the word says, is determinated by nature. IT's called human ethology, and that's it. It's the character of humanity, acquired through evolution. What else.
Oh and btw, if you want to find out more about the "Delaware finns"; the one who was mistaken as "Swedes": read genealogia.fi/emi/art/article298be.htm#top.
There are genetic differences between finnish people (western finns in particular) and swedes
In spite of the ineptness and professed ignorance of interviewer Michael Albert on the topics at hand, I was surprised that Chomsky gave a rather dismissive and weakly formulated response to his question about what religion is. Following this, neither man could remember the term 'quantum entanglement' when discussing Einstein's contribution to the testing of faster than light communication through his iconic EPR paper. I was also dismayed by Chomsky's rather specious metaphysical assertion about a "force for good" in the world, while at the same time disparaging what he calls French cafe philosophy. I was also a bit surprised that Chomsky cited out-dated Kin Selection models when providing a scientific context for the behavior of altruism rather than epigenetic factors in eusocial organizations. Lastly , Chomsky seemed to waffle between essentialism (humans have an unalterable essence) and existentialism (humans have no essence) when asserting his views on human nature.
+peskysushi Why do people keep saying Michael Albert is a bad interviewer? He's one of Chomsky's students.. He knows all this already. The rest of your post is incomprehensible, you're one of the Cafe Intellectuals he mentioned.. Literally just trying to sound smart on RUclips comments, dear god..
34:20. american exceptionalism and (what?) idealism? can anyone make this out? please
Chomsky is very correct about Einstein. Einstein was wrong but his pig headed opposition against quantum mechanics lead him to the discovery of quantum entanglement--- which he thought disproved quantum mechanics. In the end, thanks to Bell and later Aspect (etc...), experiments were made and Einstein was proven most likely wrong.
In some ways, if we had let Bohr and others have it easy, quantum mechanics itself would have been less enriched.
Of course this all happen because Einstein's heretical thoughts were not punished by death!!!
Do you have any references to back up your point? Just interested in it....would like to read something about it.
Chris Ramsbottom Isherwood Talking to me about Einstein? If so, google "quantum entanglement". Einstein published a paper with Rosen and Podolsky in which introduced "spooky action at a distance" as a prediction of QM. It was thought for years impossible to "untangle" (sorry for the pun). Then Bell produce his famous paper on the Bell inequality which is violated if QM is true.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem That lead to experiments which confirmed QM.
Anyway as a result, scientists have been able to "teletransport" simple systems, like a single photon or electron as in Startrek or the Fly movie. So QM is true and spooky. The hidden variable of Einstein do not seem to be there....
How do you know? I wonder what made him choose a german car.
It is very difficult to get rid of jealousy and predigest and being ignorant because human created weak
54:16 Human Nature
1:01:29 utility of its denial
00:36:57
On the human nature point, they bother to rationalize because they realize the implication of nature, the wolf doesn't, they're ashamed of what they are, but they also know it can not be changed due to physics.
Is he talking about Cixous?
Got an ad for a mattress ... on this Noam Chomsky video.
Why are there ads on Chomsky videos. Why would an uploader do this.
My channel is not monetized. Warner Music Group claimed copyright on the intro song and they enabled ads for the video's usage of their copyright.
What Noam is describing about social theorists looking longingly on the theorists of physics or chemistry sound to me like Theory Envy.
"Intellectual Impostures", you mean.
That was the title in the UK; in the US it was "Fashionable Nonsense"
Manifest destiny was the widely held belief that American settlers were destined to EXPAND across the continent in the 19th century.
Historians have for the most part agreed that there are three basic themes to Manifest Destiny:
1. The special virtues of the American people and their institutions
2. America's mission to redeem and remake the world in the image of America
3. A divine destiny under God's direction to accomplish this wonderful task.
Cited from Wikipedia"/wiki/Manifest_Destiny"
The thing about Kennedy in my mind is this. He challenged the press with a promise that they were free to write the truth.
I wonder what Chomsky drives...
At 1:03:20 chomsky says you can address the view that human nature is fundamentally bad in two ways. The first way he says is to back up your factual claim with scientific evidence etc. Whats the second reason?
There is no ‘second reason’: there is simply the need to define what you mean and be prepared - as in the former- to back it up and not be lazy & fall on some generalization. The term ‘human nature’ is usually a pathetic cop-out/excuse that should have no place in honest & open discussion.
Okay
An argument allows evidence.
1:02:33
22:30
55:00 Human nature
54:12 Human nature
philosophical faffing done got owned
Chomsky's first reply about the question of religion is "what do you mean by religion? they are all very different." Contrast that with standard twitter idiots who lump everything together under one word and hate on that. If you can't tell the difference between two things, or lump thousands of religions and beliefs into one shallow word, then you're just starting a stupid conversation with stupid. Atheists think they are smart but they do that. Religious fundamentalists do it. The enjoyable thing about listening to Noam Chomsky is he doesn't dissapoint by just glossing over a little bit of stupid and proceeding.
I like this video the only thing i have to disagree with him on is that freedom has been the progression of people throughout history. This belief on freedom is a meme of the west. In fact people freedom fluctuate according to the needs from the environment.
30:00
I am looking at you sir, and you are correct with regards to American history, however in contemporary times the racial demographic has changed requiring more understanding and openness with regards to influence on public opinion. That is not necessarily a bad thing; however it does require a broader capacity for openness as well as adaptation. Respects.
A warning about Pseudo-Marxist/Post-Modern/John Rawls/Identity/Victimology Politics Back in 2010. I never seen it coming back then. : o
Thought worth to point out that the evolutionary distance from our most "recent" ancestor is discussed and there is controversy, but lets agree on 5-6 million years ago. not 10+ millions which Chomsky guesses, true is true afterall. Besides there could be convergence between organisms of life that have a more remote ancestor than our most recent divergence so it doesnt follow that we are more similiar to what are now the current chimpanzees. Relative parental investment will affect our psyches.
I couldn't hear very clearly when he's talking about the elites conspiring, must be my speakers, but it sounds like he's saying post-whirl-world. Can somebody who heard him clearly tell me what he's actually saying?
its an Audi A4. old one.
Music to my liberal ears
Nee, although I agree that the numbers are more overexagerated and history oversimplified, there was a migration and conquest.
That's why we have word like "Ginger" in english. The celts in the isles had larger amount of red haired people, and that's why it was commonly associated with celtic people by the anglo saxons. That's why "ginger" was used as an insult in English speaking countries. In other "white" societies, such as my own (Sweden), we have no such term for red haired people.
and FYI "kamikaze" literally means "God wind"
it was hardly some secular defense tactic
25:55
Spooky action at a distance.
Michael Albert seems pretty out of it here. An off day, I guess.
You're right, I have many romanticized views regarding the scandinavian culture and people, silly me. But we all need to escape into some kind of delusion to deal with all the misery around.
4.Germanic language was spoken in southern Britain before 400 and the roman sources who claim that there were people related to Germans). Take France. It changed its language(and self-percepted ethnic group) 3-4 times(depending on how you look at it) in some couple of hundred years. This was however a process of CULTURE and not genetics(since the genetics of the French show the same continuity as we have in Northern Germany and Saxons). Britain was isolated after the romans pulled out, but had
Pardon el question mark at the end sir Chomsky,, lol should have been a period. :)
You're just speculkating as much as I am, I'm saying that there was conquest, men moving over and SOMETIMES bringing their familys, large enough to make cultural changes.
And yes, red haired people are more common in Ireland and Scotland, read any study.
I guess you don't have any to counter with regarding the source and my argument about finns being mistaken for swedes because they were Swedish subjects.
I guess "trolls" win sometimes.