+Pianistos His mind is like a fine wine... Knowledge tempered by wisdom matured through time. As of now. Do you mean you don't want him approaching his demise? That mind/voice gone? I worry about such a probability. I don't see many contenders who could replace him. Everyone's unique and irreplaceable; However his intelligence AND courage AND dedication AND morality are seemingly unmatchable. (He probably would give me an F in linguistics) (Poor verbal clarity, but great metacognition.)
Gotta love the balls of Noam Chomsky first question at a Google interview he says Google is undermining the privacy of it's users. Really how much more genuine and uncompromising can you be
Ullbritt I couldn't agree more; Chomsky never misses the opportunity to call out private tyranny for what it is, even if it happens to be in the midst of an institution sucking up to him for their own reasons.
This man is remarkable. He gets asked good questions here, but how he answers is truly admirable. Translates a superficial question, in his mind, broadens the meaning of it to not only a bigger picture, but the biggest picture. One step towards his thinking would be a success for everybody
I tried to reply to the "articulate paranoid" remark, but replying wasn't an option. I hope you don't mind if I reply here. I watched a C SPAN interview from (I think) 2003 in which he stated that an economic report ordered by the Bush administration reported (paraphrased) : "They could spend so much money on the Iraqi War that it would cause a deficit in trillions of dollars, and eventually end Social Security, Medicare, and possibly every other social program enacted since FDR, maybe the public school system as well." He didn't think Bush would go that far, or that 'the country' would allow [that expenditure] it. Now we know better. These topics are far too important to trivialize with pithy remarks.
Not sure what your point is exactly? Bush is an idiot and Chomsky was aware he was an idiot while he was indeed being an idiot. What is your point? That doesn't change the fact that Chomsky can be an articulate paranoid.
I love Noam, I only regret that i didn't discover him earlier in my life. He has changed my view on the world and continues to do so. May he live forever!
As a teacher Chomsky seems essentially to be providing the listener with what they need to know in order to think in a meaningful way about the world and its political systems and operations.
Mr. Chomsky, I just hope you know that the younger generations will always regard your wisdom and continue your legacy, and question the ways of the world, in terms of sovereign states and leaders. You have inspired a generation of thinkers, and given hope and motivation to many.. I love you.
I had heard about Professor Chomsky when I was a college student in the late 70's and 80's. When Chomsky opens his mouth the world listens . Most famous man to be identified by a mere surname. May God bless you,sir, with good longevity.
Lots of smiling faces in the Google audience is a good indicator that Google employees are largely sympathetic to Noam's viewpoint, despite his direct dig at Google's submission to government demands for sharing personal user data. Google should stand up to the US Gov Inc. It's employees should speak out about this!
In Google's case, they were coerced by threat of penalties & litigation instigated by the gov't. This is well-known in the Bay Area. Most of Silicon Valley is against NSA bullshit.
Here is why I think they are smiling, I wrote this comment above: (Un-) Surprisingly, a thorough description of the destruction of the cultural diversity in the Western (Judeo-Christian) civilization but not a single word about the multi-centenary mass-destruction of the cultural diversity in the so-called "Arab/Muslim World"... or in China. Even worse, on the question about the Arab world, Mr. Chomsky details thoroughly how bad the US policy is, again, not a single word about the Arab world.
Google gets Financially taken care off I'm sure, by their own software, but also by the government and is highly protected because of this, why would they speak out when they're getting taken care off?, Of course what they're doing is wrong, just like Apple, however I highly doubt they would ever let their ties be broken with the government
This is such a dead brain statement. The government regulating the info google has, is way better than letting Google keep it private. Making it public makes sure that the government can regulate it. Otherwise corporations will just gather everything they can and more.
This the first time I have ever heard him speak and I have never read any of his writings. He is magic. Gentle and sincere about topics which are, everywhere else, inflammatory. In between the politic stuff he has some really interesting and complex things to say about language, which is his stock in trade. I'd recommend saving this one for when you can sit quietly and consume it as he is fairly concise with his language which makes some of his more nuanced answers harder to fully get first time. You don't have to agree with his views to get something from listening to him. I would think you get more if you disagree with him regardless of if your views changed after listening to him.
I've never found an intellectual that I feel is more trustworthy than Noam Chomsky. (No one's perfect, but) his level of honesty and genuineness is pretty profound. A wannabe intellectual like Richard Dawkins would shit his pants over the terror he would be experiencing discussing half the topics (particularly related to power and imperialism) that someone like Chomsky has dedicated his life towards. And Hitchens was just attracted to US power, in my opinion.
I fucking love Chomsky but why bring Dawkins? the guy that dedicated his entire life to cience and evolutionary biology, OF COURSE he won't be the most advanced person to discuss politics, social classes, imperialism etc. what the fuck kinda of comparission is that, is like saying "yeah, Chomsky is awesome, but he wouldn't last two seconds in a guitar battle against Slash, what a loser"
Felipe Aguena lol, well sometimes when Dawkins talks about religion he'll go into stuff that is related to imperialism. For example, he likes to blame religion for causing all the bloodshed during the partition of India. But I find it EXTREMELY offensive because he'll NEVER bring up the role the British played in all of that (and basically blames the people of poor developing countries for being influenced by their own culture) because otherwise he would have to discuss ideas related to power structures and imperialism and frankly he is too scared to stand up to the BIG BAD so he goes after easier targets. (Just my personal opinion. Not forcing anyone to agree with me or anything.)
The late Gore Vidal and Norman Mailer were quite interesting, so is Tariq Ali and Chris hedges. I don't agree with them on everything, but they were/are intellectually courageous and intelligent.
noam is the best. he is so intelligent and comprehensive in his perceptions of what has happened to the usa, middle, and lower classes. i went to mit to see his office when i arrived in massachusetts in 2018. the staff was kind and let me take a photo. az was lucky to get him. go noam!
I couldn't agree more. What is so impressive about him is that he is just not afraid to tell if the way he sees it. That takes a solid pair of balls...
He says something very insightful beginning at @32:40:"You do not get discoveries in the sciences by taking huge amounts of data and throwing them in a computer". I need that quote because nobody would believe anything I would say, because obviously I'm stupid if so many headlines and businesses are about "big data".
I love the argument he made at the end for diversity of languages. That the richness and variety of culture that would follow from language variety is itself a wonderful thing, but not only that, but also that people living in close proximity with different culures will automatically attain a comprension for the complexity of human experiences.
Wow a redaction in the first 5 minutes, and only seconds after Noam chastises Google for being an organism for decreased privacy and centralisation of power. And I was hooked
+disarmyouwith a == you say, "you're listening" but what are you DOING about all you hear?? everyone hears and then go back to their daily routines, nothing changes in their lives after listening to this or any guy telling truths.
I still haven't stopped listening (currently listening to one of his books) but you're right.. I still haven't managed to do anything about it. I guess I hope it's building towards something.. but.. hm.
disarmyouwith a == one of the big difficulties with this is that it is so hard to DECIDE what to do once you or anyone is aware of it all... where do you start, what do you DO, what action is more beneficial than others, are the actions for short or long term, what people do you need to meet in order to do it, etc etc... I think if there were a map telling people what to do next the would do it if they saw it was effective, but the problem is they tell you to call or email your congressman, or recycle, or join a demonstration, and you see they are not effective, measures have been taken from the other side to cancel it out somehow, the congressman will act if his number are at risk or if he is told his reelection is at risk, wallstreet will nullify demonstrators though direct propaganda (they criticise but have no better options, etc)... so the issue is what EFFECTIVE ACTION can one take?? For example if you talk to a vegan s/he have you freaked out about meat fast, and if you talk to a dentist he'll have you thinking teeth are the most important thing in the world for jus about anything, you listen to Ted talks and sex in marriage will fix almost everything, or gong back to 'morals' will, or women in power will fix everything, or feeling emotionally secure is first, UNLESS, traditional marriage is no longer feasible, laws have to be changed before there is equality, we have a real issue with racism, or we have exaggerated the race issue and women equality, you talk to a cop and the same thing happens, you talk to Chomsky and.... so how to keep perspective when everyone thinks and affirms their subject or point of view is the most important?? Think of the men who acted and supported the women's movement and equality and the vote and all that, they acted in good faith they saw it was a good thing, and yet here we are with forth wave feminism and all the absurd safe spaces triggers for just abut everything, false rape allegations; yet they acted and so this is why it is so important to think what to do before you act, but how long? --- and Yet we must find out and act somehow, or we will forever be listening.
My point is that efforts to rule the populace through religious doctries and bogus ideologies would be more difficult - if the average citizen were as bright as mr. Chomsky ;)
Christian Ohm chomsky calls himself a 'socialist libertarian,' that's all one needs to know about this 'intellectual.' (though you can say his support/apathy for genocide kind of also matters). if the people in this world were as dumb as he is it'd be a much bigger mess.
I am not sure I understand your argument. However, Socialism and Communism are two very different economic systems and/or ideologies. Socialism is essentially about creating a welfare state that provides ‘some’ services to the people through government operated enterprises. Wealth distribution is also a central component of socialism. Not to say that people should have standardized income, but, if you cannot take care of yourself the government provides you with aid aka "a living wage" that allows an individual to live a ‘proper life’, where he or she will be able to find their way back to the job market without unnecessary struggle. If Noam Chomsky subscribes to this kind of socialism, and he does - than I see nothing wrong with that :)
Hey, the sound dropped out for a couple of seconds around 4:24 ish. Not sure it's all that crucial, but do you guys have a transcript or could you fix the audio? Many thanks.
he was most probably talking about how USAID developed ZunZuneo, sort of a Twitter for Cuba, to create 'smart mobs' against the government. www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/03/us-cuban-twitter-zunzuneo-stir-unrest
Ever since at least 1980, We the People of planet Earth have had the capability of providing the highest quality of food, the highest quality of clothing, the highest quality of shelter, the highest quality of healthcare, and the highest quality of education for each and every man, woman and child on the face of the Earth, and to do it in such a way that was in Harmony with Nature.
His take on language degeneration reminds me of an example I heard on radio. It happened that Ireland before radio had a rich collection of singing due to variational dialects. When the radio appeared, one singer populated the air waves. And of a sudden, all towns, villages and cities wanted to sing like him, which killed the rich variety of song!
What a wealth of knowledge & insight. It takes a lot of care & interest to become like him. And discipline. So mentally on-point & collected it's truly awe provoking. Awesome awesome awesome. And he doesn't come across like he feels infallible or above anyone else or like he's elite. He just watches & listens & remembers & connects dots & reports. I may be projecting & fantasizing here a bit. But, I think it & he are something like that, or at least that's what I think it would take to be like him.
What he says becomes more and more true and clear. 2020. What a year. Let's see what 2021 will be... Edit: 2021 will probably just be the old same shit, but even crazier.
Here is my comment to him when I first listened to him yesterday 18/3/2021: (Un-) Surprisingly, a thorough description of the destruction of the cultural diversity in the Western (Judeo-Christian) civilization but not a single word about the multi-centenary mass-destruction of the cultural diversity in the so-called "Arab/Muslim World"... or in China. Even worse, on the question about the Arab world, Mr. Chomsky details thoroughly how bad the US policy is, again, not a single word about the Arab world.
@@JosephSaouk I see that you are used to the typical "intellectual" discourse in the US and the western world: criticize the dedicated enemies. Basics of morals: criticize those that you can influence.
Chomsky has said in countless ocassions that he prefers to discuss US policy and actions made by the US Government and to think about those rather than making arguments with no moral or intellectual value about other nations. He is an anarchist in a true sense but he is right to talk about the agressions commited by the country he is living in, he is an American and has contributed massively to American intellect than many other millions that live there.
Excellent talk by Chomsky w/ topical tie-ins to current events and issues (Crimea, NSA, etc.). Nice collection of topics. Chomsky no longer sounds as contrarian as he once did. Perhaps a reflection of the times and the last 15 years. In any case, heartfelt kudos to Google for putting this talk by Chomsky together!
I think he's mellowed a little with age, and I think we're all better for it. His ability to speak to the issues without flipping the bird at his detractors speaks well of his confidence, I think. He always sort of had that, but even more so today.
does anyone knows, where can I read about "primary means of language" at 13:45, that language is not developed primarily for the purpose of communication.
That's sort of a big theme in Chomsky. Try checking out some Chomsky.info pages (here's a good one: www.chomsky.info/interviews/1984----.htm ) What he's doing is differentiating language from the Information Theory idea of "communication" as transmission of data. What he's saying is that human language expresses a lot that isn't just conveying data.
This is a question. Can Mr.Chomsky show a practical pathway to what he may call a just society or at least a society which is on its way to become one?
I can think without language. In fact many people, myself included, think in pictures almost exclusively. Language for me becomes usefull in describing those pictures. Whenever I think in language I'm usually trying to identify an emotion or idea and explain it in useful terms for communication. Language must be assigned a value before it can have meaning.
His voice is just so incredibly soft, I can't understand why no one compensates with a loud mike right next to his mouth. Do the people in the back row really hear him? Thank goodness for subtitles.
Another question: Chomsky says that entities we construct with language are mental entities and they do not have to have an external correspondence. I understand that not everything we say in language has an external -concrete- correspondence (while the word apple has an external correspondence, the word "love" does not have an external -concrete- correspondence). Is he saying "even the words that we think we have an external -concrete- correspondence don't have an external -concrete- correspondence" or what?
I think he's saying, for example, that the word "penguin", be it said out loud or said in your head, isn't DIRECTLY associated/connected with a real penguin (or photo of a penguin). Rather, the word "penguin" is DIRECTLY associated/connected to something else, something probably internal to the human such as a thought image of a penguin. But the word "penguin" can still be INDIRECTLY connected to real penguins. For example, you see a real penguin, or you see an picture of a penguin in a magazine, then you have a thought of a penguin, then you have the thought of the word penguin or you say it out loud. But that's an indirect connection. A direct connection is when there is no intermediary ("thought of the word penguin"). So I think Chomsky meant "directly connected/directly associated" when he said "pick out".
he was most probably talking about how USAID developed ZunZuneo, sort of a Twitter for Cuba, to create 'smart mobs' against the government. www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/03/us-cuban-twitter-zunzuneo-stir-unrest
@@AnandKulkarniPlusOne So, that's why no one in my country ever even heard about this extremely important information. No media ever talked about it, even once... They really do control information globally. I live in Europe.
Regarding Prof. Chomsky's response to the topic raised by the final questioner, and the notion of that having to learn a completely different [and in this context; _ONE,_ universal, and including], language - in addition to your own native tongue, [automatically] would entail 'conflict', well, I couldn't possibly differ more. In his answer, Prof. Chomsky himself alluded to the questioner's (and my _own_ point), citing the difference in traveling 'a hundred miles' in the US, as opposed to doing the same in Europe [even though in Europe, you would have to be not too far removed from a country's border (let's say _less_ than 160 Km...) for the same effect to take place [not to mention the fact that most present day Europeans speaks, or understands e.g. English], and in most (if not all) European countries, English is part of the school's curricula. There's an old adage which illustrates my point to the proverbial 'T'; _''When in Rome, do as the Romans!''_ [Unfortunately, I do not speak the musical and beautiful language of Italy (wish I did), but my English did suffice in my communication when visiting, as it did in all the other countries I've visited during my work around the globe. And this is in essence my point: Language is naturally the single most important aspect of communication, and from my perspective, a de facto Global 'lingua franca' would mean you could visit _any_ place on earth, and you'd be capable of perusing and/or buy _any_ newspaper or magazine that piqued your interest, you could _easily_ watch television, listen to the radio, read menu's, and basically, do the _exact_ same as 'the Romans', but with the added, and most crucial of benefits; You could _communicate_ with the natives - and vice versa - wherever you went, and you'd understand each other perfectly, as if you were _at home_ (naturally, apart from the inherent and distinct cultural characteristics, but - again; _'do as the Romans!''_ (As a Norwegian native, I know that _my_ native tongue wouldn't be of much help, on the contrary . . .) So, I would without a shadow of a doubt advocate for *One Unifying Global Language* - and, something tells me that this would simultaneously be one of the best 'tools' for establishing even some _semblance_ of global peace and stability we as One Species has within our reach! . . . . Edit: If _we,_ as a species - by the same token - _really, really_ wanted to display our inherent, human maturity, we would abolish _all kinds_ of institutionalized 'fairy tales for grownups' - i.e. *RELIGION(S)* - and as such, we could all straighten our collective backs with an open mind and accept the unequivocal facts, that there _are_ things we know, can prove and/or demonstrate, as well as there are certain things which we _DO NOT KNOW, can't prove,_ nor _demonstrate_ (like for instance 'Santa Claus'), and simply _accept_ that we collectively are faced with the exact same humongous, _overarching,_ existential [and for some, 'frightening'] questions, like; _'Where did it all start???' - 'Why are we here???'... 'What is the meaning of life???'_ - I simply don't know! (Of course, I _could_ say that I don't care, because, let's face it; *_I_* would very much like to KNOW! . . . But for _me,_ that's actually all there is to it; I don't _have_ to know (and I'm certainly in no kind of need of an imaginary 'friend in the sky', something during my +60 years on this planet I haven't seen _one shred_ of scientifically verifiable evidence for, supporting the laughable claims of the existence of ''god's'' - plural, _none!_ (And there are _thousands of these man made 'idols'.) (Note: If _you_ reading this, wants to convince me of the opposite, all I have to say, is: I have no time for your imaginary friend, and, if you would care to _use_ the brain you have, you should ask yourself; _''Why in the world should 'my god' need ME to prove to Eric his existence?'' - ''Why _ME???'' . . ._ ( _YOU_ know, as well as I do, that _IF_ there was a 'god' that really existed, he wouldn't be needing _YOU_ to show me. 🤣) _Just consider this;_ In our daily lives, there are literally _tons_ of things we don't have the faintest clue about, and most of these we don't even give a second though, because they are _inconsequential_ in our daily life, and don't really matter in the grand scheme of things for the majority of us, still, we _do_ know we live and function perfectly well _without_ this 'inconsequential' knowledge anyway, the exact same goes for 'Religion'! . . . . Just some random musings on an early Thursday morning . . . . Have a nice day . . . 😉
@@leaht-pu1tm was Chomsky saying I don’t need to tell people at google about the mass surveillance bc it’s common knowledge or he doesn’t need to tell them bc they are the ones mass doing the mass surveillance
Chomsky says that language is not really designed to communicate for others. I am very puzzled with this statement. Does he address this in his books? If so, which one(s)? Can anybody elaborate on what he means by this?
Do any of us actually feel like the internet breaches our privacy? It seems like most people voluntarily make more information about themselves public then anyone but themselves even slightly care about.
That, I think, was the point. In speaking about the "Terrorist Watch List", he gave examples about how it can change based on what the government wants at the time. By collecting vast amounts of information on people, not just on Facebook but in phone conversations that are NOT voluntarily made public, the government is over reaching. Any series of words - even if you are playing devils advocate or being sarcastic (best case scenario) - can make you a "terrorist". Even being 'anti-government' is an excuse to incarcerate you, though you are given that right (enemies domestic) in the Constitution. We are a very young country, we think things can't happen here that very surely can.
Obilio222 Do you think the government is listening to all of your phone calls to see if you use a series of words that make you sound anti-government so they can come kick in your door and incarcerate you?
To me the Internet is like stepping outside in public. Anyone can look at you and try to communicate, you can ignore them or engage. If you're comfortable telling the stranger at the bus stop your life story (which sooooooo many people are!) then what's the difference?
Read Bertrand Russell to catch up on Western history. Chomsky is the oral tradition of Western history. Both are essential to understand the hither to here and the preservation of liberal thought & truth. Good luck.
he was most probably talking about how USAID developed ZunZuneo, sort of a Twitter for Cuba, to create 'smart mobs' against the government. www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/03/us-cuban-twitter-zunzuneo-stir-unrest
I'm not sure what he means exactly by the 1:1 relationship not being present in language. I mean, I understand what he means by 1:1 relationship and he defined it clearly in regards to animal communication, but unless I was daydreaming I don't recall he explained how it is with language. My guess is that if you speak of a laptop, for example, you're not refering to an object but a concept that is sort of an "archetype" for all laptops. Anyone has any insight on this? It's around 17min in the video, not sure of exact timing...
Chomsky is an interesting guy but are we really talking about whether the internet is a good thing? It's like it's 1994, the internet isn't really new at all and he's sounds like he's talking about it as if it was invented yesterday. Besides that it was very interesting. Even if you don't agree with him it's always a good history lesson because he points out the points in history that are often overlooked.
Dear Mr. Chomsky - you are getting so old. Thank you for your efforts. I am not sure there will be many to fill your shoes... but fears aside.. I wish you to know the gratitude I have in hearing what you have to say. Cheers.
We in Brazil have recently gained consciousness of the need to maintain our indigenous population's cultural traditions and languages. We are in the process of taking much better care of them as Lula was elected president in November 2022.
He clearly deserves all the admiration he gets for his insight and knowledge. But even better to know he found a new wife to give him a cuddle when he needs it.
Absolutely agree what Professor Chomsky affirms concerning using internet in favor of minorities, survivers, poor, and marginals in raising their voice to put at stage its most authentic social demands. However, no matter what this underrepresented groups do, internet is own by the powerful hands on the world. When hegemonic centers will decide to take absolute control over simulated democratic practices and apparently network neutrality is only a matter of time. We witness a clear reshaping of classes society being transformed into almost cast hierarchy India-like society. We are assisting to turn it in new wage slavery worsened than Marx's "Capital" times. Unfortunately, US gov is planning to implement a new program where a double standardized internet policy will be launched completely grounded on money inversors and corporate capital, in English words, you got faster network, more money you got in your pocket.
I hate to see this great man getting old.
+Young Turd, Nope, lucid as ever. But we understand that what he has to say makes you scared. It's Ok.
Meanwhile "young turd" gets zero recognition for his obvious brilliance... ;-)
+Kai Walling I took it more as he was sad to see him getting older.. because of what age inevitably brings.
That's certainly how I feel.
+Pianistos
His mind is like a fine wine...
Knowledge tempered by wisdom matured through time.
As of now.
Do you mean you don't want him approaching his demise?
That mind/voice gone?
I worry about such a probability.
I don't see many contenders who could replace him.
Everyone's unique and irreplaceable; However his intelligence AND courage AND dedication AND morality are seemingly unmatchable.
(He probably would give me an F in linguistics)
(Poor verbal clarity, but great metacognition.)
Pathoplastic2: The Somnambulist Manifesto kyle kulinski from secular talk shares many positions with him
Gotta love the balls of Noam Chomsky first question at a Google interview he says Google is undermining the privacy of it's users. Really how much more genuine and uncompromising can you be
Hard to avoid the elephant in the room
I'm sure it got a good laugh at the cocktail hour afterwards
lol i love how he attacks google within the first minute xD
he holds no punches.
It's not really an attack on google, he's just confident and truly believes in what he is speaking, but it was funny nevertheless...
He never changes his opinion to fit where he is.
Ullbritt If he didn't the comments would be full of people calling him a hypocrite.
Ullbritt I couldn't agree more; Chomsky never misses the opportunity to call out private tyranny for what it is, even if it happens to be in the midst of an institution sucking up to him for their own reasons.
This man is remarkable. He gets asked good questions here, but how he answers is truly admirable. Translates a superficial question, in his mind, broadens the meaning of it to not only a bigger picture, but the biggest picture. One step towards his thinking would be a success for everybody
Robert Patrizi Either that or he is an articulate paranoid.
I tried to reply to the "articulate paranoid" remark, but replying wasn't an option. I hope you don't mind if I reply here. I watched a C SPAN interview from (I think) 2003 in which he stated that an economic report ordered by the Bush administration reported (paraphrased) :
"They could spend so much money on the Iraqi War that it would cause a deficit in trillions of dollars, and eventually end Social Security, Medicare, and possibly every other social program enacted since FDR, maybe the public school system as well." He didn't think Bush would go that far, or that 'the country' would allow [that expenditure] it. Now we know better.
These topics are far too important to trivialize with pithy remarks.
Not sure what your point is exactly? Bush is an idiot and Chomsky was aware he was an idiot while he was indeed being an idiot. What is your point? That doesn't change the fact that Chomsky can be an articulate paranoid.
+Auditory Entertainment Paranoid about what? Name an instance please. Obilio gave a good example of when he was not paranoid enough.Your turn.
Martin Bodin
He comes off as an articulate paranoid in general.
I love Noam, I only regret that i didn't discover him earlier in my life. He has changed my view on the world and continues to do so. May he live forever!
He has spread a lot of awareness and his life was worth it ..May he live a long life.
He is 90 and counting!
As a teacher Chomsky seems essentially to be providing the listener with what they need to know in order to think in a meaningful way about the world and its political systems and operations.
I agree.
Noam Chomsky! I think I'm totally in love with you! You are an ocean of knowledge!
Chomsky: "Screw your questions Google, I'm talking about Cuba."
Answering by example. Most demonstrative way.
@@rhetoric5173 most effective too
Mr. Chomsky, I just hope you know that the younger generations will always regard your wisdom and continue your legacy, and question the ways of the world, in terms of sovereign states and leaders. You have inspired a generation of thinkers, and given hope and motivation to many.. I love you.
Just keep buying his shit. That rambling caymans beach house isn’t gonna finance itself.
I had heard about Professor Chomsky when I was a college student in the late 70's and 80's. When Chomsky opens his mouth the world listens . Most famous man to be identified by a mere surname. May God bless you,sir, with good longevity.
such an erudite sane intelligent humble man.
It is nice to hear from Noam Chomsky a combination of politics and linguistics. Really helps with understanding the man. Thanks to Google for hosting.
Lots of smiling faces in the Google audience is a good indicator that Google employees are largely sympathetic to Noam's viewpoint, despite his direct dig at Google's submission to government demands for sharing personal user data. Google should stand up to the US Gov Inc. It's employees should speak out about this!
These giant corporations would not have "submitted" to the governments demands if it was not in their best interests.
In Google's case, they were coerced by threat of penalties & litigation instigated by the gov't. This is well-known in the Bay Area. Most of Silicon Valley is against NSA bullshit.
Here is why I think they are smiling, I wrote this comment above: (Un-) Surprisingly, a thorough description of the destruction of the cultural diversity in the Western (Judeo-Christian) civilization but not a single word about the multi-centenary mass-destruction of the cultural diversity in the so-called "Arab/Muslim World"... or in China. Even worse, on the question about the Arab world, Mr. Chomsky details thoroughly how bad the US policy is, again, not a single word about the Arab world.
Google gets Financially taken care off I'm sure, by their own software, but also by the government and is highly protected because of this, why would they speak out when they're getting taken care off?, Of course what they're doing is wrong, just like Apple, however I highly doubt they would ever let their ties be broken with the government
This is such a dead brain statement. The government regulating the info google has, is way better than letting Google keep it private. Making it public makes sure that the government can regulate it. Otherwise corporations will just gather everything they can and more.
Honorable man,,, world need more like him... there is hope.
***** No one is perfect!
Google could spread Noam's brilliance if they cranked up the volume for this soft spoken man.
Always interesting to listen to Noam.
This the first time I have ever heard him speak and I have never read any of his writings. He is magic. Gentle and sincere about topics which are, everywhere else, inflammatory. In between the politic stuff he has some really interesting and complex things to say about language, which is his stock in trade. I'd recommend saving this one for when you can sit quietly and consume it as he is fairly concise with his language which makes some of his more nuanced answers harder to fully get first time. You don't have to agree with his views to get something from listening to him. I would think you get more if you disagree with him regardless of if your views changed after listening to him.
❤
I've never found an intellectual that I feel is more trustworthy than Noam Chomsky. (No one's perfect, but) his level of honesty and genuineness is pretty profound.
A wannabe intellectual like Richard Dawkins would shit his pants over the terror he would be experiencing discussing half the topics (particularly related to power and imperialism) that someone like Chomsky has dedicated his life towards.
And Hitchens was just attracted to US power, in my opinion.
Good points about both Chomsky and Hitchens.
I fucking love Chomsky but why bring Dawkins? the guy that dedicated his entire life to cience and evolutionary biology, OF COURSE he won't be the most advanced person to discuss politics, social classes, imperialism etc. what the fuck kinda of comparission is that, is like saying "yeah, Chomsky is awesome, but he wouldn't last two seconds in a guitar battle against Slash, what a loser"
Don't like me no Dawkins, no. Something dishonest about that man.
Felipe Aguena lol, well sometimes when Dawkins talks about religion he'll go into stuff that is related to imperialism. For example, he likes to blame religion for causing all the bloodshed during the partition of India. But I find it EXTREMELY offensive because he'll NEVER bring up the role the British played in all of that (and basically blames the people of poor developing countries for being influenced by their own culture) because otherwise he would have to discuss ideas related to power structures and imperialism and frankly he is too scared to stand up to the BIG BAD so he goes after easier targets. (Just my personal opinion. Not forcing anyone to agree with me or anything.)
The late Gore Vidal and Norman Mailer were quite interesting, so is Tariq Ali and Chris hedges.
I don't agree with them on everything, but they were/are intellectually courageous and intelligent.
noam is the best. he is so intelligent and comprehensive in his perceptions of what has happened to the usa, middle, and lower classes. i went to mit to see his office when i arrived in massachusetts in 2018. the staff was kind and let me take a photo. az was lucky to get him. go noam!
you dont interview Noam Chomsky, you unleash him ^^.
Grow up dude
I couldn't agree more. What is so impressive about him is that he is just not afraid to tell if the way he sees it. That takes a solid pair of balls...
i love this guy, his wisdom leaves me speechless
I like how he gives a subtle stab at Google at the beginning saying that they undermine privacy rights.
He says something very insightful beginning at @32:40:"You do not get discoveries in the sciences by taking huge amounts of data and throwing them in a computer". I need that quote because nobody would believe anything I would say, because obviously I'm stupid if so many headlines and businesses are about "big data".
Chomsky was in full gear on this one. Excellent talk
Wonderful to listen to this great thinker. I hope he has many more years among us, in health and happiness.
Good ol' Noam, each day more keen on challenging the volume knob of my PC.
I love the argument he made at the end for diversity of languages. That the richness and variety of culture that would follow from language variety is itself a wonderful thing, but not only that, but also that people living in close proximity with different culures will automatically attain a comprension for the complexity of human experiences.
Humanity needs more people like Noam Chomsky.
Wow a redaction in the first 5 minutes, and only seconds after Noam chastises Google for being an organism for decreased privacy and centralisation of power. And I was hooked
Chomsky you've opened my eyes in the book Essential Chomsky. I love you for that, comrade!
it's so hard to find chomsky's view on language. i'm glad i found this.
read his books?
Ben Bisogno those are boring
In his interviews with Krauss, he speaks on language at some length
He rarely talks about linguistics, even in a talk called Understanding Linguistics
Speaking truth to power; Speaking truth to ignorance; Speaking truth.. But is anyone listening? =\ I'm listening Noam.. We're listening..
+disarmyouwith a ==
you say, "you're listening" but what are you DOING about all you hear?? everyone hears and then go back to their daily routines, nothing changes in their lives after listening to this or any guy telling truths.
I still haven't stopped listening (currently listening to one of his books) but you're right.. I still haven't managed to do anything about it. I guess I hope it's building towards something.. but.. hm.
disarmyouwith a ==
one of the big difficulties with this is that it is so hard to DECIDE what to do once you or anyone is aware of it all... where do you start, what do you DO, what action is more beneficial than others, are the actions for short or long term, what people do you need to meet in order to do it, etc etc... I think if there were a map telling people what to do next the would do it if they saw it was effective, but the problem is they tell you to call or email your congressman, or recycle, or join a demonstration, and you see they are not effective, measures have been taken from the other side to cancel it out somehow, the congressman will act if his number are at risk or if he is told his reelection is at risk, wallstreet will nullify demonstrators though direct propaganda (they criticise but have no better options, etc)... so the issue is what EFFECTIVE ACTION can one take?? For example if you talk to a vegan s/he have you freaked out about meat fast, and if you talk to a dentist he'll have you thinking teeth are the most important thing in the world for jus about anything, you listen to Ted talks and sex in marriage will fix almost everything, or gong back to 'morals' will, or women in power will fix everything, or feeling emotionally secure is first, UNLESS, traditional marriage is no longer feasible, laws have to be changed before there is equality, we have a real issue with racism, or we have exaggerated the race issue and women equality, you talk to a cop and the same thing happens, you talk to Chomsky and.... so how to keep perspective when everyone thinks and affirms their subject or point of view is the most important?? Think of the men who acted and supported the women's movement and equality and the vote and all that, they acted in good faith they saw it was a good thing, and yet here we are with forth wave feminism and all the absurd safe spaces triggers for just abut everything, false rape allegations; yet they acted and so this is why it is so important to think what to do before you act, but how long? --- and Yet we must find out and act somehow, or we will forever be listening.
Chomsky is an inspiration. Great video.
John,
Your intro was informative. It provoked a different view of the the tenure.
Thanks.
+joedanero Thank you!
Imagine if the average citizen were as brilliant as Noam Chomsky; the world would be rid of all its problems.
My point is that efforts to rule the populace through religious doctries and bogus ideologies would be more difficult - if the average citizen were as bright as mr. Chomsky ;)
Christian Ohm yes it'd be a utopia like north korea or the former soviet union. a wonderful world.
Christian Ohm chomsky calls himself a 'socialist libertarian,' that's all one needs to know about this 'intellectual.' (though you can say his support/apathy for genocide kind of also matters). if the people in this world were as dumb as he is it'd be a much bigger mess.
I am not sure I understand your argument. However, Socialism and Communism are two very different economic systems and/or ideologies. Socialism is essentially about creating a welfare state that provides ‘some’ services to the people through government operated enterprises. Wealth distribution is also a central component of socialism. Not to say that people should have standardized income, but, if you cannot take care of yourself the government provides you with aid aka "a living wage" that allows an individual to live a ‘proper life’, where he or she will be able to find their way back to the job market without unnecessary struggle.
If Noam Chomsky subscribes to this kind of socialism, and he does - than I see nothing wrong with that :)
The worst part, the government is idiotic
A clear talk of Prof. Chomsky about a phenomena in our society. A great talk !
What a guide...always great to hear Mr Chomsky. Tks Noan & google!
An American ICON - I hope he lives to be 100+ years old, because WE NEED HIS VOICE to be HEARD!
Let it be 11000 years, just like Gandalf
Hey, the sound dropped out for a couple of seconds around 4:24 ish. Not sure it's all that crucial, but do you guys have a transcript or could you fix the audio? Many thanks.
he was most probably talking about how USAID developed ZunZuneo, sort of a Twitter for Cuba, to create 'smart mobs' against the government.
www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/03/us-cuban-twitter-zunzuneo-stir-unrest
Thanks for recommending this jewel 7 years later algorithm.
Thank you Chomsky for your love for humanity.
Finally Google has a talk with Noam Chomsky. This was a treat.
Ever since at least 1980, We the People of planet Earth have had the capability of providing the highest quality of food, the highest quality of clothing, the highest quality of shelter, the highest quality of healthcare, and the highest quality of education for each and every man, woman and child on the face of the Earth, and to do it in such a way that was in Harmony with Nature.
His words at @4:25 seems to be muted.
Did he say something sensitive?
Yeah, that's highly suspect. Probably automated censorship about something...
His take on language degeneration reminds me of an example I heard on radio. It happened that Ireland before radio had a rich collection of singing due to variational dialects. When the radio appeared, one singer populated the air waves. And of a sudden, all towns, villages and cities wanted to sing like him, which killed the rich variety of song!
What a wealth of knowledge & insight. It takes a lot of care & interest to become like him. And discipline. So mentally on-point & collected it's truly awe provoking. Awesome awesome awesome. And he doesn't come across like he feels infallible or above anyone else or like he's elite. He just watches & listens & remembers & connects dots & reports. I may be projecting & fantasizing here a bit. But, I think it & he are something like that, or at least that's what I think it would take to be like him.
Why are you telling us that you don't have a working bullshit detector?
I don't want him to die.
Ken Hale
Wampanoag tribe
48:00 Holder V Humanatarian Law Project
52:26 Effect of literacy on language
58:41 Common language?
This is the smartest person I've ever heard speak.
What he says becomes more and more true and clear.
2020. What a year. Let's see what 2021 will be...
Edit: 2021 will probably just be the old same shit, but even crazier.
Not a single question (from the audience) that really matters. It seems that "googlers" don't care about the pressing issues of the world.
Here is my comment to him when I first listened to him yesterday 18/3/2021: (Un-) Surprisingly, a thorough description of the destruction of the cultural diversity in the Western (Judeo-Christian) civilization but not a single word about the multi-centenary mass-destruction of the cultural diversity in the so-called "Arab/Muslim World"... or in China. Even worse, on the question about the Arab world, Mr. Chomsky details thoroughly how bad the US policy is, again, not a single word about the Arab world.
@@JosephSaouk I see that you are used to the typical "intellectual" discourse in the US and the western world: criticize the dedicated enemies. Basics of morals: criticize those that you can influence.
Chomsky has said in countless ocassions that he prefers to discuss US policy and actions made by the US Government and to think about those rather than making arguments with no moral or intellectual value about other nations. He is an anarchist in a true sense but he is right to talk about the agressions commited by the country he is living in, he is an American and has contributed massively to American intellect than many other millions that live there.
What did he say at 4:24? It seemed to be bleeped out.
Excellent talk by Chomsky w/ topical tie-ins to current events and issues (Crimea, NSA, etc.). Nice collection of topics. Chomsky no longer sounds as contrarian as he once did. Perhaps a reflection of the times and the last 15 years. In any case, heartfelt kudos to Google for putting this talk by Chomsky together!
I think he's mellowed a little with age, and I think we're all better for it. His ability to speak to the issues without flipping the bird at his detractors speaks well of his confidence, I think. He always sort of had that, but even more so today.
does anyone knows, where can I read about "primary means of language" at 13:45, that language is not developed primarily for the purpose of communication.
That's sort of a big theme in Chomsky. Try checking out some Chomsky.info pages (here's a good one: www.chomsky.info/interviews/1984----.htm ) What he's doing is differentiating language from the Information Theory idea of "communication" as transmission of data. What he's saying is that human language expresses a lot that isn't just conveying data.
My god this guy is smart... genius.
This is a question.
Can Mr.Chomsky show a practical pathway to what he may call a just society or at least a society which is on its way to become one?
Thank you for the talk google, and thank you Noam Chomsky!!!
I can think without language. In fact many people, myself included, think in pictures almost exclusively. Language for me becomes usefull in describing those pictures. Whenever I think in language I'm usually trying to identify an emotion or idea and explain it in useful terms for communication. Language must be assigned a value before it can have meaning.
Great white sharks have pure instinct mind no cognition all instinct, and they live a perfectly normal life.
Why is 4:21 cut out? I want to know the source.
00:20:12 , the captions are wrong, he didn't say, "secular colonial society", he said, "settler colonial society".
Whose name was censored at 4:25?
His voice is just so incredibly soft, I can't understand why no one compensates with a loud mike right next to his mouth. Do the people in the back row really hear him? Thank goodness for subtitles.
He talks about the most important topics that 99 percent are not talking about
did they removed the audio with the name of the company Chomsky mentions at 4:25?
Another question: Chomsky says that entities we construct with language are mental
entities and they do not have to have an external correspondence. I
understand that not everything we say in language has
an external -concrete- correspondence (while the word apple has an
external correspondence, the word "love" does not have an external
-concrete- correspondence). Is he saying "even the words that we think
we have an external -concrete- correspondence don't
have an external -concrete- correspondence" or what?
I think he's saying, for example, that the word "penguin", be it said out loud or said in your head, isn't DIRECTLY associated/connected with a real penguin (or photo of a penguin). Rather, the word "penguin" is DIRECTLY associated/connected to something else, something probably internal to the human such as a thought image of a penguin. But the word "penguin" can still be INDIRECTLY connected to real penguins. For example, you see a real penguin, or you see an picture of a penguin in a magazine, then you have a thought of a penguin, then you have the thought of the word penguin or you say it out loud. But that's an indirect connection. A direct connection is when there is no intermediary ("thought of the word penguin"). So I think Chomsky meant "directly connected/directly associated" when he said "pick out".
We hear you Noam Chomsky!
4:24 anyone know what was censored in Noam's speech by google there?
he was most probably talking about how USAID developed ZunZuneo, sort of a Twitter for Cuba, to create 'smart mobs' against the government.
www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/03/us-cuban-twitter-zunzuneo-stir-unrest
@@AnandKulkarniPlusOne So, that's why no one in my country ever even heard about this extremely important information. No media ever talked about it, even once... They really do control information globally. I live in Europe.
Please can we geting subtitle on video? Thanks you🙏🙏🙏
Regarding Prof. Chomsky's response to the topic raised by the final questioner, and the notion of that having to learn a completely different [and in this context; _ONE,_ universal, and including], language - in addition to your own native tongue, [automatically] would entail 'conflict', well, I couldn't possibly differ more.
In his answer, Prof. Chomsky himself alluded to the questioner's (and my _own_ point), citing the difference in traveling 'a hundred miles' in the US, as opposed to doing the same in Europe [even though in Europe, you would have to be not too far removed from a country's border (let's say _less_ than 160 Km...) for the same effect to take place [not to mention the fact that most present day Europeans speaks, or understands e.g. English], and in most (if not all) European countries, English is part of the school's curricula.
There's an old adage which illustrates my point to the proverbial 'T'; _''When in Rome, do as the Romans!''_
[Unfortunately, I do not speak the musical and beautiful language of Italy (wish I did), but my English did suffice in my communication when visiting, as it did in all the other countries I've visited during my work around the globe.
And this is in essence my point: Language is naturally the single most important aspect of communication, and from my perspective, a de facto Global 'lingua franca' would mean you could visit _any_ place on earth, and you'd be capable of perusing and/or buy _any_ newspaper or magazine that piqued your interest, you could _easily_ watch television, listen to the radio, read menu's, and basically, do the _exact_ same as 'the Romans', but with the added, and most crucial of benefits; You could _communicate_ with the natives - and vice versa - wherever you went, and you'd understand each other perfectly, as if you were _at home_ (naturally, apart from the inherent and distinct cultural characteristics, but - again; _'do as the Romans!''_
(As a Norwegian native, I know that _my_ native tongue wouldn't be of much help, on the contrary . . .)
So, I would without a shadow of a doubt advocate for *One Unifying Global Language* - and, something tells me that this would simultaneously be one of the best 'tools' for establishing even some _semblance_ of global peace and stability we as One Species has within our reach! . . . .
Edit: If _we,_ as a species - by the same token - _really, really_ wanted to display our inherent, human maturity, we would abolish _all kinds_ of institutionalized 'fairy tales for grownups' - i.e. *RELIGION(S)* - and as such, we could all straighten our collective backs with an open mind and accept the unequivocal facts, that there _are_ things we know, can prove and/or demonstrate, as well as there are certain things which we _DO NOT KNOW, can't prove,_ nor _demonstrate_ (like for instance 'Santa Claus'), and simply _accept_ that we collectively are faced with the exact same humongous, _overarching,_ existential [and for some, 'frightening'] questions, like; _'Where did it all start???' - 'Why are we here???'... 'What is the meaning of life???'_ - I simply don't know! (Of course, I _could_ say that I don't care, because, let's face it; *_I_* would very much like to KNOW! . . .
But for _me,_ that's actually all there is to it; I don't _have_ to know (and I'm certainly in no kind of need of an imaginary 'friend in the sky', something during my +60 years on this planet I haven't seen _one shred_ of scientifically verifiable evidence for, supporting the laughable claims of the existence of ''god's'' - plural, _none!_ (And there are _thousands of these man made 'idols'.)
(Note: If _you_ reading this, wants to convince me of the opposite, all I have to say, is: I have no time for your imaginary friend, and, if you would care to _use_ the brain you have, you should ask yourself;
_''Why in the world should 'my god' need ME to prove to Eric his existence?'' - ''Why _ME???'' . . ._
( _YOU_ know, as well as I do, that _IF_ there was a 'god' that really existed, he wouldn't be needing _YOU_ to show me. 🤣)
_Just consider this;_
In our daily lives, there are literally _tons_ of things we don't have the faintest clue about, and most of these we don't even give a second though, because they are _inconsequential_ in our daily life, and don't really matter in the grand scheme of things for the majority of us, still, we _do_ know we live and function perfectly well _without_ this 'inconsequential' knowledge anyway, the exact same goes for 'Religion'! . . . .
Just some random musings on an early Thursday morning . . . .
Have a nice day . . . 😉
Calling Google out on the first question: Chomsky's the best.
43:30 how much shade was he throwing here or was it more of an “I don’t need to describe it bc it’s common knowledge” ?
@@leaht-pu1tm was Chomsky saying I don’t need to tell people at google about the mass surveillance bc it’s common knowledge or he doesn’t need to tell them bc they are the ones mass doing the mass surveillance
The title of this talk should be "Understanding American politics".
Chomsky says that language is not really designed to communicate for others. I
am very puzzled with this statement. Does he address this in his books? If so, which one(s)? Can anybody elaborate on what he means by this?
This guy drops knowledge 💯
One word, Wisdom...
Noam just does not care- he will say what he will say. :)
Do any of us actually feel like the internet breaches our privacy? It seems like most people voluntarily make more information about themselves public then anyone but themselves even slightly care about.
That, I think, was the point. In speaking about the "Terrorist Watch List", he gave examples about how it can change based on what the government wants at the time. By collecting vast amounts of information on people, not just on Facebook but in phone conversations that are NOT voluntarily made public, the government is over reaching. Any series of words - even if you are playing devils advocate or being sarcastic (best case scenario) - can make you a "terrorist". Even being 'anti-government' is an excuse to incarcerate you, though you are given that right (enemies domestic) in the Constitution. We are a very young country, we think things can't happen here that very surely can.
Obilio222 Do you think the government is listening to all of your phone calls to see if you use a series of words that make you sound anti-government so they can come kick in your door and incarcerate you?
To me the Internet is like stepping outside in public. Anyone can look at you and try to communicate, you can ignore them or engage. If you're comfortable telling the stranger at the bus stop your life story (which sooooooo many people are!) then what's the difference?
Kris Driver I agree
whats with the mute on 4:25 ?
!
Can anyone list a few examples of cases where the efficiency of language was sacrificed for the biological design of language, please?
I've had the feeling what he's saying about prosodia-augmented analysis just makes sense on certain languages, not all of them.
Read Bertrand Russell to catch up on Western history. Chomsky is the oral tradition of Western history. Both are essential to understand the hither to here and the preservation of liberal thought & truth. Good luck.
Noam Chomsky, thank you.
Took me 9 years to get here.
Anyone notice sound not being heard 4.24?
he was most probably talking about how USAID developed ZunZuneo, sort of a Twitter for Cuba, to create 'smart mobs' against the government.
www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/03/us-cuban-twitter-zunzuneo-stir-unrest
I'm not sure what he means exactly by the 1:1 relationship not being present in language. I mean, I understand what he means by 1:1 relationship and he defined it clearly in regards to animal communication, but unless I was daydreaming I don't recall he explained how it is with language. My guess is that if you speak of a laptop, for example, you're not refering to an object but a concept that is sort of an "archetype" for all laptops. Anyone has any insight on this?
It's around 17min in the video, not sure of exact timing...
True Prophet of our times ❤️🙏
brilliant as usual
this man is a visionary in the fog of mainstream fog
Did they just censor a word @4:24? Wow!
Chomsky is an interesting guy but are we really talking about whether the internet is a good thing? It's like it's 1994, the internet isn't really new at all and he's sounds like he's talking about it as if it was invented yesterday. Besides that it was very interesting. Even if you don't agree with him it's always a good history lesson because he points out the points in history that are often overlooked.
00:24:00 Yep, I speak Italian fluently yet understand nothing (besides a few borrowed words from Italian) of Sicilian.
As always, an amazing talk!
Dear Mr. Chomsky - you are getting so old. Thank you for your efforts. I am not sure there will be many to fill your shoes... but fears aside.. I wish you to know the gratitude I have in hearing what you have to say. Cheers.
We in Brazil have recently gained consciousness of the need to maintain our indigenous population's cultural traditions and languages. We are in the process of taking much better care of them as Lula was elected president in November 2022.
You mean after basically killing almost all of them? ;-)
He clearly deserves all the admiration he gets for his insight and knowledge. But even better to know he found a new wife to give him a cuddle when he needs it.
Absolutely agree what Professor Chomsky affirms concerning using internet in favor of minorities, survivers, poor, and marginals in raising their voice to put at stage its most authentic social demands. However, no matter what this underrepresented groups do, internet is own by the powerful hands on the world. When hegemonic centers will decide to take absolute control over simulated democratic practices and apparently network neutrality is only a matter of time. We witness a clear reshaping of classes society being transformed into almost cast hierarchy India-like society. We are assisting to turn it in new wage slavery worsened than Marx's "Capital" times. Unfortunately, US gov is planning to implement a new program where a double standardized internet policy will be launched completely grounded on money inversors and corporate capital, in English words, you got faster network, more money you got in your pocket.
Chomsky is an honor to Canadians...and he's American (he is, right ?...must be..) !
So imagine the respect people give him internationally :)
this is still extremely relevant
I think that was the most insightful introduction I've heard.