@Nim they were two generations apart. Socrates was the teacher of Plato and Aristotle studied at Plato's academy. Chomsky reminds me of Socrates because Socrates was known as the "gadfly" of ancient Athens. A pain in the side of the powers that were...constantly questioning common beliefs, encouraging people to think for themselves and understand the illusions that society imposes on us. Not being afraid of criticizing the powerful elites. Fighting against sophistry (persuasion based on appealing to people's emotions aka propaganda), emphasising living a virtuous life while avoiding materialism. And underlying all that, striving for knowledge of many aspects of humanity and society while recognising the limits of our understanding. And of Aristotle for some of the same reasons, but Aristotle was more wide ranging and meticulous in his philosophical output. Socrates didn't write anything but his history is recorded in dialogues written by Plato (which actually could just be Plato expressing his ideas). Aristotle wrote a lot about a lot of things and laid the foundation of philosophy and science for the centuries that followed. For example he basically invented the study of logic, which is key to Chomsky's own academic studies. His works covers biology, politics, metaphysics, rhetoric etc. Chomsky's work is also at the forefront of many fields of study (linguistics, politics, philosophy, cognitive science etc.) They all share common characteristics. Maybe politically Socrates and Chomsky could be more similar and academically Aristotle and Chomsky. Someone else might have a better idea on that though!
More of Socrates than an Aristotle, or a combination of both. The reason being is that it is widely considered that Socrates was the world's first prominent anarchist-he questioned everything and anything under the sun. It was this questioning that eventually got him ostracised from the main echelons of society and subsequentally executed. Noam Chomsky continues the same tradition-he calls himself an anarchist as well.
Bruh this nigga is genius I've known of Noam chomsky for a while now but I never listened to him speak. It's crazy that he is arguably one of the smartest and most well verse philosophers of our time. Living legend for sure
Chomsky has declared himself a libertarian and anarchist but has defended some of the most authoritarian and murderous regimes in human history. His political philosophy is purportedly based on empowering the oppressed and toiling masses but he has contempt for ordinary people who he regards as ignorant dupes of the privileged and the powerful. He has defined the responsibility of the intellectual as the pursuit of truth and the exposure of lies but has supported the regimes he admires by suppressing the truth and perpetrating falsehoods. He has endorsed universal moral principles but has only applied them to Western liberal democracies while continuing to rationalize the crimes of his own political favorites. When caught out making culpably irresponsible misjudgments he has never admitted he was wrong. Today, Chomsky’s hypocrisy stands as the most revealing measure of the sorry depths to which the left-wing political activism he has done so much to propagate has now sunk.
0:46 (natural law) is what our nature tells us 0:56 (even) infants have such a concept 1:10 one of the first things children understand is "that's not fair" 1:35 there is a concept of fairness and justice -- that's as close as we can get to "natural" law 2:00 how do we know we have the correct concept (of what's "right" and "fair" [God's law may be different]) 2:46 the same questions arrive in epistemology
Mr. Chomsky, you're a great inspiration. Not quite sure if you read the posts of this 'tribute' channel, but I want to thank you for all the information you've put out there in an easily accessible way. It's akin to being given a map whenever you're starting to get lost.
I'm very grateful for Chomsky taking so many, many interviews in the last few years. Life is short for everyone and even in his latest years, prior to the recent stroke, he took every opportunity to broadcast his incredible insights with a deep desire to help the direction, even if it is like moving a titanic ship with one person, of the world.
They have A concept of fairness but it's not really fairness, in any real sense. It's 'fairness' in the sense of 'I want", "give me", 'that's mine's. It has more to do with a self-control, selfish view of the World. Even older children and teens, when saying 'that's not fair!' frequently mean 'it's not fair that I can't have exactly what I want, regardless of consequences to others, or myself" :)
@@Codex7777 I disagree. I very much remember having the perception of unfairness before I could articulate it. I remember that on a summers day something unfortunate happened to me in the living room that I can't remember. What I do remember is that I was looking to my mother in hope that she would comfort be me but she seemed to think that the mishap was insignificant so she wasn't empathatic but amused. I thought that this was very unfair. I thought it was unfair because she was my mother and supposed to help me, I thought it was unfair because I was very small and she was very big and very powerfull and while I struggled with my situation, it would have been effortless for her to give me a bit of support. I thought it is unfair to be happy about someone else being sad even more in their presence. I wasn't angry at her, I was a bit hurt and dissapointed and I mostly wanted her to stop making me feeling bullied. I couldn't explain to her that I felt bullied wich made me feel even more powerless. I thought that we knew what was the right thing to do in that situation and when it didn't happen felt like some kind of treason. I couldn't imagine that my mother would be mean to me on purpose so I also felt insecure about my expectations. This is just one particular memory wich I think happened before I could run. Another thing I remember is that my older sibling would pick fights with me to get me in trouble sometimes and that getting scolded for defending myself felt unfair while being scolded for something that I started didn't. Why would kids have trouble understanding that?
Then you've missed a diaper load of much better intellects, particularly if you have the slightest interest in what the hail YOU are, what consciousness, awareness, and reality are. There are no bigger questions, and they've been solidly answered by numerous greater minds.
I agree. He is one of only two people (the other one being Zlavoj Zizek) I personally regard as currently representing the two best exponents of intellectualism. It is a shame that, with 8 billion of us on the planet, there should be only 2 left. I also regard [the late] Harold Bloom as another member of that tiny group; too bad he is no longer with us. Of course there are other interesting people (Yanis Varoufakis comes to mind), but they are just not anywhere near the same intellectual level. I don't see anyone who can take over, and it saddens me no end.
Xavier Yates dude 3 of the names you dropped are public intellectuals who are popular on TH-cam. There are not only 3 smart guys alive today😂 please just look up a university faculty or something 😂
I just seen an old lecture from you professor, great knowledge and humble personality. Good to see God blesses you with a long life, there must be a lot we can learn from you. May God bless you
@Pappy Chulo You're wrong that I'm classless. You're wrong that I was trying to cheap shot Chomsky. You're wrong that I was trying to use a facade because I clarified the misunderstanding. I am realize with age should come more knowledge. I'm glad that you value Chomsky's voice as do I. Be well ( :
A perfect example, I speak English fluently and decide to then drop out of English as a major course of study. This can happen...or I speak Spanish so I will pursue Spanish for that perfect grade. Or I'm American and decide that obviously French is closer to English than to Spanish..whom comes up with these theories..I know they're shallow but they're quite significant when we consider that grammar rules are not natural they are rather learned rules. The perfect example is to ask an English speaker about English speaking grammar they never learned at school but speak perfectly enough English or better yet switch their vernacular in NYC to relearn their regionalism or identify as they completely and utterly switch to a different dialect. You may say the rules didn't change enough, you're right, but I also didn't understand a thing a foreigner might reply or someone whom is unfamiliar with the area and manners of speech.
you (and by 'you' I mean those who are managing the channel) should think about translating these valuable documents for the Hispanic-American public. Not many important philosophers of the last century are left alive, the lucidity that this man maintains at his age is impressive, he reminds me of Plato who also lived a long life
@@lucverheijden2005 And old dangerous perhaps well-intentioned man. Chomsky has declared himself a libertarian and anarchist but has defended some of the most authoritarian and murderous regimes in human history. Do you have a beef with this? His political philosophy is purportedly based on empowering the oppressed and toiling masses but he has contempt for ordinary people who he regards as ignorant dupes of the privileged and the powerful. He has defined the responsibility of the intellectual as the pursuit of truth and the exposure of lies but has supported the regimes he admires by suppressing the truth and perpetrating falsehoods. He has endorsed universal moral principles but has only applied them to Western liberal democracies while continuing to rationalize the crimes of his own political favorites. When caught out making culpably irresponsible misjudgments he has never admitted he was wrong. Today, Chomsky’s hypocrisy stands as the most revealing measure of the sorry depths to which the left-wing political activism he has done so much to propagate has now sunk.
Can't understand what you mean by "morality is objective" because in my mind objectively true things can be objectively proven. E.g. Eddington proved that gravitational lensing occurs, verifying some of Einstein's predictions. How is morality objective like that? What are the units of morality?
This is a nice, concise encounter with the question of origins. Notice that, at the outset, Professor Chomsky asks where natural law comes from. He proposes that it may come from God, then in the same breath rules that out as unacceptable. Within 2 minutes, he concludes that, “all” things considered, the question is probably “impenetrable”. Purely as a matter of intellectual rigour, and With great respect for Professor Chomsky, is it not painfully obvious that one should reconsider the existence of a creator that created us with his qualities, including justice?
ATTENTION! Not Sure if the person running this channel just abandoned it or has passed away, either ways thanks for compiling all of Chomsky's thoughts. RIP!
I joined the IWW in 1965 while working in the SDS national office. Even then it bothered me that workers had so little right to benefit from the means of production hard won from shared human experience.
I think he's referring to Lila R. Gleitman: Her studies in developmental psycholinguistics in the late '60s provided early support for Chomsky's epistemic nativism. See esp. Shipley, Smith & Gleitman in Language, 45 (2), Part 1, 1969 (a study of how well-formedness of utterances affects responses to commands among telegraphic & holophrastic speaker-hearers).
Yeah, from ius positum, a law that is posited, man-made (within a State) basically, but it makes you think like it's all sunshine and butterflies by definition. Legal positivism can be used to legitimize the status quo. Some legal positivists say natural law is non-sense. They point out that every valid positive law derives from the validity of a higher ranked positive law that establishes it etc. to the Constitution which derives from the first Constitution. Here we face a problem because some law has to give validity to that first constitution (because no law can be derived from a fact (Hume, was it?) and we take that as a big problem... ). The thing is that law has to lay beyond the State (and the Positive Law). So they say, well, we must imagine that there exists such a basic law (Hans Kelsen) and move on. We don't know anything about this presumed law, about it's contents and we don't care. And here comes the "genius" part. Some say since we don't know the nature of the basic law then... it could be anything!... and any law system (no matter how rotten) is therefore valid since it derives from a made-up basic norm that can be anything in nature. The only thing, they also say, necessary for a valid law system is its effectiveness - the Fact (ironic?) that it's observed more that it is violated. If, say, the slaves can't win their freedom, that means the legal system is valid and they not only must obey their more powerful masters (common sense), but they are also legally required do so. And If the slaves don't revolt (knowing they are underpowered) - well, that means they accept the legal system and are fine with how things are. Moral principles and values, of course, have no place in the discussion of the validity of law - only detached from reality logical operations and power relations do.
At 0:56 Chomsky references a child psychologist (presumably well-known) who says that children become aware of "fairness" at a very young age. I cant make out her name. I've tried 'violet lytton', and some variants, to no effect. Can somebody help me out? I'd like to read what she has to say about it.
You don’t need to study child psychology to figure out that children have an innate sense of fairness. Just observe them. Or reflect back to when you were a child and your own sense of fairness. But while people do have an innate sense of fairness, they are loath to apply it when their own selfish interests are at stake. This no one can be a fair judge in his own cause. That’s why we have a judges and juries comprised of people with no stake in the cause being tried.
@@syourke3 I don't deny that people have an innate sense of fairness. I want to find the academic responsibile for the research because I think it is of potentially large benefit to our conceptions of how society is organised
Gabriel Ward Capitalism is obviously unfair. A tiny handful of people who do no productive labor at all own and control all the world’s wealth, and the political system. They keep the wars going because they profit from them. They have no conscience at all. The world is run by psychopaths.
@@syourke3 I pretty much agree with you. But there are large numbers of people who do not. I want to try and convince them of the decensies of socialism and the miseries of capitalism. This is better done with sources and evidence which counters the capitalist "we are all selfish" narrative. This psychologists research appears to do that. Therefore, I am interested in reading and understanding it.
Would Mr. Chomsky be available to talk about this, someone could contact him: The International Criminal Court has just issued Arrest Warrants for Benjamin and Yoav. It is symbolic until something serious is done about them and what they have done and are doing. Can you make a video about it please. Thank You!
Emotions are a important factor in the structure of Moral Law but the Ability to Reason Logically is the most important. Natural Law as explained by Mark Passio uses the rules of Aristotelian Logic to deduce that we are all important as human beings and we all have different tastes/culture etc. Therefore the only rule we need to follow is adjacent to the Golden Rule…to NOT impose physical harm, duress, or coercion onto anyone. Emotional harm is given a smaller role because of our differences. Natural Law is spiritually based but it also stands on the firmest Logic and Truthful ground I’ve ever heard. Noam should check it out, but I doubt he has the moral compass to accept it. It definitely takes some perseverance.
The question is "What makes it incorrect if it's not already correct?" not, "Is it correct?". The answer is easy though... It's natural. Call it the parameters of the 3D Universe. It's the rules that govern reality at its' core.
He is a world renowned scientist of course he probably got in touch with epstein at some point like hundreds of people who never harmed any childrens, epstein was a criminal and his network of other unconvinced criminals is wide af but Noam wasn’t r*ping kids on epstein island because he had a few appointments with him
Hello there! Could someone tell me who is mentioned at minute 1:00 by Noam Chomsky. He mentions a person, but I couldnt understand. Could someone write down his name? Thanks a lot!
Anything that robs someone of there free will is inherently wrong under natural law , and all wrong doings are a form of theft in one way or another . Example killing someone is Robbin them of life, raping someone is robbing them of there choice who to sleep with, hurting someone physically is robbing them of there well-being / health, lien or with holding information from someone is robbing them of the ability to make an informed choice , you can go on an on an on . All wrong doings are a form of theft.
Agreed, and his influence is I think vastly greater than politicians and pundits acknowledge. I see and hear his influence across the academe and university campuses. Despite or perhaps because of this media never mention his name.
Natural law, and the idea of moral, and ethical ideals which make up right and wrong, without influence of theology, I would guess, are spawned from the deep, complex, intangible, albeit, very human conception of empathy. Which it appears that we begin to develop from a very young age. The ability to be able to understand, that pain, both physical and emotional; grievance, loss, concern, and liability caused by (a) person(s) to a third party, determines what is perceived to be the difference between right and wrong either by an individual, a group, or a populace. However, I would argue that, whether an individual would intentionally and knowingly break the said natural law of a populace for personal gain or gratification, would depend, not necessarily the individual’s willingness to admit to his abidance to the natural law, but rather the individual’s personal moral code and ability to break the natural law depends much on the individual’s ability to conceive of empathy. Not 100% empathy, although. The remaining factor being fear of reprisals from peers. Empathy - understanding that hurting someone, in some way, isn’t nice. We understand emotions, and they give us our moral compasses. Kebab and chips.
Emotions are a important factor in the structure of Moral Law but the Ability to Reason Logically is the most important. Natural Law as explained by Mark Passio uses the rules of Aristotelian Logic to deduce that we are all important as human beings and we all have different tastes/culture etc. Therefore the only rule we need to follow is adjacent to the Golden Rule…to NOT impose physical harm, duress, or coercion onto anyone. Emotional harm is given a smaller role because of our differences. Natural Law is spiritually based but it also stands on the firmest Logic and Truthful ground I’ve ever heard. Noam should check it out, but I doubt he has the moral compass to accept it.
1:52 ... ... ... From that raises more serious questions.... Who or what determines if a concept is *correctly* considered fair / unfair? Is/Are it/they correct? The problem with the term _correct_ is that is subjective, it is determined by many factors, and it is not universal across different societies / cultures. Conclusion: a positive law in one culture/society might be a negative law in another.
Emotions are a important factor in the structure of Moral Law but the Ability to Reason Logically is the most important. Natural Law as explained by Mark Passio uses the rules of Aristotelian Logic to deduce that we are all important as human beings and we all have different tastes/culture etc. Therefore the only rule we need to follow is adjacent to the Golden Rule…to NOT impose physical harm, duress, or coercion onto anyone. Emotional harm is given a smaller role because of our differences. Natural Law is spiritually based but it also stands on the firmest Logic and Truthful ground I’ve ever heard. Noam should check it out, but I doubt he has the moral compass to accept it.
Soru: Doğal Kanuna Karşı Pozitif Kanun. Yasallık kavramını nasıl anlamalıyız? Anarşist bir toplumda doğal hukuk ve pozitif hukuk hakkındaki ayrım hakkında nasıl düşünüyorsunuz? Chomsky'nin cevabı: Pozitif hukuku oldukça iyi anlıyoruz. Pozitif hukuk. Onu geliştirir ve inşa ederiz. Doğa kanunu. Bu ne? Bu kafa kariştirici. Tanrı tarafından mı verilir? Hayır, bunu kabul edebileceğimizi sanmıyorum. Doğamızın bize söylediği bu. Doğal hukuk kavramlarımızı inceleyebilirsiniz. Bebeklerin böyle bir konsepti var. Ana bebek araştırmacılarından biri, bunun çok erken yaşta çocukların anladığı ilk şeylerden biri olduğuna işaret etti. "Bu adil değil" kavramı. Bunu hemen biliyorlar. Her çocuk kendini ifade etmeye başlamadan önce bile bunu anlar. Öyleyse, bazı adalet ve adalet kavramları var. Böylece ne olduğunu anlamaya çalışabiliriz. Doğal hukuk kavramına olabildiğince yakın olduğunu düşünüyorum. O zaman şimdi, pozitif hukuk muhtemelen uygulamaya çalışmalıdır. Şimdi bu ciddi bir soruyu gündeme getiriyor. Neden doğal yasanın doğru olduğunu varsayıyoruz? Öyleyse, doğru konsepte sahip olduğumuzu nasıl bileceğiz? Adalet ve adalet kavramı? Evrensel olarak sahip olduğumuz ve yerleşik olanı olabilir. Ama onu doğru yapan nedir? Bu da bizi şu soruna götürür ... Kendi bilişsel ve ahlaki yapılarımızın dışında bir doğruluk kavramı var mı? Ve eğer varsa, o nedir? Matias Mahlmann adında çok iyi bir genç Alman filozof var. Bu konuda çok ilginç çalışmalar yaptı. Temelde aynı soruların epistemolojide de ortaya çıktığını savundu. Öyleyse, en iyi teoriye ulaşmanın yöntemlerini bulursak, tamam deriz, bunlar şimdi doğallaştırılmış epistemoloji olarak adlandırılan, en iyi yöntemler olduklarını söyleyen şeyde kullandığımız yöntemler. Temelde aynı soru. Bu yüzden muhtemelen giremeyeceğimiz şeylerden biri olduğunu düşünüyorum.
It's interesting that no one is talking about what Chomsky is actually saying. I don't think they understand it. I suspect people think he is saying that we can't be sure our morality is correct. But if you listen again you will notice that he says inbuilt universal concept of fairness. Now it sounds a bit odd. If it's inbuilt and universal, why is he saying that we can't know if it's correct? Being inbuilt and universal sound like an argument for it being correct. He is comparing natural law to natural epistemology, which is basically the kind of things we can be most certain of. I.e. scientific facts. Or for that matter what we experience in our daily lives. What he is saying is that because we are limited we can not be certain about anything but to the degree that we can be certain about something science and our daily experience we can also be certain about our inbuilt universal fairness or natural law. So why is Chomsky saying it in such a cryptic way? Well the short answer is that it's a bit of passive aggressive behaviour because he is getting frustrated with the postmodernists. He is also avoiding confrontation with the not very smart post modernist because they won't understand what he is saying and at the same time he is giving his message across to people who do understand what he is saying. (And if someone is a postmodernist and does understand what he is saying it's not worth it for them to address it) It's almost like a call for help.
To be purposefully cryptic so that the people you disagree with don't understand what you're saying seems intellectually dishonest to me. I hate passive aggressiveness in relationships let alone academic discourse. If he thought he had the stronger argument, why not just state it more clearly?
Is human nature and natural law really mysterious or impenetrable as Chomsky cryptically says, or even non-existent as the postmodernist would assert? Natural law states that something is correct/right by it following from its nature. The correctness of a thing outside of our own cognitive and moral structure is identifiable in infants in "fairness," or good proportions of a thing, as obvious as it is for any form to fit its function. For example, your legs are used for walking and its obvious when they are used incorrectly, like walking with your knees; This exists outside of your perception, because its natural law, and its could only be the correct concept if it identifies what works in the natural world. I think you could come up with numerous examples of what works in nature and what doesn't, even if they depend on your limited concepts, not just infants perceiving something is right or wrong for them. Like the concept of a wing or a flipper instead of a leg. Aristotle was a teleologist and said that everything in nature is done according to purpose and function (nature does nothing in vain), like logic done for the function of right conclusions, or any type of theatrical performance, or a biological form realizing its form in the world, using its parts by natural law, determined by intellect, or grasping the thing/realizing it's entelechia. If someone says something doesn't have a purpose/end, that's like saying it is non-existent or eternal (unmoved). In the human mind, realizing a thing's nature is done as passive intellect (positive law), and in the divine mind (nous), this is done as active intellect (natural law). Imagine a law that didn't have a goal and mind, and would that really be a law? Aristotle said that the active intellect was unmixed/separable with the body, and did not function out of a bodily/corporeal source, being the highest aspect of the soul which separates man from other forms of life. (De Anima III. 4-5). "Others, however, think that this active intellect is Aristotle's God, the unmoved mover of Metaphysics Lambda, or another entity outside of the human soul." philpapers.org/browse/aristotle-activepassive-intellect "Nature does nothing in vain. Therefore, it is imperative for persons to act in accordance with their nature and develop their latent talents, in order to be content and complete." ― Aristotle
Emotions are a important factor in the structure of Moral Law but the Ability to Reason Logically is the most important. Natural Law as explained by Mark Passio uses the rules of Aristotelian Logic to deduce that we are all important as human beings and we all have different tastes/culture etc. Therefore the only rule we need to follow is adjacent to the Golden Rule…to NOT impose physical harm, duress, or coercion onto anyone. Emotional harm is given a smaller role because of our differences. Natural Law is spiritually based but it also stands on the firmest Logic and Truthful ground I’ve ever heard. Noam should check it out, but I doubt he has the moral compass to accept it. It definitely takes some perseverance.
It is true to question if there is a universal system of justice, there are two ways, 1. Aquire the knowledge of your world and see if it works on the basis of definite laws. This humans have achieved when the laws were discovered and humans went outside their planet if those laws were unjust i. e. Changing from time to time then it would have been possible for all to access whenever and wherever they are. So that means there is a universal system of justice but can we figure it out the answer is no. Those laws which are standards for our society to follow we can't figure them out the way we can for the world around us.
The principles of reciprocal morality are not found without so much as within. Just ask yourself with utmost sincerity what you consider a wrong should it be done to you, and positively refrain from doing it to others. And do unto others as you would be done by. This is entirely natural and intuitive. It is conscience which is undeveloped or atrophied in most human beings unfortunately.
All effective principles and attitudes of right and wrong action are developed out of that insight and practice. It is ultimately a very heavy discipline for the ego though which is why people scorn or avoid it despite it being in the best interest of everybody. The discipline is not effectively taught to our children by enough of our parents which is why there is an ongoing moral catastrophe in our world.
Professor Chomsky is correct that children understand basic morals intuitively, like they beam again the sunlight from their eyes. The fundamental problem is we are miseducating them against their better selves instead of inspiring and encouraging them. Often it is too late when an ego is already calcified and there is nothing you can do to restore or reorientate the original illumination. It is going to take an immense effort to turn things around for us at this point, and it begins with parents and little ones.
Emotions are a important factor in the structure of Moral Law but the Ability to Reason Logically is the most important. Natural Law as explained by Mark Passio uses the rules of Aristotelian Logic to deduce that we are all important as human beings and we all have different tastes/culture etc. Therefore the only rule we need to follow is adjacent to the Golden Rule…to NOT impose physical harm, duress, or coercion onto anyone. Emotional harm is given a smaller role because of our differences. Natural Law is spiritually based but it also stands on the firmest Logic and Truthful ground I’ve ever heard. Noam should check it out, but I doubt he has the moral compass to accept it.
Sometimes these videos just go too far. Everyone fawning over the smallest grunt Chomsky makes just seems kind of creepy sometimes. Has Chomsky every been wrong? Is that what we think or believe he is peddling, infallibility? If asked has he ever gotten anything wrong, what would he say? Noam Chomsky is a kind of caricature of himself. I guess what is odd to me is that he accepts this so unselfconsciously, like God told him as a little child you will always be right, you are a natural know it all. ;-) Does Chomsky ever laugh or goof around? Does he lose his temper, because his demeanor in his appearances are so solemn and serious, like a church service. Can you imagine this guy doing it? He has children so he must have done it some time, or maybe one of his acolytes just collects his nocturnal emissions and inseminates willing woman?
This is what we're dealing with today, beyond law: Covid 19 new test for Negative only results...created in Asia...Embossing Negative Covid 19 for those insecure souls that think they're the badass and boss of everyone...you get a negative everytime.
#CooperativeSocialism is the way to go, worldwide for a moneyless world. How to start small and make it big is the challenge? We need to start with one industry and make it successfull , and then move on to another industry... Just imagine Electric vehicle / Electric bike - Assume the scientists and experts unite and create an EV ecosystem to deliver affordable Electric bike (say for less than $500 dollars that can give a minimum range of 300 kms per 1 hour of charging. This will become a hit worldwide and it can capture 95% market, while the rest of the manufacturers will get 5% market.. Thats how we can eliminate money from the society, by eventually making the ebike available for Free, as all essential products and services will be a basic human right, guaranteed in the World Constitution.. Sounds simple, right ?
You say natural law is impenetrable but is it Noam? The USA constitution reflects aspects of natural law. We all know that human rights also reflect natural law. No, I disagree, we can do more than penetrate it, and precisely define it. We can amend human rights so that it reflects our current understanding of the human *condition* and our present technology.
You can amend it, true. But eventually it will catch back up to you. It's like anything natural that you amend; natural order, natural health, natural breasts ...ect
Emotions are a important factor in the structure of Moral Law but the Ability to Reason Logically is the most important. Natural Law as explained by Mark Passio uses the rules of Aristotelian Logic to deduce that we are all important as human beings and we all have different tastes/culture etc. Therefore the only rule we need to follow is adjacent to the Golden Rule…to NOT impose physical harm, duress, or coercion onto anyone. Emotional harm is given a smaller role because of our differences. Natural Law is spiritually based but it also stands on the firmest Logic and Truthful ground I’ve ever heard. Noam should check it out, but I doubt he has the moral compass to accept it.
Its not more natural for me to prefer "well" over "good"....notice mostly those grammar syntax/semantics that are less natural are mostly used...and the natural correct grammar becomes archaic. In other words, grammar can become nongramatically correct and become a pigeon in suburban areas where they perceive their identity to be more natural over and above the natural rules of grammar. This is the reason why California perhaps abandonned English Achievement Testing like the SAT...because they saw it as natural....and thus they're not natural. That being the case, the non natural would naturally not pass the natural test of nature nor natural grammar? So yah, revolt and rebellion will always use grammar and law to attempt to prove they are more natural by turning into paranoid beasts of unnatural grammar. Yes, they failed to meet the standards and failed to get the point but are licensed by the state to practice professionally even at law. The university was not a complete and utter failure, but it did perhaps fail law and jurisprudence. English, Arabec nor Chinese are natural languages and a natural preference is not natural.
The present day Aristotle we have here. Where have you been hiding that majestic beard all these days professor.
I would argue he’s more present day Socrates
@Nim they were two generations apart. Socrates was the teacher of Plato and Aristotle studied at Plato's academy.
Chomsky reminds me of Socrates because Socrates was known as the "gadfly" of ancient Athens. A pain in the side of the powers that were...constantly questioning common beliefs, encouraging people to think for themselves and understand the illusions that society imposes on us. Not being afraid of criticizing the powerful elites. Fighting against sophistry (persuasion based on appealing to people's emotions aka propaganda), emphasising living a virtuous life while avoiding materialism. And underlying all that, striving for knowledge of many aspects of humanity and society while recognising the limits of our understanding.
And of Aristotle for some of the same reasons, but Aristotle was more wide ranging and meticulous in his philosophical output. Socrates didn't write anything but his history is recorded in dialogues written by Plato (which actually could just be Plato expressing his ideas). Aristotle wrote a lot about a lot of things and laid the foundation of philosophy and science for the centuries that followed. For example he basically invented the study of logic, which is key to Chomsky's own academic studies. His works covers biology, politics, metaphysics, rhetoric etc. Chomsky's work is also at the forefront of many fields of study (linguistics, politics, philosophy, cognitive science etc.)
They all share common characteristics. Maybe politically Socrates and Chomsky could be more similar and academically Aristotle and Chomsky.
Someone else might have a better idea on that though!
@@andrewl14190
interesting, tY
x
@@andrewl14190 That's A Great Assessment.
More of Socrates than an Aristotle, or a combination of both. The reason being is that it is widely considered that Socrates was the world's first prominent anarchist-he questioned everything and anything under the sun. It was this questioning that eventually got him ostracised from the main echelons of society and subsequentally executed. Noam Chomsky continues the same tradition-he calls himself an anarchist as well.
No one breaks down natural law better then mark passio
Chomsky should visit Marks school first before elaborating on anarchy and natural law.
Passio's work is great!
Passio is a freakin beast.
He talks a lot and doesn't actually break down a thing😂
👍🔥
Bruh this nigga is genius I've known of Noam chomsky for a while now but I never listened to him speak. It's crazy that he is arguably one of the smartest and most well verse philosophers of our time. Living legend for sure
Chomsky we need more vids from u before u leave us please :(
Leave us?
@@logia7 he's 93.
there are hundreds if not thousands. Y u need more? Don’t u have a mind of ur own?
He's tired. Hes watched nothing change for 92 years.
It's a big club as George Carlin said, and Chomsky is certainly in it, but we're all not. He was controlled opposition all along.
Please keep uploading new videos. These are great and help people understand the world better. You are doing us a great favor. Thank You.
Chomsky has declared himself a libertarian and anarchist but has defended some of the most authoritarian and murderous regimes in human history. His political philosophy is purportedly based on empowering the oppressed and toiling masses but he has contempt for ordinary people who he regards as ignorant dupes of the privileged and the powerful. He has defined the responsibility of the intellectual as the pursuit of truth and the exposure of lies but has supported the regimes he admires by suppressing the truth and perpetrating falsehoods. He has endorsed universal moral principles but has only applied them to Western liberal democracies while continuing to rationalize the crimes of his own political favorites. When caught out making culpably irresponsible misjudgments he has never admitted he was wrong.
Today, Chomsky’s hypocrisy stands as the most revealing measure of the sorry depths to which the left-wing political activism he has done so much to propagate has now sunk.
0:46 (natural law) is what our nature tells us
0:56 (even) infants have such a concept
1:10 one of the first things children understand is "that's not fair"
1:35 there is a concept of fairness and justice -- that's as close as we can get to "natural" law
2:00 how do we know we have the correct concept (of what's "right" and "fair" [God's law may be different])
2:46 the same questions arrive in epistemology
Excellent work. Thank you.
Great thanks. 3 minutes more meaningful than 10 hrs of Mark passio
Mr. Chomsky, you're a great inspiration. Not quite sure if you read the posts of this 'tribute' channel, but I want to thank you for all the information you've put out there in an easily accessible way. It's akin to being given a map whenever you're starting to get lost.
Gnome Chumpksy isn't the one running this channel
we must be kind to one and other, and also educate ourselves .
Appreciate it if we can have subtitles, please.
@@anurawimalasiri7110 I just watched it with subtitles!
@@stormsurge1 I called it a 'tribute' channel did I not?
Mr. Chomsky is a living legend...
The audio quality is all over the place. Very difficult to hear him speak even at full volume.
Matthias Mahlmann
"Elemente einer ethischen Grundrechtstheorie"
"Konkrete Gerechtigkeit"
Is that what Chomsky refers to?
@@jemandoondame2581 yes
@@atik.3011 It seems like he is pursuing some moral realism. Do you know more about the literature.
I'm very grateful for Chomsky taking so many, many interviews in the last few years. Life is short for everyone and even in his latest years, prior to the recent stroke, he took every opportunity to broadcast his incredible insights with a deep desire to help the direction, even if it is like moving a titanic ship with one person, of the world.
Can I add subtitle to this video? Because his voice has become muffled..
plz yes
The auto-generated subtitles are good! Try them
Yeah... it's really difficult to hear Professor Chomsky these days. However, I will continue to try.
His voice has always been low, or gentle.
Definitely. Have always had a hard time listening to Chomsky's voice though haha
Much respect to you Sir Chomsky. Yes, children understand the concept of fairness.
Not any of the children I've seen. Kids actually need to be taught fairness and guided by good parenting.
They have A concept of fairness but it's not really fairness, in any real sense. It's 'fairness' in the sense of 'I want", "give me", 'that's mine's. It has more to do with a self-control, selfish view of the World. Even older children and teens, when saying 'that's not fair!' frequently mean 'it's not fair that I can't have exactly what I want, regardless of consequences to others, or myself" :)
@@Codex7777 Exactly!
@@Codex7777 I disagree. I very much remember having the perception of unfairness before I could articulate it. I remember that on a summers day something unfortunate happened to me in the living room that I can't remember. What I do remember is that I was looking to my mother in hope that she would comfort be me but she seemed to think that the mishap was insignificant so she wasn't empathatic but amused. I thought that this was very unfair. I thought it was unfair because she was my mother and supposed to help me, I thought it was unfair because I was very small and she was very big and very powerfull and while I struggled with my situation, it would have been effortless for her to give me a bit of support. I thought it is unfair to be happy about someone else being sad even more in their presence. I wasn't angry at her, I was a bit hurt and dissapointed and I mostly wanted her to stop making me feeling bullied. I couldn't explain to her that I felt bullied wich made me feel even more powerless. I thought that we knew what was the right thing to do in that situation and when it didn't happen felt like some kind of treason. I couldn't imagine that my mother would be mean to me on purpose so I also felt insecure about my expectations.
This is just one particular memory wich I think happened before I could run.
Another thing I remember is that my older sibling would pick fights with me to get me in trouble sometimes and that getting scolded for defending myself felt unfair while being scolded for something that I started didn't. Why would kids have trouble understanding that?
Ñoam was for mandates and friends with Epstein
He is the greatest intellectual man on the earth, this man has huge impact on me
The biggest impact ftom a person has been my dad and David Goggins.
@@IAmHereForeve David Goggins is a great teacher
Then you've missed a diaper load of much better intellects, particularly if you have the slightest interest in what the hail YOU are, what consciousness, awareness, and reality are. There are no bigger questions, and they've been solidly answered by numerous greater minds.
I agree. He is one of only two people (the other one being Zlavoj Zizek) I personally regard as currently representing the two best exponents of intellectualism. It is a shame that, with 8 billion of us on the planet, there should be only 2 left. I also regard [the late] Harold Bloom as another member of that tiny group; too bad he is no longer with us. Of course there are other interesting people (Yanis Varoufakis comes to mind), but they are just not anywhere near the same intellectual level. I don't see anyone who can take over, and it saddens me no end.
Xavier Yates dude 3 of the names you dropped are public intellectuals who are popular on TH-cam. There are not only 3 smart guys alive today😂 please just look up a university faculty or something 😂
92 and he is still sharp as a tack. One of my great heroes. Thank you dearly to they who run this channel.
The dude was for mandates and friends with Epstein 😂
The guy was actually asking a question about Aquintas' natural law. He didn't know what natural law was so he just guessed.
I just seen an old lecture from you professor, great knowledge and humble personality. Good to see God blesses you with a long life, there must be a lot we can learn from you. May God bless you
I love listening to Chomsky but now it's always so difficult to hear what he's saying.
Automatic subtitles
@@94josema my point is his age but thanks for the suggestion
@Pappy Chulo You're wrong that I'm classless. You're wrong that I was trying to cheap shot Chomsky. You're wrong that I was trying to use a facade because I clarified the misunderstanding. I am realize with age should come more knowledge. I'm glad that you value Chomsky's voice as do I. Be well ( :
He's looking like some wise sage with that beard hahaha
You have great impact on me the great the movement of internalism.
A perfect example, I speak English fluently and decide to then drop out of English as a major course of study. This can happen...or I speak Spanish so I will pursue Spanish for that perfect grade. Or I'm American and decide that obviously French is closer to English than to Spanish..whom comes up with these theories..I know they're shallow but they're quite significant when we consider that grammar rules are not natural they are rather learned rules. The perfect example is to ask an English speaker about English speaking grammar they never learned at school but speak perfectly enough English or better yet switch their vernacular in NYC to relearn their regionalism or identify as they completely and utterly switch to a different dialect. You may say the rules didn't change enough, you're right, but I also didn't understand a thing a foreigner might reply or someone whom is unfamiliar with the area and manners of speech.
you (and by 'you' I mean those who are managing the channel) should think about translating these valuable documents for the Hispanic-American public. Not many important philosophers of the last century are left alive, the lucidity that this man maintains at his age is impressive, he reminds me of Plato who also lived a long life
Noah Chomsky? Step out onto the deck of the Ark once in a while @_@
@Jane Doe Lol you do you, friend.
You can literally ask this man anything and he will give you an educated answer. The sheer breath of his knowledge is incredible.
The world is a worse place since he's been alive. He's all talk no action and has been protecting his in MIT Masters for years.
@@BearSoetero do you have beef with this old man?
@@BearSoetero true that
@@lucverheijden2005 And old dangerous perhaps well-intentioned man. Chomsky has declared himself a libertarian and anarchist but has defended some of the most authoritarian and murderous regimes in human history. Do you have a beef with this? His political philosophy is purportedly based on empowering the oppressed and toiling masses but he has contempt for ordinary people who he regards as ignorant dupes of the privileged and the powerful. He has defined the responsibility of the intellectual as the pursuit of truth and the exposure of lies but has supported the regimes he admires by suppressing the truth and perpetrating falsehoods. He has endorsed universal moral principles but has only applied them to Western liberal democracies while continuing to rationalize the crimes of his own political favorites. When caught out making culpably irresponsible misjudgments he has never admitted he was wrong.
Today, Chomsky’s hypocrisy stands as the most revealing measure of the sorry depths to which the left-wing political activism he has done so much to propagate has now sunk.
Ask him about illegal mandates and Epstein island 😂
Morality is Objective and that is the standard to live under natural law.
Correct ! Morality is objective and truth is singular!
Do what thou Wilt shall be the whole Law. Love is the Law. Love under will
Can't understand what you mean by "morality is objective" because in my mind objectively true things can be objectively proven. E.g. Eddington proved that gravitational lensing occurs, verifying some of Einstein's predictions.
How is morality objective like that? What are the units of morality?
This is a nice, concise encounter with the question of origins.
Notice that, at the outset, Professor Chomsky asks where natural law comes from. He proposes that it may come from God, then in the same breath rules that out as unacceptable.
Within 2 minutes, he concludes that, “all” things considered, the question is probably “impenetrable”.
Purely as a matter of intellectual rigour, and With great respect for Professor Chomsky, is it not painfully obvious that one should reconsider the existence of a creator that created us with his qualities, including justice?
I thought the same thing.
ATTENTION! Not Sure if the person running this channel just abandoned it or has passed away, either ways thanks for compiling all of Chomsky's thoughts. RIP!
I joined the IWW in 1965 while working in the SDS national office. Even then it bothered me that workers had so little right to benefit from the means of production hard won from shared human experience.
iWW?
@@Shut_up_Sheena Industrial Workers of the World
Where are you Dear Sir, i miss you so much 😢
What was the name of the infant psychologist ? I couldn't hear the name
I think he's referring to Lila R. Gleitman: Her studies in developmental psycholinguistics in the late '60s provided early support for Chomsky's epistemic nativism. See esp. Shipley, Smith & Gleitman in Language, 45 (2), Part 1, 1969 (a study of how well-formedness of utterances affects responses to commands among telegraphic & holophrastic speaker-hearers).
Yeah, me either. May be Lightman? Can't find it...
According to the subtitles it's Dr. Twilight Lightning. What a name!
@@jorrendykstra4194 thank you
@@deplaneetegmont XD
the fucked *up* ness
is matched extreme
with
winning the hearts of all women by ethically keeping my head up
Don't remember this.
Forget it.
President McCartney.
I’d never even heard of ‘positive law’ I just had to look it up.
What a misnomer. 🤨
Yeah, from ius positum, a law that is posited, man-made (within a State) basically, but it makes you think like it's all sunshine and butterflies by definition. Legal positivism can be used to legitimize the status quo. Some legal positivists say natural law is non-sense. They point out that every valid positive law derives from the validity of a higher ranked positive law that establishes it etc. to the Constitution which derives from the first Constitution. Here we face a problem because some law has to give validity to that first constitution (because no law can be derived from a fact (Hume, was it?) and we take that as a big problem... ). The thing is that law has to lay beyond the State (and the Positive Law). So they say, well, we must imagine that there exists such a basic law (Hans Kelsen) and move on. We don't know anything about this presumed law, about it's contents and we don't care. And here comes the "genius" part. Some say since we don't know the nature of the basic law then... it could be anything!... and any law system (no matter how rotten) is therefore valid since it derives from a made-up basic norm that can be anything in nature. The only thing, they also say, necessary for a valid law system is its effectiveness - the Fact (ironic?) that it's observed more that it is violated. If, say, the slaves can't win their freedom, that means the legal system is valid and they not only must obey their more powerful masters (common sense), but they are also legally required do so. And If the slaves don't revolt (knowing they are underpowered) - well, that means they accept the legal system and are fine with how things are. Moral principles and values, of course, have no place in the discussion of the validity of law - only detached from reality logical operations and power relations do.
💯
Noam. How do you feel about the Frankfurt school of thought?
protect my family and help me get food the weekend like stakes and help me meditate now and have motivation to be direct with my righting
At 0:56 Chomsky references a child psychologist (presumably well-known) who says that children become aware of "fairness" at a very young age.
I cant make out her name.
I've tried 'violet lytton', and some variants, to no effect.
Can somebody help me out? I'd like to read what she has to say about it.
You don’t need to study child psychology to figure out that children have an innate sense of fairness. Just observe them. Or reflect back to when you were a child and your own sense of fairness. But while people do have an innate sense of fairness, they are loath to apply it when their own selfish interests are at stake. This no one can be a fair judge in his own cause. That’s why we have a judges and juries comprised of people with no stake in the cause being tried.
@@syourke3 I don't deny that people have an innate sense of fairness.
I want to find the academic responsibile for the research because I think it is of potentially large benefit to our conceptions of how society is organised
Gabriel Ward Capitalism is obviously unfair. A tiny handful of people who do no productive labor at all own and control all the world’s wealth, and the political system. They keep the wars going because they profit from them. They have no conscience at all. The world is run by psychopaths.
@@syourke3 I pretty much agree with you. But there are large numbers of people who do not. I want to try and convince them of the decensies of socialism and the miseries of capitalism.
This is better done with sources and evidence which counters the capitalist "we are all selfish" narrative.
This psychologists research appears to do that.
Therefore, I am interested in reading and understanding it.
@@syourke3
- Though _others'_ judgements aren't necessarily fairer than one's own.
Would Mr. Chomsky be available to talk about this, someone could contact him:
The International Criminal Court has just issued Arrest Warrants for Benjamin and Yoav. It is symbolic until something serious is done about them and what they have done and are doing. Can you make a video about it please. Thank You!
I cant get over how over caffeinated Fabian is in this 😂 Great questions, great video.
Emotions are a important factor in the structure of Moral Law but the Ability to Reason Logically is the most important. Natural Law as explained by Mark Passio uses the rules of Aristotelian Logic to deduce that we are all important as human beings and we all have different tastes/culture etc. Therefore the only rule we need to follow is adjacent to the Golden Rule…to NOT impose physical harm, duress, or coercion onto anyone. Emotional harm is given a smaller role because of our differences.
Natural Law is spiritually based but it also stands on the firmest Logic and Truthful ground I’ve ever heard. Noam should check it out, but I doubt he has the moral compass to accept it. It definitely takes some perseverance.
The question is "What makes it incorrect if it's not already correct?" not, "Is it correct?". The answer is easy though... It's natural. Call it the parameters of the 3D Universe. It's the rules that govern reality at its' core.
It is so great to see Chomsky talk about legal theory! Thanks for this. On my channel I deal a lot with the problem of anarchism and positive law.
''In accordance with nature'' seems pretty straight forward to some, it's got F all to do with scientism btw
Dear Chomsky’s Philosophy, is there an email where you can be reached? It’s about subtitling.
Chomsky why were you linked to Epstein 😭😭😭
what?
@@Vincent_Sallowwhat's worse is he hates talking about it and avoids the question in the most suspicious way possible
He is a world renowned scientist of course he probably got in touch with epstein at some point like hundreds of people who never harmed any childrens, epstein was a criminal and his network of other unconvinced criminals is wide af but Noam wasn’t r*ping kids on epstein island because he had a few appointments with him
He wasn't he just teaches at MIT
the thumbnail looks like the healthcare pls wojak.
can you please put 1950 times the effort in to end the sequence, i will not end
Hello there! Could someone tell me who is mentioned at minute 1:00 by Noam Chomsky. He mentions a person, but I couldnt understand. Could someone write down his name? Thanks a lot!
2. We can learn from history of our own specie from the rise and fall of different civilizations.
Can you Mic up NC better. Can't hear very well.
Steptoes let himself go
RIP bro
He is not passed away, this was FAKE NEWS!
Hate Hatred.
Anything that robs someone of there free will is inherently wrong under natural law , and all wrong doings are a form of theft in one way or another . Example killing someone is Robbin them of life, raping someone is robbing them of there choice who to sleep with, hurting someone physically is robbing them of there well-being / health, lien or with holding information from someone is robbing them of the ability to make an informed choice , you can go on an on an on . All wrong doings are a form of theft.
The greatest yudenrat out there ! Thank you נועם חומסקי for betrayal of your own kind.
Agreed, and his influence is I think vastly greater than politicians and pundits acknowledge.
I see and hear his influence across the academe and university campuses. Despite or perhaps because of this media never mention his name.
Natural law, and the idea of moral, and ethical ideals which make up right and wrong, without influence of theology, I would guess, are spawned from the deep, complex, intangible, albeit, very human conception of empathy. Which it appears that we begin to develop from a very young age. The ability to be able to understand, that pain, both physical and emotional; grievance, loss, concern, and liability caused by (a) person(s) to a third party, determines what is perceived to be the difference between right and wrong either by an individual, a group, or a populace.
However, I would argue that, whether an individual would intentionally and knowingly break the said natural law of a populace for personal gain or gratification, would depend, not necessarily the individual’s willingness to admit to his abidance to the natural law, but rather the individual’s personal moral code and ability to break the natural law depends much on the individual’s ability to conceive of empathy. Not 100% empathy, although. The remaining factor being fear of reprisals from peers.
Empathy - understanding that hurting someone, in some way, isn’t nice. We understand emotions, and they give us our moral compasses.
Kebab and chips.
Emotions are a important factor in the structure of Moral Law but the Ability to Reason Logically is the most important. Natural Law as explained by Mark Passio uses the rules of Aristotelian Logic to deduce that we are all important as human beings and we all have different tastes/culture etc. Therefore the only rule we need to follow is adjacent to the Golden Rule…to NOT impose physical harm, duress, or coercion onto anyone. Emotional harm is given a smaller role because of our differences.
Natural Law is spiritually based but it also stands on the firmest Logic and Truthful ground I’ve ever heard. Noam should check it out, but I doubt he has the moral compass to accept it.
@@brothergod6633 Noam is a created distraction who is paid to watch the gate.
please end the sequence or ill tell you why the end is literal
Professor Chomsky, what is your opinion on the theories of Jacque Fresco, creator of the Venus Project ?
Utopias cannot exist based on the nature of human desire.
Damn, he grew a beard. Yet he still has the great mind.
What point could you possibly trying to make?
@@KISEwun is there a problem or something?
I'm complimenting the simple fact that time has caught up to him yet never lost his intellectual sharpness.
@@sarmientoenricomiguelv.562 Oh, I was thinking about how young men could grow beards as well.
Poor Chumsky. Teaching his bs til his last breath
avram, i need you (sequentially i'd put mum and dad first...but they are too proud to admit it)
Sounds a lot like plato, your brain contains these concepts of fairness and justice from birth but you remember them over your lifetime
1:52
... ... ... From that raises more serious questions.... Who or what determines if a concept is *correctly* considered fair / unfair? Is/Are it/they correct?
The problem with the term _correct_ is that is subjective, it is determined by many factors, and it is not universal across different societies / cultures.
Conclusion: a positive law in one culture/society might be a negative law in another.
Emotions are a important factor in the structure of Moral Law but the Ability to Reason Logically is the most important. Natural Law as explained by Mark Passio uses the rules of Aristotelian Logic to deduce that we are all important as human beings and we all have different tastes/culture etc. Therefore the only rule we need to follow is adjacent to the Golden Rule…to NOT impose physical harm, duress, or coercion onto anyone. Emotional harm is given a smaller role because of our differences.
Natural Law is spiritually based but it also stands on the firmest Logic and Truthful ground I’ve ever heard. Noam should check it out, but I doubt he has the moral compass to accept it.
Aristotle, Aristotle, was a bugger for the bottle
I need Chomsky Email contact to take his opinion about something in the theory of language aquisition.
Wow. Ive never knew this. We have the concept of fairness and justice at such an early age. I wonder what the ultra religious would think about that
can you please stop the imposition you made to stop sequences that nego part in my life sense
its just a man telling you reality
dude stop nodding every second
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Omg he's alive
Türkçe veya Kürtçe altyazı ekleyebilir misiniz :(
Soru: Doğal Kanuna Karşı Pozitif Kanun. Yasallık kavramını nasıl anlamalıyız? Anarşist bir toplumda doğal hukuk ve pozitif hukuk hakkındaki ayrım hakkında nasıl düşünüyorsunuz?
Chomsky'nin cevabı: Pozitif hukuku oldukça iyi anlıyoruz. Pozitif hukuk. Onu geliştirir ve inşa ederiz. Doğa kanunu. Bu ne? Bu kafa kariştirici. Tanrı tarafından mı verilir? Hayır, bunu kabul edebileceğimizi sanmıyorum. Doğamızın bize söylediği bu. Doğal hukuk kavramlarımızı inceleyebilirsiniz. Bebeklerin böyle bir konsepti var. Ana bebek araştırmacılarından biri, bunun çok erken yaşta çocukların anladığı ilk şeylerden biri olduğuna işaret etti. "Bu adil değil" kavramı. Bunu hemen biliyorlar. Her çocuk kendini ifade etmeye başlamadan önce bile bunu anlar. Öyleyse, bazı adalet ve adalet kavramları var. Böylece ne olduğunu anlamaya çalışabiliriz. Doğal hukuk kavramına olabildiğince yakın olduğunu düşünüyorum. O zaman şimdi, pozitif hukuk muhtemelen uygulamaya çalışmalıdır. Şimdi bu ciddi bir soruyu gündeme getiriyor. Neden doğal yasanın doğru olduğunu varsayıyoruz? Öyleyse, doğru konsepte sahip olduğumuzu nasıl bileceğiz? Adalet ve adalet kavramı? Evrensel olarak sahip olduğumuz ve yerleşik olanı olabilir. Ama onu doğru yapan nedir? Bu da bizi şu soruna götürür ... Kendi bilişsel ve ahlaki yapılarımızın dışında bir doğruluk kavramı var mı? Ve eğer varsa, o nedir? Matias Mahlmann adında çok iyi bir genç Alman filozof var. Bu konuda çok ilginç çalışmalar yaptı. Temelde aynı soruların epistemolojide de ortaya çıktığını savundu. Öyleyse, en iyi teoriye ulaşmanın yöntemlerini bulursak, tamam deriz, bunlar şimdi doğallaştırılmış epistemoloji olarak adlandırılan, en iyi yöntemler olduklarını söyleyen şeyde kullandığımız yöntemler. Temelde aynı soru. Bu yüzden muhtemelen giremeyeceğimiz şeylerden biri olduğunu düşünüyorum.
@@sibeltorun4902 çok teşekkür ederim 😊😊
1:20 who did he mention here? Jack Kroll?
john rawls
Honestly would love to hear what he has to say about trumps legacy and Biden’s win of the election and how he has dealt with country since trump
He should be in icu
Does this host know that he doesn't have to gesture a nod of approval every time Chomsky says something?
Yes but with meeting your idol that’s a normal reaction, I think I would do the same without even realizing
i want you to stay but only if you end the sequence
Can this noam guy speak a bit louder cos I can't hear shit
can you please end my calorie issue, im startin to look as bad as mother teresa
What happened to Noam?
It's interesting that no one is talking about what Chomsky is actually saying. I don't think they understand it. I suspect people think he is saying that we can't be sure our morality is correct.
But if you listen again you will notice that he says inbuilt universal concept of fairness. Now it sounds a bit odd. If it's inbuilt and universal, why is he saying that we can't know if it's correct? Being inbuilt and universal sound like an argument for it being correct.
He is comparing natural law to natural epistemology, which is basically the kind of things we can be most certain of. I.e. scientific facts. Or for that matter what we experience in our daily lives. What he is saying is that because we are limited we can not be certain about anything but to the degree that we can be certain about something science and our daily experience we can also be certain about our inbuilt universal fairness or natural law.
So why is Chomsky saying it in such a cryptic way?
Well the short answer is that it's a bit of passive aggressive behaviour because he is getting frustrated with the postmodernists.
He is also avoiding confrontation with the not very smart post modernist because they won't understand what he is saying and at the same time he is giving his message across to people who do understand what he is saying. (And if someone is a postmodernist and does understand what he is saying it's not worth it for them to address it)
It's almost like a call for help.
To be purposefully cryptic so that the people you disagree with don't understand what you're saying seems intellectually dishonest to me. I hate passive aggressiveness in relationships let alone academic discourse. If he thought he had the stronger argument, why not just state it more clearly?
@@smileyface702
Personally I don't judge I'm just explaining what I think is going on.
Is human nature and natural law really mysterious or impenetrable as Chomsky cryptically says, or even non-existent as the postmodernist would assert?
Natural law states that something is correct/right by it following from its nature. The correctness of a thing outside of our own cognitive and moral structure is identifiable in infants in "fairness," or good proportions of a thing, as obvious as it is for any form to fit its function. For example, your legs are used for walking and its obvious when they are used incorrectly, like walking with your knees; This exists outside of your perception, because its natural law, and its could only be the correct concept if it identifies what works in the natural world. I think you could come up with numerous examples of what works in nature and what doesn't, even if they depend on your limited concepts, not just infants perceiving something is right or wrong for them. Like the concept of a wing or a flipper instead of a leg.
Aristotle was a teleologist and said that everything in nature is done according to purpose and function (nature does nothing in vain), like logic done for the function of right conclusions, or any type of theatrical performance, or a biological form realizing its form in the world, using its parts by natural law, determined by intellect, or grasping the thing/realizing it's entelechia. If someone says something doesn't have a purpose/end, that's like saying it is non-existent or eternal (unmoved).
In the human mind, realizing a thing's nature is done as passive intellect (positive law), and in the divine mind (nous), this is done as active intellect (natural law). Imagine a law that didn't have a goal and mind, and would that really be a law? Aristotle said that the active intellect was unmixed/separable with the body, and did not function out of a bodily/corporeal source, being the highest aspect of the soul which separates man from other forms of life. (De Anima III. 4-5).
"Others, however, think that this active intellect is Aristotle's God, the unmoved mover of Metaphysics Lambda, or another entity outside of the human soul."
philpapers.org/browse/aristotle-activepassive-intellect
"Nature does nothing in vain. Therefore, it is imperative for persons to act in accordance with their nature and develop their latent talents, in order to be content and complete."
― Aristotle
Emotions are a important factor in the structure of Moral Law but the Ability to Reason Logically is the most important. Natural Law as explained by Mark Passio uses the rules of Aristotelian Logic to deduce that we are all important as human beings and we all have different tastes/culture etc. Therefore the only rule we need to follow is adjacent to the Golden Rule…to NOT impose physical harm, duress, or coercion onto anyone. Emotional harm is given a smaller role because of our differences.
Natural Law is spiritually based but it also stands on the firmest Logic and Truthful ground I’ve ever heard. Noam should check it out, but I doubt he has the moral compass to accept it. It definitely takes some perseverance.
hi avram , do you know what i want?
I don't think Chomsky know what natural law is
Títulos por favor en español
I hate a group from bottom of my heart and I have concrete region for that and each passing day I hate more and more is it any psychological problem
hi, you know im dedicated to do whatever you tell me
Damn, he looks so old 😢
can you please help me or you, for me, do the 1, 9, 5 or 0 things i need to do to get public, literally don't need to use allusion her
Do these guys know how to party or what
SleepyJoe.
It is true to question if there is a universal system of justice, there are two ways,
1. Aquire the knowledge of your world and see if it works on the basis of definite laws. This humans have achieved when the laws were discovered and humans went outside their planet if those laws were unjust i. e. Changing from time to time then it would have been possible for all to access whenever and wherever they are. So that means there is a universal system of justice but can we figure it out the answer is no. Those laws which are standards for our society to follow we can't figure them out the way we can for the world around us.
I can't hear Chonsky, but I can't understand you? ;-)
The principles of reciprocal morality are not found without so much as within. Just ask yourself with utmost sincerity what you consider a wrong should it be done to you, and positively refrain from doing it to others. And do unto others as you would be done by. This is entirely natural and intuitive. It is conscience which is undeveloped or atrophied in most human beings unfortunately.
All effective principles and attitudes of right and wrong action are developed out of that insight and practice. It is ultimately a very heavy discipline for the ego though which is why people scorn or avoid it despite it being in the best interest of everybody. The discipline is not effectively taught to our children by enough of our parents which is why there is an ongoing moral catastrophe in our world.
Professor Chomsky is correct that children understand basic morals intuitively, like they beam again the sunlight from their eyes. The fundamental problem is we are miseducating them against their better selves instead of inspiring and encouraging them. Often it is too late when an ego is already calcified and there is nothing you can do to restore or reorientate the original illumination. It is going to take an immense effort to turn things around for us at this point, and it begins with parents and little ones.
Emotions are a important factor in the structure of Moral Law but the Ability to Reason Logically is the most important. Natural Law as explained by Mark Passio uses the rules of Aristotelian Logic to deduce that we are all important as human beings and we all have different tastes/culture etc. Therefore the only rule we need to follow is adjacent to the Golden Rule…to NOT impose physical harm, duress, or coercion onto anyone. Emotional harm is given a smaller role because of our differences.
Natural Law is spiritually based but it also stands on the firmest Logic and Truthful ground I’ve ever heard. Noam should check it out, but I doubt he has the moral compass to accept it.
He reminds me of another wise person… Margaret Atwood.
NOTHING IS BETTER THAN MY ❤
PROJECT COSY PLANET STILL A SECRET.❤
Rip, foucault ideology will prevail 🎉🎉 post modernism, cybernetics are the future of humanity
Noam the sage has an impressive book collection there.
Sometimes these videos just go too far. Everyone fawning over the smallest grunt Chomsky makes just seems kind of creepy sometimes. Has Chomsky every been wrong? Is that what we think or believe he is peddling, infallibility? If asked has he ever gotten anything wrong, what would he say? Noam Chomsky is a kind of caricature of himself. I guess what is odd to me is that he accepts this so unselfconsciously, like God told him as a little child you will always be right, you are a natural know it all. ;-)
Does Chomsky ever laugh or goof around? Does he lose his temper, because his demeanor in his appearances are so solemn and serious, like a church service. Can you imagine this guy doing it? He has children so he must have done it some time, or maybe one of his acolytes just collects his nocturnal emissions and inseminates willing woman?
I mean, you’re creative writing about him. You could do something else....
This is what we're dealing with today, beyond law: Covid 19 new test for Negative only results...created in Asia...Embossing Negative Covid 19 for those insecure souls that think they're the badass and boss of everyone...you get a negative everytime.
Rip
He is not passed away, FAKE NEWS!
#CooperativeSocialism is the way to go, worldwide for a moneyless world. How to start small and make it big is the challenge? We need to start with one industry and make it successfull , and then move on to another industry... Just imagine Electric vehicle / Electric bike - Assume the scientists and experts unite and create an EV ecosystem to deliver affordable Electric bike (say for less than $500 dollars that can give a minimum range of 300 kms per 1 hour of charging. This will become a hit worldwide and it can capture 95% market, while the rest of the manufacturers will get 5% market.. Thats how we can eliminate money from the society, by eventually making the ebike available for Free, as all essential products and services will be a basic human right, guaranteed in the World Constitution.. Sounds simple, right ?
You say natural law is impenetrable but is it Noam? The USA constitution reflects aspects of natural law. We all know that human rights also reflect natural law. No, I disagree, we can do more than penetrate it, and precisely define it. We can amend human rights so that it reflects our current understanding of the human *condition* and our present technology.
You can amend it, true. But eventually it will catch back up to you. It's like anything natural that you amend; natural order, natural health, natural breasts ...ect
@@YoungO-un8ul I think your is overly pessimistic.
Emotions are a important factor in the structure of Moral Law but the Ability to Reason Logically is the most important. Natural Law as explained by Mark Passio uses the rules of Aristotelian Logic to deduce that we are all important as human beings and we all have different tastes/culture etc. Therefore the only rule we need to follow is adjacent to the Golden Rule…to NOT impose physical harm, duress, or coercion onto anyone. Emotional harm is given a smaller role because of our differences.
Natural Law is spiritually based but it also stands on the firmest Logic and Truthful ground I’ve ever heard. Noam should check it out, but I doubt he has the moral compass to accept it.
remnants of hitlers game wont last
Its not more natural for me to prefer "well" over "good"....notice mostly those grammar syntax/semantics that are less natural are mostly used...and the natural correct grammar becomes archaic. In other words, grammar can become nongramatically correct and become a pigeon in suburban areas where they perceive their identity to be more natural over and above the natural rules of grammar. This is the reason why California perhaps abandonned English Achievement Testing like the SAT...because they saw it as natural....and thus they're not natural. That being the case, the non natural would naturally not pass the natural test of nature nor natural grammar? So yah, revolt and rebellion will always use grammar and law to attempt to prove they are more natural by turning into paranoid beasts of unnatural grammar. Yes, they failed to meet the standards and failed to get the point but are licensed by the state to practice professionally even at law. The university was not a complete and utter failure, but it did perhaps fail law and jurisprudence. English, Arabec nor Chinese are natural languages and a natural preference is not natural.