ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 พ.ค. 2024
- Defending a Cartesian internalist perspective in the philosophy of language, Chomsky critically discusses the views of such philosophers as Quine, Donald Davidson, Tyler Burge, John Searle, and Saul Kripke. Directed by Dini-Diskin Zimmerman, produced by Gary Mar, DVD design by Takafumi Ide.
38:01 is a nice moment. The kid must've felt good. He got a long reply from Chomsky, then when he thinks it's all over, Chomsky basically calls him back and continues talking to him
Eight decades of not being picked up by mics.
:D
Zionist microphones...
This one is just fine
I've been reading and listening to Chomsky for quite a while. I only say that at his 90's there should be an intense effort to muster all his thoughts possible. He is, along with his nearest bedfellows, the only real intellectual that's worth listening to.
I think that’s a touch too far. But yes, Noam Chomsky is BY FAR the most important intellectual of the 20th Century until now.
The only problem is that he’s so prolific, it’s impossible to keep up with all his work!!
Or you could just leave the guy alone for 5 minutes he deserves some rest at the end of his life
i love how he throws in the thing about destroying the iroquois within the part about events
It’s disappointing to see several negative, unappreciative comments here. Noam Chomsky is unequivocally the world’s greatest intellectual. Check out other videos and/or start reading his works.
Ya homie wants to starve people out. Great person ha
If Chomsky is so smart, then why does he still deny that 9/11 was an inside job or that the CIA assassinated Kennedy? Why does he support Covid vaccine mandates and excluding the unvaccinated from society?
@@WiseOwl_1408 Homie don't play dat!
I understood what Chomsky meant by undiscernible nature of speech, what I didn't understand is the undiscernible nature of cognitive science. Just because theories keep changing, knowledge becomes indiscernible. If so we cannot know anything, while Einstein thinks it is strangely unbelievable that we can comprehend that which is incomprehensible. Who is right, Chomsky indicating we cannot know anything, or Einstein. Maybe our understanding of cognitive science (in our mind) needs more clarity.
One might otherwise be steeled against negativity, eitherside ‘cancel’ hypocrisy, allegations of “Truth” and critiques from passive privilege.
Anarchic speech is Free, but human intellect is bounded, and oft merely bound.
Note how Chomsky's explication of 'pre-theoretical' is highly redolent of late Wittgenstein. He is fully aware that you cannot seek to define words without taking into account the wide range of their uses. This is important because 'usage-based' linguists are his main detractors in modern linguistics, and the implications of course reach beyond linguistics.
i like how ludlow is pressing chomsky on his views rather than showing deference to him
9:40 It must be some kind of law of philosophical discussions in studios that, at some point, the coffeecup on the table is mentioned as an example
No one there except Chomsky knows anything about science.
You can see the light leaving the interviewers eyes as Chomsky scornfully deconstructs all of his questions it's funny.
i think if you told Chomsky he was Deconstructing anything he might push you in the face...he thinks Derrida is a faux philosopher ...i don't agree with him there myself nor do i think what Chomsky's doing is Deconstruction.
@@HANECart1960 i'd love it if Chomsky actually deconstructed things like 'merge' ...be neat if he would talk about stuff in that context. so, lol, someone please show me something Chomsky deconstructs, please! lol
@@macelharen indeed
*Christopher Hitchens easily scornfully deconstructed Chomsky's water-carrying for Islamofascism post-September 11th, 2001.*
@@MattSingh1 do you even know what deconstruction is? if so what?
So impressive his mind is. Above all others by a margin. One thing I don't agree with Chomsky is his claim here that scientists throw common sense out the window. And that this one distinction from folk science.
do they not?
@@HeavyProfessor of course not. This is a confusion that arises when people learn about quantum physics, thinking it is counter to common sense. But it's not. For Chomsky, it is already the case with action at a distance, e.g. gravity. But that phenomenon is also not counter fommon sense for physicists working in the field.
What is the book on the table that Chomsky refers to?
Chomsky and His Critics
When was this recorded? What year?
My estimation is around 2003.
when did this interview happened.
Ludlow comments that the book, Chomsky and his Critics, had just come out, and it was published in 2003.
@@monnyjcintosh 54:00 "This interview was taped May 7, 2003"
It actually didn't. There are no "things" or "events" in the "real" world. Don't blame me for being facetious; I am compelled to write that.
What's the intro music?
Something from The Mendelssohn Octet
I'm confused, is Chomsky going beyond the material here? Does he have other articulations of a critique of materialism? Or am I missing something?
He hates materialism so probably
He thinks that ever since Newton there hasn’t been a coherent concept of material as opposed to non-material. Nature (and/or reality) is not mechanic and cannot be understood by introspection. We understand theories about the world and everything we reasonably suppose exists, according to the best scientific theories at the moment, is considered part of the “material” world.
@@Willieponk Thanks. I'm still a bit confused. Even ideas and concepts are material? Even though they are conversational? And as a linguist it would seem that the turn away from positivism and the verification principle speak to the ways in which materialism itself are limited and flawed. Not to mention the distinction between sign and signified seems to call into question. The realm of both ideas and ideas, including the ideals of excellence suggest something beyond the real (as conceived as physical or material).
But maybe I'm missing something.
@@nathanketsdever3150 Yes, the idea is that materialism is flawed because it can’t be defined properly. Nature does not appear to be mechanical, there seems to be mysterious properties which we can describe and predict, but not explain, like gravity and the other fundamental forces. Before these were discovered and described, they were considered immaterial forces, but once understood they become fundamental to the “material” world. To say that anything that exists is part of the material world is not to say much more than “what exists, exists”.
@@Willieponk Thanks. That helps
Is there a sense in which Chomsky attempts to portray the world as material in ways that his own theories don't fully comport with various aspects of reality which all human encounter the world, including Chomsky?
sullivan expedition 1779* 22:00~
The interviewer seems to argue in defense of these new philosophers and he forgot that Chomsky is a scientist and a philosopher. I wonder how someone can be excellent en so many fields.
Chomsky is actually speaking fast, he's getting annoyed
Does mind creates the Phily or Philosophy creates the mind?
Where’s the beef?
Such a contrast between Ludlow's interview style vs the others in this series, really shows in Chomskys responses here, much more tense & confrontational 😬 relax Peter it's not a knife fight 😂 way too tense & defensive
Very interesting to see how dogmatic and what-I-say-goes the great man can be. Let me share this reflection I read today from a one-time colleague and mentee of Chomsky:
Q: What’s Chomsky like?
A: I always found Chomsky to be an easy person to be around, quiet, thoughtful, engaging, and, to me, considerate. Of course, I witnessed some of his attacks on those he took to be his enemies in linguistics and politics. One of the reasons I found those attacks distressing was that I thought he tended to be unfair to his adversaries - including some of his former students and colleagues, a few of whom I knew and liked. I found these two sides of him puzzling. Eventually I came to suspect that his remarkable intellectual power had bred an unhealthy confidence that led him to think that those who dissented from what seemed so clearly correct to him must have bad motives or be intellectually shallow. Since this character trait showed itself in matters confined to language, mind, or philosophy, its source was not ultimately political - though it clearly showed up in the political realm. I also came to believe that his lack of intellectual generosity hurt the field of linguistics and detracted from his towering achievements. No field that aspires to be a science can, without suffering for it, display the kind of unswerving fidelity to its great initiator that Noam seemed to expect - just as psychology suffered for decades from too great a deference to Freud.
- Source: www.whatisitliketobeaphilosopher.com/#/scott-soames/
I think you are quite right to point out this so-called ''puzzling'' aspect of Chomsky's personality. He does, of course, seem to be incredibly thoughtful, generous with his time, treats people equally, etc, but by the same token can be strangely defensive when his ideas are questioned. However, he has on many occasions openly admitted that many of the concepts he holds to be true in linguistics are a minority position. A curious mix indeed, but maybe we're all a bit like that?
I’ve watched this so many times. Still trying to wrap my Head around it. I don’t think he’s being dogmatic, but he’s just very thought out and structured and therefore rigid/precise in his definitions. I just think it really matters to him. He has a deep understanding of the subjects. Its very inspiring and Ludlow does a great job as well.
Anyone who accuses another of being dogmatic, rigid in thinking etc etc. is then responsible for demonstrating where and how they are incorrect. I doubt you'll have any solid arguments to support an assertion that Chomsky is incorrect in his claims in this video, primarily because he only said a bunch of very simple, obvious stuff.
@@jananilcolonoscopu4034 My observation was about his manner / style.
@@TristanHaze He can be a bit snippy I suppose, not suffering fools gladly, intellectually impatient, even arrogant. Any hint of scorn (pretty strong word for him... too strong) he might show seems rooted in his (often justified) impression that the other is missing some basic elementary fact of the matter. "Matter" itself being a case in point. He's always banging on about how Newton destroyed the mechanical universe, the mind-body problem, etc/ i.e. our basic understanding of things in terms of materiality. It seems to bug him that centuries later so few of us consistently demonstrate any "grasp" (forgive the materialist analogy) of this. He's never cutting, cruel, never ad hominem. Take (as he so often reminds us to do) Empire. Hardly anyone acknowledges that the United States (or maybe "The West" or "The North" or "The White") functions in the world "like" an empire to the extent that it is indistinguishable from an empire, thus it *IS* an empire. These kinds of basic misunderstandings are baffling to him and he can be a bit of a dick about it, but only a bit. He's not a saint, thank goodness. He'd be insufferable.
bad questions
Who? The guy who wants to starve people?
Whenever you’re dealing with nonsense, no need for testing in the real world, but when it comes to flying a rocket in the space, he’d want it tested.
No shit Einstein
Ludlow looks like he's a little "precisified" himself.
Sissified
People are wasting their time talking about nonsense:)
Lol, I would love to agree but nonsense is subjective.
That’s the opinion of a lobotomy patient
You are not very smart.
As Chomsky points out elsewhere, at one point, everyone believed that objects fell because they wanted to go home to their natural resting places. Then someone (evidently Galileo - in our tradition) asked: "wait a second, is that true?"
One could say that was just nonsense or one could say it was the start of the scientific revolution and that we would be picking fleas off ourselves in hovels made of straw and mud and shitting in chamber pots if he never bothered to be curious about why objects fell.
Insufferable as ever.
I've never heard Noam Chomsky ask a question that isn't rhetorical.