I really appreciate you, Prof. Chomsky, having responded to the question "Why do you answer every email?"(with barely a fraction between query and reply): "Because I take people seriously. I think people deserve respect." That is why, or at least a part of why, you're often extended a level of deep admiration, and for passionate truth, which seems never to evanesce! For caring for all of us, even us Canadians!, you're doing it well. Thanks for your time, ALL of it you've given over the decades. C'est une l'homme fantastique et tu, à votre disposition pour les humble Peace, love and respect to Prof. Chomsky, his host and everyone who still wants to know that those with children shall still see them grow.
Loved the clarity of what Stephen Wolfram gets wrong about LLMs... The analogy with chemistry is super-helpful too. Thank you for an absorbing conversation.
@@Tyler-hf4uc He's one of the premier educators whom I've discovered within my lifetime, and he doesn't fear telling the truth. That's a special trait in our rather corrupt Western universities.
@@auturgicflosculator2183 he's an absolute, completely incorrect moron that is only good in linguistics. That's it. His political beliefs are dumb and false. Noam Chomsky's beliefs are about as correct as a rock's beliefs.
Is this one of Noam's last public talks before his stroke? Netanyahu is here and Noam kept coming to mind here in Washington where I am and I am on break from New York which makes it easier to hear. I have been missing Noam and wondering how he is doing out of love but you know there has not been much word on the topic of his health.
interviewer: what did i miss about nicaragua vs panama comparison? chomsky: you missed the reality of what happened. same with cuba / dominican republic comparison conversation. other than these uninformed/unresearched questions, i enjoyed this interview a lot.
A person under attack will have a behaviour and will make a range of choices that differ from what she would have done in freedom. The dynamic range of choices shrinks, energy is spent creating a defense, lowering risks, and so on. Well, the same applies to tiny countries like Nicaragua and Cuba. Too bad they do no have, today, a EU style social democracy with regulated open markets. But when, how, would theyhave managed a smooth evolution, a progression, just as say Estonia or Polland have done? It is easy to ask overly simplistic questions as if the ever had a full choice.
True, but we''ll see what speed we have to play your clips when you're giving hour-long talks about philosophy and history in your nineties, though, eh? The fact he's still doing this at all is a serious blessing.
Dominican Republic was invaded in 1965 by the U.S. to be put in its place. Panama was also invaded in 1989. They are wealthy for the oligarchies that control those countries.
Look I have the utmost regard for Chomsky, except for one weird but extremely important thing: he thinks it is highly likely that natural selection had nothing to do with the evolution (he would prefer of course, to use the words 'cultural emergence') of language. On this particular point, (but this point alone, I must hasten to say!) he is completely wrong. I suggest that is because he has never ever been a trackways reader, never gathered and hunted, never gleaned the narratives told by the patterns of footprints or trackways left behind by humans and other terrestrial animals. For those of you who don't believe me, read my two published papers, "The Social Trackways Theory of the Evolution of Human Cognition (2013), and ditto the Evolution of Language (2017)" by Kim Shaw-Williams. The basic take home message for those of you that have never had occasion to visually analyze physical patterns of the trackways of any animal's daily journeys left behind by it's terrestrial activities in it's environment is this: (1) only us humans have ever developed the cognition/neural structures required to be able to understand the information contained in trackways, and (2) think of substituting signed and spoken symbols for footprints, in order to 'tell' or 'write' the story of one of the journeys that happened in your past memory, or might happen in your imagined future. Of course 'language itself did not evolve: what evolved was the COGNITIVE CAPACITY that INEVITABLY led to the cultural 'emergence' of language. THOUGHT CAME BEFORE LANGUAGE...but using a language certainly helps us to 'think'...in other words, to keep our communications of our thoughts/memories/stories to ourselves and other humans in narrative/logical (UNDERSTANDABLE/READABLE) order.....
He thinks nothing of the sort and and you can produce no citation in support of your laughable mischaracterization. Moreover I know exactly where you're getting this calumnious gibberish. You're thoughtlessly parroting Seven Pinker -which is never a good idea.
If the term libertarianism has gone to "the right" so much (you know the property rights, free market, non aggression principle etc) that the left is forced to say "left libertarian", they might actually be better off just saying "peaceful anarchism" to avoid this annoying left and right thing in the language. What is "Right libertarianism" now used to be "liberal", but the term liberal now has almost no association with free markets and property rights. To the point it'd be very funny if say Ron Paul called himself a Right Liberal which is why he doesn't. That's why I wonder why bother using "Left Libertarian" when from the left's perspective the word has been polluted in the current context. Hearing libertarian probably makes way more people think of Ron Paul than Chomsky, but on the other hand hearing anarchist probably makes more people think Emma Goldman than Murray Rothbard (citation needed), who was alive much more recently even. Then again anarchist can have a negative connotation of its own, which would be the weaker part of my argument.
It hasn't gone to the right, it has always been super right wing, masquerading as some kind of "liberty and freedom" non sense. Freedom for the rich, to take from the middle and lower classes.
The problem with peaceful anarchism is that it doesn’t really apply to the popular conception of left wing anarchists, the bomb throwing or antifa types, and does apply to right wing anarchists…I agree though that “libertarian” has been so thoroughly co-opted that he might as well find a new word.
Actually there is that "talking dog" that spells out meanings with its feet! see Meet Copper the talking dog who uses sound buttons to chat with owner | SWNS vid and Dog Communicates with Human by Talking Buttons vid channel. Erich Jarvis, Ph.D. has proven the auditory cortex can UNDERSTAND even though the language communicate as vocal communication is not there. Pretty fascinating.
I own a car to navigate a complicated road system. I do not expect the car to analyze the chemistry of the gasoline in its tank. Chat GPT and Bard are fantastic. I use them daily. Lives or saved. They improve the human condition. I've not had an occasion to ask either model to tell me anything about language. Although, both could provide a chemical analysis of gasoline.
I don't like how little you challenged Chomsky on certain points here, he is a brilliant thinker but like all of us is entrenched in positions that he cannot possibly defend in an honest fashion. I understand his age and stature demand a respect, however he is rumoured to be intolerant of true debate and I see nothing in any of his public appearances to dissuade me of that position.
"...he is rumoured to be intolerant of true debate..." This may be the single most obtuse and straightforwardly self defeating sentence I've read in several years. Close your eyes, rub your temples, and think very very hard.
@@hadronoftheseus8829 I suspect you think there's a gotcha somewhere in there? I cannot know for sure, and therefore would not say for sure , he is as described, hence the use of rumoured. Chomsky, like many intellectuals these days, is very pleased to have conversations with certain types of people with certain types of belief structures but will always find a convenient excuse to avoid public discussion with a substantial opposing force. Perhaps I've missed it and you can send me in the appropriate direction, it would be appreciated.
@@stephenphillips3883 I don't think so, I know so to an infallible certainty, and you need to shut your eyes more tightly, rub your temples more vigorously, and concentrate as hard as you possibly can for twelve to fourteen hours. Something may eventually click.
I definitely admire and respect Chomsky, but he does trade in some of this useless, vain sentimentality that you get in a certain kind of left intellectual nowadays - "left, not liberal" types. His answers to those questions asking about his longevity, the writers he admires, and the mistakes he's made were particularly grating. edit: I just wanted to come back and say that the "helpful links" in the transcript are wonderful.
Chomsky might be good with other subjects which I don’t have expertise to judge, but he is full of misinformation about Maoist. He claimed Maoist saved hundred millions from 1949 to 1979. That’s a either a intentional lie or a ignorant naive biased belief. I am from China and research deep about China modern history and talk to many people who been through that period. Maoist caused hundreds millions died in the most inhumane ways possible, and billion people suffered and humiliated. Please do some research yourselves about Great Famine in Chiba and Culture Revolution. What he said about other subjects sounds very intelligent and convincing, I have no deep knowledge to validate, but if he could get so wrong with Maoist, be very careful about what he says on other subjects, do your own research.
Jesús. Chomsky made some doozy claims. If I wasn't well read I might have bought his claims. But he was either stupid or liar. But love how Tyler asks 1 simple follow up and moves on. But wonder why no one puts chomsky on blast Cuz he is making absurd claims at times. But he an original and so hard to pin him down.
Any actual, evidenced arguments against any of his actual points, instead of this empty word salad, sprinkled with irrelevant and ridiculous clownery of patting yourself on the head with pretentious "please notice me" claims?
Noam Chomsky is a well-respected linguist, but I don't think that philosophers really believe he's contributed anything that valuable to the field of philosophy more broadly. His political ideas and theories don't really have any grounding. I don't doubt he can do research and state facts, but his models of the world and lack of really understanding economics has led him to believe false things.
Interesting, could you present some evidence of your judgment? Or a specific idea of his that is ungrounded? I think we all will benefit greatly from your better point of view and understanding of the world. Maybe you can share some of that truth? 👍
@@mandarine1007 one of the main issues is his rejection of neoclassical models. In this sense, he's not much different than a doctor that thinks vaccines cause autism. Doctors are adjacent to the field of biochemistry, but not quite experts in the field of vaccines (which belongs to chemists in some way shape or form). You'd call a doctor like that a "quack" because he's literally going against the entire field of experts. That's what Noam Chomsky does. He rejects an entire field of experts so that he can make sure his world view is validated. Is economics biochemistry? No, but it is very statistics and strongly focuses on causal relationships. It's mostly science and has definitely provided awesome, informative, predictive insights. Virtually no economist agrees with Noam Chomsky except a very fringe group of economists -- not unlike the fringe group of doctors and scientists that claim vaccines cause autism.
@@hadronoftheseus8829 I said a lot. I'm sorry you didn't understand it. If you disagree with experts, you need to be able to explain why and the evidence behind it. Chomsky and leftists don't do that. They just simply claim that neoclassical economics is wrong, give a bunch of random examples falsely attributing to its wrongness, then make a statement like yours.
@@OhAwe - Chomsky believes he's educating the public when he "exposes" non-existent evils of the USA. I'll take a wild guess, and say that he probably takes the side of Hamas over Israel, and believes Israel has NO right to self defense. The USA pretty much ended world war 2 ... and then the Left calls the USA evil.
I really appreciate you, Prof. Chomsky, having responded to the question "Why do you answer every email?"(with barely a fraction between query and reply): "Because I take people seriously. I think people deserve respect." That is why, or at least a part of why, you're often extended a level of deep admiration, and for passionate truth, which seems never to evanesce! For caring for all of us, even us Canadians!, you're doing it well. Thanks for your time, ALL of it you've given over the decades. C'est une l'homme fantastique et tu, à votre disposition pour les humble Peace, love and respect to Prof. Chomsky, his host and everyone who still wants to know that those with children shall still see them grow.
Nice to hear clever fellows chat, Tyler's next question is always a surprise.
Loved the clarity of what Stephen Wolfram gets wrong about LLMs... The analogy with chemistry is super-helpful too. Thank you for an absorbing conversation.
GREAT opening question!! ON Wilhelm von Humboldt!
Incredible mind still, love uncle Noam!
Incredibly manipulative of the Dunning Kruger types.
@@tuckerbugeater ok incel
What incredible mind and why do you like him?
@@Tyler-hf4uc He's one of the premier educators whom I've discovered within my lifetime, and he doesn't fear telling the truth. That's a special trait in our rather corrupt Western universities.
@@auturgicflosculator2183 he's an absolute, completely incorrect moron that is only good in linguistics. That's it. His political beliefs are dumb and false. Noam Chomsky's beliefs are about as correct as a rock's beliefs.
Is this one of Noam's last public talks before his stroke? Netanyahu is here and Noam kept coming to mind here in Washington where I am and I am on break from New York which makes it easier to hear. I have been missing Noam and wondering how he is doing out of love but you know there has not been much word on the topic of his health.
interviewer: what did i miss about nicaragua vs panama comparison? chomsky: you missed the reality of what happened. same with cuba / dominican republic comparison conversation. other than these uninformed/unresearched questions, i enjoyed this interview a lot.
wow noam chomsky thanks for making this available . When was it recorded?
February 27th, 2023. Dates of when episodes were recorded can be found in the description box.
A person under attack will have a behaviour and will make a range of choices that differ from what she would have done in freedom. The dynamic range of choices shrinks, energy is spent creating a defense, lowering risks, and so on. Well, the same applies to tiny countries like Nicaragua and Cuba. Too bad they do no have, today, a EU style social democracy with regulated open markets. But when, how, would theyhave managed a smooth evolution, a progression, just as say Estonia or Polland have done? It is easy to ask overly simplistic questions as if the ever had a full choice.
you have to listen to Noam at 1.25 speed these days
True, but we''ll see what speed we have to play your clips when you're giving hour-long talks about philosophy and history in your nineties, though, eh?
The fact he's still doing this at all is a serious blessing.
The most important thing I took away from this interview is that I will never call a frankfurter a hot dog again
Even that would be a grave mistake. A Frankfurter is a variation on a hotdog. :-)
@@schmetterling4477 i will be researching this in depth
@@HarryPainter Make it a worldwide quest for the perfect dog. ;-)
Dominican Republic was invaded in 1965 by the U.S. to be put in its place. Panama was also invaded in 1989. They are wealthy for the oligarchies that control those countries.
In cantor's time they are associative sets
Look I have the utmost regard for Chomsky, except for one weird but extremely important thing: he thinks it is highly likely that natural selection had nothing to do with the evolution (he would prefer of course, to use the words 'cultural emergence') of language. On this particular point, (but this point alone, I must hasten to say!) he is completely wrong. I suggest that is because he has never ever been a trackways reader, never gathered and hunted, never gleaned the narratives told by the patterns of footprints or trackways left behind by humans and other terrestrial animals. For those of you who don't believe me, read my two published papers, "The Social Trackways Theory of the Evolution of Human Cognition (2013), and ditto the Evolution of Language (2017)" by Kim Shaw-Williams. The basic take home message for those of you that have never had occasion to visually analyze physical patterns of the trackways of any animal's daily journeys left behind by it's terrestrial activities in it's environment is this: (1) only us humans have ever developed the cognition/neural structures required to be able to understand the information contained in trackways, and (2) think of substituting signed and spoken symbols for footprints, in order to 'tell' or 'write' the story of one of the journeys that happened in your past memory, or might happen in your imagined future. Of course 'language itself did not evolve: what evolved was the COGNITIVE CAPACITY that INEVITABLY led to the cultural 'emergence' of language. THOUGHT CAME BEFORE LANGUAGE...but using a language certainly helps us to 'think'...in other words, to keep our communications of our thoughts/memories/stories to ourselves and other humans in narrative/logical (UNDERSTANDABLE/READABLE) order.....
He thinks nothing of the sort and and you can produce no citation in support of your laughable mischaracterization. Moreover I know exactly where you're getting this calumnious gibberish. You're thoughtlessly parroting Seven Pinker -which is never a good idea.
@@doodle8 No, he/she cannot make a video about this. This person is a crackpot.
@@hadronoftheseus8829Are you claiming he got this from Pinker, rather than from whom Pinker got it?
@@zapazap Are you implying Pinker got it from Dennett? Pinker certainly didn't get directly it from Chomsky, and neither did the OP.
Steven Pinker is wrong about almost everything.
If the term libertarianism has gone to "the right" so much (you know the property rights, free market, non aggression principle etc) that the left is forced to say "left libertarian", they might actually be better off just saying "peaceful anarchism" to avoid this annoying left and right thing in the language. What is "Right libertarianism" now used to be "liberal", but the term liberal now has almost no association with free markets and property rights. To the point it'd be very funny if say Ron Paul called himself a Right Liberal which is why he doesn't. That's why I wonder why bother using "Left Libertarian" when from the left's perspective the word has been polluted in the current context. Hearing libertarian probably makes way more people think of Ron Paul than Chomsky, but on the other hand hearing anarchist probably makes more people think Emma Goldman than Murray Rothbard (citation needed), who was alive much more recently even. Then again anarchist can have a negative connotation of its own, which would be the weaker part of my argument.
It hasn't gone to the right, it has always been super right wing, masquerading as some kind of "liberty and freedom" non sense. Freedom for the rich, to take from the middle and lower classes.
The problem with peaceful anarchism is that it doesn’t really apply to the popular conception of left wing anarchists, the bomb throwing or antifa types, and does apply to right wing anarchists…I agree though that “libertarian” has been so thoroughly co-opted that he might as well find a new word.
Libertarianism is basically the opinion that we don't need human rights because the slave market can regulate the prices for slaves just fine. ;-)
Democratic Socialism is the term I prefer. All just semantics in the end.
@@schmetterling4477 the reason it isn't slavery is because I can leave my shitty job tomorrow and the boss has no means to prevent me from doing so
Great interview
4:40 Rousseau
I think this is the last chomsky interview ever?! Either in video or in print. Is he dying?
This might be the last interview with prof chomsky
Kissinger - Mao's fanboy, wow, something new!
Actually there is that "talking dog" that spells out meanings with its feet! see Meet Copper the talking dog who uses sound buttons to chat with owner | SWNS vid and Dog Communicates with Human by Talking Buttons vid channel. Erich Jarvis, Ph.D. has proven the auditory cortex can UNDERSTAND even though the language communicate as vocal communication is not there. Pretty fascinating.
Ok fine, now interview Nancy Maclean.
I own a car to navigate a complicated road system. I do not expect the car to analyze the chemistry of the gasoline in its tank. Chat GPT and Bard are fantastic. I use them daily. Lives or saved. They improve the human condition. I've not had an occasion to ask either model to tell me anything about language. Although, both could provide a chemical analysis of gasoline.
Why are you telling us that you are less intelligent than the average first grader? ;-)
I don't like how little you challenged Chomsky on certain points here, he is a brilliant thinker but like all of us is entrenched in positions that he cannot possibly defend in an honest fashion. I understand his age and stature demand a respect, however he is rumoured to be intolerant of true debate and I see nothing in any of his public appearances to dissuade me of that position.
"...he is rumoured to be intolerant of true debate..."
This may be the single most obtuse and straightforwardly self defeating sentence I've read in several years. Close your eyes, rub your temples, and think very very hard.
@@hadronoftheseus8829This phrase advances an emperical claim which is true or false. How does it defeat itself?
@@hadronoftheseus8829 I suspect you think there's a gotcha somewhere in there? I cannot know for sure, and therefore would not say for sure , he is as described, hence the use of rumoured. Chomsky, like many intellectuals these days, is very pleased to have conversations with certain types of people with certain types of belief structures but will always find a convenient excuse to avoid public discussion with a substantial opposing force. Perhaps I've missed it and you can send me in the appropriate direction, it would be appreciated.
@@zapazap That most definitely is _not_ an empirical claim, doofus.
@@stephenphillips3883 I don't think so, I know so to an infallible certainty, and you need to shut your eyes more tightly, rub your temples more vigorously, and concentrate as hard as you possibly can for twelve to fourteen hours.
Something may eventually click.
I definitely admire and respect Chomsky, but he does trade in some of this useless, vain sentimentality that you get in a certain kind of left intellectual nowadays - "left, not liberal" types. His answers to those questions asking about his longevity, the writers he admires, and the mistakes he's made were particularly grating.
edit: I just wanted to come back and say that the "helpful links" in the transcript are wonderful.
Sounds like a personal problem.
Chomsky might be good with other subjects which I don’t have expertise to judge, but he is full of misinformation about Maoist.
He claimed Maoist saved hundred millions from 1949 to 1979. That’s a either a intentional lie or a ignorant naive biased belief.
I am from China and research deep about China modern history and talk to many people who been through that period.
Maoist caused hundreds millions died in the most inhumane ways possible, and billion people suffered and humiliated. Please do some research yourselves about Great Famine in Chiba and Culture Revolution.
What he said about other subjects sounds very intelligent and convincing, I have no deep knowledge to validate, but if he could get so wrong with Maoist, be very careful about what he says on other subjects, do your own research.
Jesús. Chomsky made some doozy claims. If I wasn't well read I might have bought his claims. But he was either stupid or liar. But love how Tyler asks 1 simple follow up and moves on. But wonder why no one puts chomsky on blast Cuz he is making absurd claims at times. But he an original and so hard to pin him down.
Any actual, evidenced arguments against any of his actual points, instead of this empty word salad, sprinkled with irrelevant and ridiculous clownery of patting yourself on the head with pretentious "please notice me" claims?
Could you comment further on specifics?
Go ahead, tell us some doozies
Did you have anything to say, were you just typing for the exercise? Your comment is strictly empty of content.
Nothing wrong with your ego. But there is something seriously wrong with your comprehension skills. Too bad it's not the other way around.
Chomsky seems to be so full of himself that it has become an art form.
Being full of oneself is the hallmark of those on the political Left -
Is it true that noam associated with jeffery epstein...if so it shows very, very bad judgement
If not, it really doesn't say very much. If so, it still may say very little - 'we used to talk about philosophy but then I discovered...'
Noam Chomsky is a well-respected linguist, but I don't think that philosophers really believe he's contributed anything that valuable to the field of philosophy more broadly. His political ideas and theories don't really have any grounding. I don't doubt he can do research and state facts, but his models of the world and lack of really understanding economics has led him to believe false things.
Interesting, could you present some evidence of your judgment? Or a specific idea of his that is ungrounded? I think we all will benefit greatly from your better point of view and understanding of the world. Maybe you can share some of that truth? 👍
@@mandarine1007 one of the main issues is his rejection of neoclassical models. In this sense, he's not much different than a doctor that thinks vaccines cause autism. Doctors are adjacent to the field of biochemistry, but not quite experts in the field of vaccines (which belongs to chemists in some way shape or form). You'd call a doctor like that a "quack" because he's literally going against the entire field of experts. That's what Noam Chomsky does. He rejects an entire field of experts so that he can make sure his world view is validated. Is economics biochemistry? No, but it is very statistics and strongly focuses on causal relationships. It's mostly science and has definitely provided awesome, informative, predictive insights. Virtually no economist agrees with Noam Chomsky except a very fringe group of economists -- not unlike the fringe group of doctors and scientists that claim vaccines cause autism.
You said nothing. It's richly amusing how every single comment on this page is spotlessly vacuous.
@@hadronoftheseus8829 I said a lot. I'm sorry you didn't understand it. If you disagree with experts, you need to be able to explain why and the evidence behind it. Chomsky and leftists don't do that. They just simply claim that neoclassical economics is wrong, give a bunch of random examples falsely attributing to its wrongness, then make a statement like yours.
@@Tyler-hf4uc You've now said nothing twice. You made no specific claims - let alone arguments - and are curtly dismissed.
An intelligent man who has occasionally said and done the most evil of things -
Such as?
@@OhAwe - Chomsky believes he's educating the public when he "exposes"
non-existent evils of the USA. I'll take a wild guess, and say that he probably takes the side of Hamas over Israel, and believes Israel has NO right to self defense.
The USA pretty much ended world war 2 ... and then the Left calls the USA evil.
Novel tea. SF/EF