i don't know why i love Chomsky so much! he is really a teacher and he teaches what he learned in his personal experience, so he summarized all conflict between rationalism and empiricism in 10 minutes and decided who was right.
A mind sice birth constant in learning,his self confession is of 1 that who never stops reading. Mix that with his innate altruism vicarity, empathy, we get the modern philosophical lexicon. The greatest mind living in my opinion.
I thought there was only one definition of rationalism, the second one he cited. That's surprising to me. Though on his argument that Hume was wrong on straight lines. If you see someone draw a line on a chalkboard, with a ruler, then isn't it straight enough in your brain that you have learned the concept? Why would it need to be drawn to an infinite degree of precision, that you can't see anyway? There are lots of other ideas that we can only grasp the concept of, but I am skeptical he would extend the argument to them as well. For instance imaginary numbers, or the concept of infinitely large numbers, or the notion of time travel, or higher dimensions. We would have to have some innate knowledge of these things, because no one can provide an actual example of such abstract concepts, so therefore if its not referential knowledge wouldn't it have to be innate by a similar argument? But the mind is able to construct things that don't exist from things that do. From the idea of numbers, and quantities, we imagine series or a quantity that is endlessly large. From the square root of a negative, we construct a new unit. From the processes we observe taking place in a fixed space, we imagine what it would be like if those processes were reversed. And lastly, from a line that appears to be roughly straight, we mentally imagine an idealized form where it is perfectly straight - aka when there are no bends or curves at all, no matter how much you magnify the line (it shouldn't be difficult for the mind to alter a shape in one's brain). To me these are all examples of synthetic knowledge. There has to be some acceptance of the ability to construct new concepts, or else everything that does not have an immediate material example would need to be considered "innate knowledge" which quickly becomes absurd. From this perspective I am much more inclined to believe Hume. And certainly the level at which psychologists are able to tease out these concepts from children is not sufficient to distinguish the validity of one interpretation over another. Nevertheless I must say listening to Chomsky on this is gripping. For some reason you can't turn away
Wouldn’t u say that the concept of infinite be an external concept outside of the empiricist belief of perception. That is that, we can develop our understanding of infinite through mathematical expressions and equations w/o actually having to experience it, therefore we have used logic or reason to explain an external concept w/o having to experience it. This may be a point in which empiricist couldn’t agree w or point to bc they can’t experience infinite. Another example could be probability. A 4 sided dice in which 1 side is let’s say orange and the other 3 are blue; we may mathematically prove through the concept of probability that no matter what, the color orange will land about 25% of the time and blue 75% of the time. Now let’s say an empiricist rolled the dice 5 times. There experience to that of the mathematical expression would be different, therefore who is right? Well the ability to mathematically explain the causal relationship between rolling the dice and the effectual relationship which is what the dice rolls on, cannot be explained by the empiricist bc he cannot experience an infinite number of rolls, and also bc he only rolled 4 or 5 times he is limited to his historical knowledge of the outcome of rolling of the dice. However, the rationalist would be able to explain the mathematical proof of probability bc they can externalize the concept of infinite or of major numerical count w/o having to experience it.
"knowlege is but recollection of the soul" but its more than just genes. body is genes, soul is psyche also the various "teach monkeys to talk" studies pretty much all prove Chomsky right
Differing layers of rationalism. Frigid rationalism that needs to be melted using a search for forms that build into the mind like hot stones on an ice flow.
As a linguist, I wish he had a clearer speaking voice. His innate low volume of talking led into his later years of a weaker tone. I’ve never seen this guy raise his voice.
I understand Hume as saying we have the innate concept of a straight line, from Book 1, section 2 part 4: “For I ask anyone if upon mention of a right line he thinks not immediately on such a particular appearance (like I see an actual straight line) and if it is not by accident only that he considers this property: a right line can be comprehended alone but this definition is unintelligible without a comparison to other lines which we conceive to be more Extended” So we have a straight line in the mind and we learn it’s properties by comparison to other lines. So the straight line is innate and the capacity of comparison is innate - aka intuition- and thus to Hume we learn the definition of a straight line through those innate ideas and capacities. Also right line means straight line
He's sort of implying that you need a reference in order to understand what one is. Which can be seen as him denying it. When the reality is that humans likely just know what it is, which is why we make geometric shapes innately. Which the Greeks noted first. We don't really need a reference, honestly. What is a geometric shape but a series of straight lines?
@@mcneilohara1463 I think I agree with the language and others. But there must be a more fundamental one that explains these in the brain I believe. Right? Language seems to be an emergent property of another kind of intelligence. I agree that language is a especially tool humans have developed of course
I think you mean the "essential difference". The simple, obvious, and truthful answer is that there isn't one. There are many unessential differences, but these all depend on which particular animal or plant or other life-form you have in mind. The obvious differences you can see immediately between a dog and a human are all innate, which is to say genetic. We share most of our genes with other animals, but precisely how much depends utterly on the particular animal.
Both humans and animals have innatism...both have feelings and both have breath which gives them life...both have intelligence, as both may have stupidity. Plato was full of questions, but NOT Socrates...Socrates had no questions...he actually answered a question with the same question back to them, which got people upset at him and eventually he was killed because he was considered a menace...was put in prison and fed hemlock. Socrates was into "Know Thyself", Plato was into "The Republic"... I don't consider Plato as having any Knowledge next to Socrates. Socrates was into BEING...actually, Plato was supposed to be Socrates's student...but, to me, he didn't have a clue of what Socrates was all about. In Plato's Republic, he stated that the children belong to the State; not the parents...lol. Plato's intellect completely ruled him and it shows...pure ignorance of Divinity.
FeeelingAlive your comment is a perfect example of what RUclips should be... An interesting opinion coupled with new information that I or others may not have read about elsewhere or listened to on here. Probably what I'm seeking out when I scroll through comments below a video I enjoy. Rather than banter, trolling and dumb jokes yt could occasionally be a breeding ground for insight and interesting ideas not necessarily found in the video I'm watching
![FendiDa Rappa - Clock Dat ft. Shamar Marco [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3NBU8KHdxYY/mqdefault.jpg)
Brilliant ... as always. Thank you professor Chomsky for making sense out my life.
Your life makes sense?
What would the world be like if everyone was born with Chomskys's intelligence?
This is really interesting except for the distracting background noise. Thanks for posting.
If you watch this with captions, it is quite entertaining. There are a lot of goofy mistakes.
Mistakes in the captions, you presumably mean. That's pretty much all videos. The technology is deeply flawed. It's AS (Artificial Stupidity).
i don't know why i love Chomsky so much! he is really a teacher and he teaches what he learned in his personal experience, so he summarized all conflict between rationalism and empiricism in 10 minutes and decided who was right.
How does he do it ? - Science,Philosophy and Politcal and cultural criticism.I could have 10 lifetimes and not achieve half.
Don't be in awe with anybody like that , it decreases ur self esteem can lead to depression...
@@arishkhan-lz8yz
Moronic.
A mind sice birth constant in learning,his self confession is of 1 that who never stops reading. Mix that with his innate altruism vicarity, empathy, we get the modern philosophical lexicon. The greatest mind living in my opinion.
@@johnmurphy5161
Couldn't agree more.
@@hotstixx honesty always win. Enjoy your day.
I thought there was only one definition of rationalism, the second one he cited. That's surprising to me. Though on his argument that Hume was wrong on straight lines. If you see someone draw a line on a chalkboard, with a ruler, then isn't it straight enough in your brain that you have learned the concept? Why would it need to be drawn to an infinite degree of precision, that you can't see anyway?
There are lots of other ideas that we can only grasp the concept of, but I am skeptical he would extend the argument to them as well. For instance imaginary numbers, or the concept of infinitely large numbers, or the notion of time travel, or higher dimensions. We would have to have some innate knowledge of these things, because no one can provide an actual example of such abstract concepts, so therefore if its not referential knowledge wouldn't it have to be innate by a similar argument?
But the mind is able to construct things that don't exist from things that do. From the idea of numbers, and quantities, we imagine series or a quantity that is endlessly large. From the square root of a negative, we construct a new unit. From the processes we observe taking place in a fixed space, we imagine what it would be like if those processes were reversed. And lastly, from a line that appears to be roughly straight, we mentally imagine an idealized form where it is perfectly straight - aka when there are no bends or curves at all, no matter how much you magnify the line (it shouldn't be difficult for the mind to alter a shape in one's brain). To me these are all examples of synthetic knowledge.
There has to be some acceptance of the ability to construct new concepts, or else everything that does not have an immediate material example would need to be considered "innate knowledge" which quickly becomes absurd. From this perspective I am much more inclined to believe Hume. And certainly the level at which psychologists are able to tease out these concepts from children is not sufficient to distinguish the validity of one interpretation over another.
Nevertheless I must say listening to Chomsky on this is gripping. For some reason you can't turn away
Wouldn’t u say that the concept of infinite be an external concept outside of the empiricist belief of perception. That is that, we can develop our understanding of infinite through mathematical expressions and equations w/o actually having to experience it, therefore we have used logic or reason to explain an external concept w/o having to experience it. This may be a point in which empiricist couldn’t agree w or point to bc they can’t experience infinite. Another example could be probability. A 4 sided dice in which 1 side is let’s say orange and the other 3 are blue; we may mathematically prove through the concept of probability that no matter what, the color orange will land about 25% of the time and blue 75% of the time. Now let’s say an empiricist rolled the dice 5 times. There experience to that of the mathematical expression would be different, therefore who is right? Well the ability to mathematically explain the causal relationship between rolling the dice and the effectual relationship which is what the dice rolls on, cannot be explained by the empiricist bc he cannot experience an infinite number of rolls, and also bc he only rolled 4 or 5 times he is limited to his historical knowledge of the outcome of rolling of the dice. However, the rationalist would be able to explain the mathematical proof of probability bc they can externalize the concept of infinite or of major numerical count w/o having to experience it.
"knowlege is but recollection of the soul"
but its more than just genes.
body is genes, soul is psyche
also the various "teach monkeys to talk" studies pretty much all prove Chomsky right
Differing layers of rationalism. Frigid rationalism that needs to be melted using a search for forms that build into the mind like hot stones on an ice flow.
love this!
As a linguist, I wish he had a clearer speaking voice. His innate low volume of talking led into his later years of a weaker tone. I’ve never seen this guy raise his voice.
I understand Hume as saying we have the innate concept of a straight line, from
Book 1, section 2 part 4: “For I ask anyone if upon mention of a right line he thinks not immediately on such a particular appearance (like I see an actual straight line) and if it is not by accident only that he considers this property: a right line can be comprehended alone but this definition is unintelligible without a comparison to other lines which we conceive to be more
Extended”
So we have a straight line in the mind and we learn it’s properties by comparison to other lines. So the straight line is innate and the capacity of comparison is innate - aka intuition- and thus to Hume we learn the definition of a straight line through those innate ideas and capacities.
Also right line means straight line
He's sort of implying that you need a reference in order to understand what one is. Which can be seen as him denying it. When the reality is that humans likely just know what it is, which is why we make geometric shapes innately. Which the Greeks noted first. We don't really need a reference, honestly. What is a geometric shape but a series of straight lines?
And no one has ever seen a straight line. So the concept doesn't come from experience. Which is to suggest that it's innate, if we have it.
What exactly is this innate difference between humans and other species we know of?
Selling the earth and one another
Cognition, primarily via the language faculty
Faculty of language primarily. Others such as morality, reason and cognition exist though.
@@mcneilohara1463 I think I agree with the language and others. But there must be a more fundamental one that explains these in the brain I believe. Right? Language seems to be an emergent property of another kind of intelligence. I agree that language is a especially tool humans have developed of course
I think you mean the "essential difference". The simple, obvious, and truthful answer is that there isn't one. There are many unessential differences, but these all depend on which particular animal or plant or other life-form you have in mind. The obvious differences you can see immediately between a dog and a human are all innate, which is to say genetic. We share most of our genes with other animals, but precisely how much depends utterly on the particular animal.
Both humans and animals have innatism...both have feelings and both have breath which gives them life...both have intelligence, as both may have stupidity. Plato was full of questions, but NOT Socrates...Socrates had no questions...he actually answered a question with the same question back to them, which got people upset at him and eventually he was killed because he was considered a menace...was put in prison and fed hemlock. Socrates was into "Know Thyself", Plato was into "The Republic"... I don't consider Plato as having any Knowledge next to Socrates. Socrates was into BEING...actually, Plato was supposed to be Socrates's student...but, to me, he didn't have a clue of what Socrates was all about. In Plato's Republic, he stated that the children belong to the State; not the parents...lol. Plato's intellect completely ruled him and it shows...pure ignorance of Divinity.
FeeelingAlive your comment is a perfect example of what RUclips should be... An interesting opinion coupled with new information that I or others may not have read about elsewhere or listened to on here. Probably what I'm seeking out when I scroll through comments below a video I enjoy. Rather than banter, trolling and dumb jokes yt could occasionally be a breeding ground for insight and interesting ideas not necessarily found in the video I'm watching
No, animals do not have innatism. They have innate attributes, rather. Innatism is a philosophical position. Animals don't philosophize.
How straight a line? Like the quanta are all in order, too? Could even be imaginary lol