I'm just chilling around watching philosophy debates and end up watching this video. Then as I look at the members of the panel I'm surprised to see that my grandmother is there to the left, and her companion is the one asking the questions. What a find.
Hello, Her name is Diana Jonstone although she can be found with the last name Johnstone as well I believe. She's an american born, French nationalised journalist. The one asking the questions is Jean Bricmont. He's a Belgium Physicist, amongst other things. I do not know the name of the man sitting to the right of Chomsky though.
Thanks for your response - I've previously encountered Bricmont's public work via his contributions to the Sokal affair, and I shall watch out for your grandmother's contributions in the future.
RochesFan She published multiple books that might be of interest to you. Her books focus on the Yougoslavian affairs and the mistakes of the Clinton foreign policy. One title aimed in particular at Hillary Clinton is quite recent : “Queen of Chaos”. Another very recent book would also interest you : “From MAD to madness” this is the memoirs of my great grandfather who worked for the Pentagon and who denounces the nuclear war planning of the US followed by a commentary of my grandmother about the memoirs. It is an extremely recent book and has been very successful in Europe and most particularly in Germany. I don’t know if these subjects interest you but i would say it’s at least interesting to read about the inner workings of the Pentagon.
Lol....what u just said is so funny that I even doubt you realize how much funny it really is... Yes this french accent can't possibly get anymore French thah that..... lol P.s. it's an accent by a jew coming from an Eastern European country Greetings from Athens greece
I don't agree with him on some things (albeit instinctively; I would fail miserably debating him), but I admire that every single word he says is important and relevant to his argument. He's different than any other public intellectual in that way. Chomsky is the most consistent thinker alive I can think of.
Although no longer alive, the writer I learned the most from as a young man was Gerhard Lenski. His book "Power and Privilege" continues to be worth the time to read and study.
@@ellcally508 Yes, he does that. I sent emails to him, he repeated those words and phrases. For him, content and understanding are more important than style.
His main point is that since humans are biologically restricted, their moral systems are also restricted to a universal spectrum of morals, which therefore does not expand indefinitely.
+Kyle Witzen Does THAT make any sense to you? I mean, of course, what's the point of having a moral system that is based on what we don't know. That, to me, sounds a lot like religion. I thought he was not a religious guy
I don't think he means we have to know what set of morals we define for ourselves, like a religion or a society would try to. He means that humans have a Relative spectrum of capacities, but one that is definite because it does not extend to all human capacities. One could argue that if mere Free Will were the basis for all actions, morality would mean barely anything, and the spectrum would extend to anything humans were capable of. But I think he refers to moral systems shared by societies because societies can only function within a definite spectrum of moral principles. We can't all go around killing one another or ourselves: a society wouldn't function like that.
Sound reasoning but can any "spectrum" truely be regarded as universal? I mean isn't a spectrum impossible to be regarded in totality hench it is "spectrum"
Joris van Veen it's fun because we are discussing trying to apply logic here, which is universal. I'm sure just basic logic restricts A LOT the range of that moral spectrum. The more logical we're, the better. This postmodernism stuff is just a construction based on nothing. You can literally come up with infinite theories like that one by picking up just some patterns in human behaviour and start imagining shit from it. Postmodernism doesn't provide anything tangible to the World as physics or mathematics do. That's a big hint that suggests it's not real Science.
@@BMerker Nope. His actual quote was "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch" which is "That is not only not right; it is not even wrong (or false which is a 1 to 1 translation) " the second part which is the relevant , Chomsky quotes correctly.
@@DanielWieser In the sense that you could not survive as a 'brain in a vat'. Kant too says something similar in The Critique of Pure Reason about scepticism, that you could deny the existence of the world IN THOUGHT but you could not in experience (that can still be called human).
Chomsky is someone I admire because he is not just a critic of prevailing systems. He acknowledges human progress and also offers solutions according to his philosophy
I fully share Chomsky's values, but most of his arguments here, albeit intriguing, don't strike me as very strong. When he takes change as evidence for 'a universal moral grammar', his reasoning seems to be based on the idea that this change must be for the better, but that idea itself remains unmotivated. He just assumes progress towards a more correct moral system, but the objective difference in correctness is the very thing that he needs to prove in this discussion. If we continue the analogy with his linguistic theories - like languages, moral systems vary in space, as well as in time; like languages, children appear to learn different moral systems just as easily. And no linguist claims that one language as a whole at a given point in time is inherently closer to universal grammar than another, or that language change is progress towards perfect alignment with universal grammar. I don't see why that should be claimed about morality. I think the closest he came to a good argument was in the beginning. You literally can't be a moral relativist in practice, at least not without being a moral nihilist. To have a moral system *is* to consider it to be *the* right moral system. You can't hold the moral view that slaughtering children is bad and yet accept as equally valid the view of some other culture that it is good. It's inevitable that you should consider it evil, seek to discourage everybody else from doing it and otherwise try to prevent it if possible - if you don't, then you do not truly hold that moral view.
It seems to me that ultimately, at the roots of every moral system, you find axioms that are based on feeling and experience, and the latter are subjective. To the extent that the axioms are shared, you can indeed progressively deepen your understanding of their consequences. But when they aren't shared or are differently weighted, rational discussion can't bring consensus about morality. For example, if somebody, as outlined by the person to the right, thinks that the 'survival' of a certain 'culture' (i.e. its preservation in a given state) is a value more important than the happiness and freedom of the individual human beings within it, then I think that it's difficult to prove him wrong with rational arguments - the only thing that I think may be likely to change his mind is further emotional experience.
Indeed. I think your last paragraph relates to Hume's guillotine (the is/ought problem), which makes it impossible to make these kinds of comparisons based on purely logical reasoning.
Don't you think our morals are also influenced by the facts we discover in the world? Like if you think it's a fact that seizers are cause by epilepsy you might think of them differently than if you think they are caused by demonic possession. When we know a criminal has a brain tumor we might have a different moral evaluation of responsibility. It could in theory be possible to discover something about the world that would inform us as to whether individual freedom is more important that cultural survival. Just because we don't know everything about ourselves and the world doesn't mean it's not in principal possible to arrive at the "right" moral decisions. Often people's morals change when presented with new information.
In reference to your last paragraph, you might not able to convince the person in question, but you can prove him wrong through demonstrating that his value leads to far more suffering and overrall maladaptivity than yours. The only response you could make then would be, well why is maladaptivity wrong? I'd respond by prompting you to consider what Homo sapien sapiens primates really mean when they say right/wrong; clearly not Good and Evil with caps in the sky, and to consider the purpose of our morality - a function of our brain evolved only for survival and reproduction - so anchored ultimately to survival and cooperation, no?
@@duxliberty7593 No, I completely disagree with the notion that evolutionary adaptiveness is a relevant criterion for right and wrong. The fact that we are shaped by evolution does not in any way mean that we must consciously choose for ourselves the same goals as evolution. We aren't male spiders that impale themselves on the female's fangs. Nor would such an adaptiveness-based 'morality' be the same as what most of us consider morally acceptable. We aren't male lions that eat the cubs of the previous leader of the pride. It isn't true that what humans 'really mean' by right/wrong is evolutionary adaptiveness/maladaptiveness - on the contrary, our various moral systems have always required us to choose completely maladaptive actions such as perform harakiri, die as martyrs for the faith, become celibate and many others.
"The direction is towards more tolerance of variation and more opposition to coercion and control. I think that's a very definite tendency and I think it suggests something pretty strong what the fundamental moral values are"
Actually, that's not true of the West (maybe you're referring to a different culture). We trended toward more freedom and tolerance because of a degree of coercion and control which brought us enough prosperity and high standard of living that we gained the individual power to demand and sustain our freedoms and tolerance. Now we are beginning to reign in our freedoms and tolerance because when you give a population that many degrees of freedom and tolerance of variation, the result becomes highly variable and unpredictable. Therefore, societies always oscillate back and forth between freedom and coercion on many different parameters. The hope is that we are balanced somewhere in the middle.
@@beanlegume9965 the problem is not freedom and tolerance itself. The problem lies in the divorce of freedom and accountability, as well as the tolerance to behaviors that destroys tolerance.
It's probably related to clean and safe environment. As soon as a major disaster hits people instantly forget about all of the tolerance and freedom of individuals
@@Bogdanko93 that all stands, but does one excludes another? I don't believe that any major environment agreement would be possible in the war time. Generally speaking, we based the most of our production sector on destroying the environments, it isn't very promising position for society since we depend largely on both of these,hopefully we will get much smarter.
Chomsky is a reminder to me how hard it is to actually remain logically consistent and exercise dry truth. Completely negate any flights of fancy from our thought.
@@Camcolito if you have any knowledge about cognitive function and behavior and also in history and current trends, and how we overthrow suppression, oppression for a more free and tolerable society, only you'll know what he's saying. Only books you read are the bibles??
That's because he's destroying their idiotic ideology with facts and one thing that Post Modernists hate, it's facts. They know with Chomsky they can't use their usual polysyllabic slieght of hand because he'll ruin them, so they just get frustrated. The woman particularly was livid.
@@derekrushe The guy on the right also wasn't bad, nearly hyperventilating and attempting interruptions when he started to question again near the end of the video. The canonical reaction of someone not too smart that sees their "deeply held beliefs" contested.
He is too old to care about it. Its Like thinking about what do to in an endurance race (his life) when its already ending. The results are already there, you cant change your position, theres nothing to do, Just keep racing.
Chomsky needs to download himself into an artificial body and become the curator to a museum dedicated to himself and his transition from human into digital entity. Right?
Ivan Cannon Or someone can do it for him using dialog from his many many recorded discussions, but that someone should get his written approval for this soon before he leaves the planet. ;)
many of Chomsky's scientific discoveries and observation expose philosophical extremes. He seems so pragmatic, practical, and measured scientifically. This is a gem of a presentation and helped me understand that "morality" can have (or likely does have) a scientifically measurable foundation. I often wondered why he said Foucault was the most amoral person he has ever met, and now I understand
It is difficult to come to grips with Butler's ideas, because it is difficult to figure out what they are. Butler is a very smart person. In public discussions, she proves that she can speak clearly and has a quick grasp of what is said to her. Her written style, however, is ponderous and obscure. It is dense with allusions to other theorists, drawn from a wide range of different theoretical traditions. In addition to Foucault, and to a more recent focus on Freud, Butler's work relies heavily on the thought of Louis Althusser, the French lesbian theorist Monique Wittig, the American anthropologist Gayle Rubin, Jacques Lacan, J.L. Austin, and the American philosopher of language Saul Kripke. These figures do not all agree with one another, to say the least; so an initial problem in reading Butler is that one is bewildered to find her arguments buttressed by appeal to so many contradictory concepts and doctrines, usually without any account of how the apparent contradictions will be resolved.
he seems to reject abstract philosophising in favour of, as you've noted, a far more pragmatic view on the utility of normative moral & ethical philosophy. I think that probably stems from his studies in language, giving him keen insight into the significance of intersubjective meaning, which is highly relevant when discussing the formulation and communication of moral ideals.
@@Laocoon283 You should read his work on the Theory of Language. It is widely recognized as one of the most important achievements in my field, psychology.
@@MiguelCisnerosSaucedo And what part of that theory has any scientific backing? What data is he using to support his argument lol? None. It's literally just an idea that he has without any explicit evidence to support it. It's called philosophy because it lacks the merits to be considered science.
@@thestone7747 What does it mean for the agency of a subject to presuppose its own subordination? Is the act of presupposing the same as the act of reinstating, or is there a discontinuity between the power presupposed and the power reinstated? Consider that in the very act by which the subject reproduces the conditions of its own subordination, the subject exemplifies a temporally based vulnerability that belongs to those conditions, specifically, to the exigencies of their renewal.
I've never really watched Peterson but Chomsky says lots of intellectual dishonest and dismissive things. He is a very smart guy and I enjoy listening to him but if the pompous liberals that listen to him had actually read a true philosopher, they would realize his work is not very difficult to understand
I think it's namely a difference of specialization. Jordan Peterson, despite how he may project himself, is less of a philosopher and more of a psychologist. He has a much more nuanced view of philosophy due to his profession I think.
The Catholic speaker may seems like not win in this round of academic assembly，But the humble and beautiful behavior of filling up the cap for Chomsky has won my heart.
Too many people sweep too many incongruous things under the label of postmodernism. Unless you've read the majority of the French philosophers from this era, you'd be tempted to think that this was a doctrine, and a homogenous one at that. Nothing could be further from the truth. There were many different and conflicting positions during the 70s and 80s among french philosophers, and in fact none of them ever called themselves "postmodern" thinkers. This is a label that was bestowed on them by American academic circles, on the basis that the concept of post-modernity was frequently cited (among others) in those days. It's impossible to conflate the hallucinatory discourse of Lacan and Derrida, with that of Deleuze and Lyotard, for instance (and I read them in French, my native tongue). Lacan was a scam artist living off his impersonation of psychoanalytical discourse and amazing ability to improvise incoherent discourse in front of a mesmerized student audience. Derrida was somewhat similar but slightly more coherent while not offering a particularly potent set of ideas. At the opposite, Deleuze was highly coherent and we owe him among other things powerful concepts such as the rhizome, in place of the antique concepts of hierarchy and arborescence. In parallel, Lyotard's admirable and visionary essay, The Postmodern Condition, predicted back in the mid-70s everything that we witness today with social media, knowledge databases and the collapse of traditional discourse. A must read. There's not a shred of what's come to plague US academia in these works: so-called "cultural studies", gender studies, identity politics and so forth. It would be a fallacy to claim otherwise. These are anglo-saxon extrapolations stemming from a gross misreading of many of these philosophers' various intents.
Phil Pan the way it's used on line by alt right is pretty much a boogey man term. It's coupled with Marxism to sound even scarier. It's a 4channic way to misuse language.
Agree with you! People nowadays prefer to hearing from left-wing intellectuals like Chomsky than to reading actual "postmodern" works. And about the 1971 debate between Chomsky & Foucault, I would say that Chomsky was as idealistic as he is now.
And the funny thing is that most philosophers who were "postmodern" discarded their initial Marxism, whereas orthodox Marxists and leftists (like Chomsky) are militantly against "postmodernism", and specifically the critique of objectivity.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 📚 Noam Chomsky discusses moral relativism and Michel Foucault's views. 01:21 🌍 Moral relativism exists in philosophy but not in ordinary life; it encompasses a broad spectrum. 04:11 🤔 Extreme moral relativism that claims values can range indefinitely is incoherent; it implies the existence of universal values. 10:58 🗣️ Moral disagreements can be debated and often resolved through reasoned discourse. 16:11 🌐 Over time, there is evidence of moral progress and a broadening of moral values towards greater tolerance and opposition to coercion.
I think the other panelists are actually grasping at good points and valid criticisms of Chomsky's argument, but they let themselves get all worked up and flustered for some reason and it totally undermines the arguments they're trying to make.
@jaye see: it can't be 1946 because Chomsky looks about 60-70 in the video. That would put him at 130-140 yrs today (he's still around). Now that is very unlikely.
@kvrk2000 I would have gone with a much more daft response and said: It can't be 1946 because the video is in color. We know from footage that the world in 1946 was almost entirely black and white. Occasionally the world had color around that time because we have some footage of a colored world back then, but those were extremely rare occurrences. Therefore, the discussion could possibly have taken place in the mid-50s but more likely in the late 60s or early 70s. But the style of clothing does give me pause. And who allowed that housewife to have microphone, and why is she talking?!! Ah TH-cam, the place where idiots shine in their equal opportunity.
I agree with David Hume on the subject, that our moral values and ethical systems are rooted in our sentiments. The universe in and of itself is amoral; however, human society must have moral and ethical systems to be a cohesive group. These systems vary from machine to machine (to borrow a term from Deleuze) based on the rhizomes that connect them. It is each of our own responsibilities as individuals and more broadly social groups to develop consistent ethical systems predicated on a set of base values that align with our sentiments.
Sounds easy enough. Now try to let everyone wholeheartedly agree to that set of base values. There are many, many schools of ethics. Some even joke that there is always one that supports the outcome you desire. And none of them have been proven consistent. There has always been some smart philosopher who found a particular case that was consistent with that particular ethical system, but completely incompatible with what is generally accepted.
I just love him. Not only for his stance at advocacy on things, but the way he explains things. While some of the things post-modernists go into are definitely intriguing, it ends up, getting pretty woolly and obscure pretty quickly, and then the defence is, well, that’s because you don’t understand it, because of all these obscure things that are happening in your brain, which are the very things you can’t understand. That may be true, but it also might just be a convenient way to stop the conversation
As far as I know, the two guys with Chomsky, Jean Bricmont and Normand Baillargeon are part of "the Chomsky left". I think they are more vocal than him on the dangers of postmodernism, "the new left". Jean Bricmont might have wanted Chomsky's idea on it.
This whole thing completely misses the real objection to moral relativism: you can't jump from there being widespread disagreement to there being no correct answer. Chomsky here is just saying "well the disagreement really isn't that wide, it's bounded", but that's beside the point. There very well could be unlimited disagreement (there isn't, Chomsky's right about that, but we can suppose that there were), and that would say nothing at all about whether any of those many positions different people held, or some other position nobody holds, is the correct or incorrect one. Agreement is not the same thing as truth, and disagreement (however wide or narrow) says absolutely nothing about whether or not there is a truth to the matter. The truth could be a position that nobody presently holds. Consider, for a different example, the true theory of physics that unites our quantum and relativistic models. Nobody knows what that is, and opinions on what it might be vary, within limits but still, they vary. But nobody with half a brain takes that to mean that there is no truth of the matter to be found. Just that the question of what that truth is has not yet been adequately settled.
Excellent point! But I don't think Chomsky would actually say that progress is the same as truth. Truth is itself a concept. Also, there always remains the possibility that moral progress be followed by degradation if, for example, extreme circumstances occur on the environmental level and consequently on the economic and social level), to give a very concrete example. Chomsky has been always a freedom fighter, to give another example, yet he does not have a clear ideological truth. He observes, studies, and expresses his views.
The problem isn't that we disagree on the answer, but that there is an answer to be had. The problem is that we disagree on what it would mean know the answer at all. What would count as evidence, explanation, or knowledge of the answer. This is not the same as disagreements in the natural sciences (although i think even in physics this is not so clear).
Moral relativism may be interpreted as a claim about bounded infinity. While the idea that knowing the bounds could anchor the social order is an optimistic one, the bounds can be so general and open ended as to leave the field of morality open for infinitely many conflicts that are irresolvable in any absolute way.
@@lesolstice_3465 Feminist thinkers of the new symbolic type would appear to believe that the way to do feminist politics is to use words in a subversive way, in academic publications of lofty obscurity and disdainful abstractness. These symbolic gestures, it is believed, are themselves a form of political resistance; and so one need not engage with messy things such as legislatures and movements in order to act daringly. The new feminism, moreover, instructs its members that there is little room for large-scale social change, and maybe no room at all. We are all, more or less, prisoners of the structures of power that have defined our identity as women; we can never change those structures in a large-scale way, and we can never escape from them. All that we can hope to do is to find spaces within the structures of power in which to parody them, to poke fun at them, to transgress them in speech. And so symbolic verbal politics, in addition to being offered as a type of real politics, is held to be the only politics that is really possible. These developments owe much to the recent prominence of French postmodernist thought. Many young feminists, whatever their concrete affiliations with this or that French thinker, have been influenced by the extremely French idea that the intellectual does politics by speaking seditiously, and that this is a significant type of political action. Many have also derived from the writings of Michel Foucault (rightly or wrongly) the fatalistic idea that we are prisoners of an all-enveloping structure of power, and that real-life reform movements usually end up serving power in new and insidious ways. Such feminists therefore find comfort in the idea that the subversive use of words is still available to feminist intellectuals. Deprived of the hope of larger or more lasting changes, we can still perform our resistance by the reworking of verbal categories, and thus, at the margins, of the selves who are constituted by them.
@@omalone1169 Yes indeed this is a trap every generation of intellectuals have fallen into(obviously just a portion of it). The context and actual application might be different. But I believe the underlying cause remains the same. The inability to differentiate the constructs of the mind, from the actual things they ere made to represent.
My line of thinking is similar to Chomsky, namely through Jungian ideas (and Bastian) that there is a universality of behavior patterns and cognitive functions etc. but I have no problem admitting that this is an abstraction. Chomsky misses Foucault's point entirely. I don't think that Foucault was a moral relativist. I think Foucault's main interest was how regimes of power act upon the individual and that a priori abstractions of human nature were often inaccurate because they are conflated with the structural manifestations. This happens all the time. As Foucault said, "we don't know what our natures are." Perhaps a more cutting response by Chomsky to Foucault would have been, "yes true, but we know what our natures aren't." But Foucault has a point that is important to grasp. Foucault has a critique similar to that of Nietzsche's critique of Christianity and similar to Freud's idea of the superego. Namely that the institution of Christianity became a structural morality which conditioned the individual while considering itself universal. So why wouldn't other regimes of power consider themselves universal and then condition a morality which the participants naively consider "the natural order of things" when it's not. Christianity universalized itself but was not universal. Humanism, Science etc. is not necessarily an escape from this conditioning effect on the individual and collectively. The notion of universality has a blind spot. Take Foucault's elaboration of homosexuality. The gay movement at the time of Foucault naively pointed to Ancient Greece as a time when it was socially acceptable to be gay. Foucault pointed out that the modern idea of "gay" was not at all like the homosexuality of Ancient Greece. The Ancient Greeks saw effeminacy as shameful, saw being penetrated by a man as adolescent and feminine and shameful for an adult male, and marriage to woman was obligatory. What the gay movement was doing was romanticizing and overly universalizing and was completely blind by their romantic musing. Chomsky, here, even uses the phrase "the oppression of homosexuals" as if homosexuality is the ontological essence of certain human beings, which is a common modern idea, but the Ancient Greeks didn't believe that. "The homosexual" is a western structural idea. And if you look at another analogous structure like Native American two spirit, also romanticized by LGBT activists, it was structured radically differently. Male born Two spirits for example were not allowed to marry each other they married normative males. A completely different structural phenomenon. So were the normative males the two spirits married gay or homosexual. The native Americans would not have this idea. Our notions of human nature is always conflated and blurred with specific structural cultural manifestations. And is specifically because our notions of human nature are often abstract potentialities. And this is not trivial. Has there not been wars waged because a culture understood God differently? We can wage war on other cultures who understand human nature differently and we do. We can also try to "liberate" another culture which is really imposing our structure onto another culture. I believe that the psyche is as Chomsky describes but overconfidence in our notions of universality is arrogant and has been used before as an excuse for violence.
Thanks for the infotmative post. But if morals are really relative, on which grounds do we condemn slavery and genocide. A nazi could easily say its ok in his moral framework to commit genocide. And he could also accuse you of imposing your liberal values upon him. If you stop him you would be imposing your values. If you don't you would allow genocide.
@@freandwhickquest Here in America we have a president who tries to invalidate the concept of truth; in fact, he just lost an election and is trying to say he actually won it. Is he just imposing his values on the people of America, or is actually a lying POS trying to subvert democratic institutions?
@@JeffRebornNow in an era when the right wing tries the invalidate the concept of truth, left wing should defend rationalism, justice, openess, human rights and critical thinking. Post truth is becoming a right wing tactic. This is the reason why, while i still respect foucault, i find chomsky much accurate in his defence of the pursuit of reality.
@@freandwhickquest I agree. I think the cultural relativists cut their own throats making truth merely the imposition of a regime of power. I thought they were wrong 30 years ago when I was in graduate school and reading Foucault and learning all this shit. The humanities professors -- the tenured radicals -- were so hopped up on attacking Western Civ. for its imperialism that they were willing to downgrade (or make completely relative) all of Western Civ.'s cultural acquisitions, including logical reasoning and the scientific method.
@@JeffRebornNow it feels to me that that extreme versions of relativism started to lose power even in acedemia. (Yes they still seem vocal because they are anxious) In the earliest days of postmodernism, concepts like truth and morality was being used by the conservative establishment to control the power discourse. In order to allow the percieved "immoral" modes of behaviors, to bypass the christian dogmatism, the existence of morality started to be denied.(they went to far) This was actually a tactic. Some professors etc. took the concept seriously. Over time the left itself became the dominant culture. Now it is slowy going to leave relativism just believe me. This extreme relativist wave is almost about to reach its peak. New paradigm will not be the same as the ancient one, it will balance the relativism with rationalism.
I agree with Chomsky for sure. I just want to inform everybody that John Dewey, Charles S. Peirce and William James were saying the same thing not to long ago. Chomsky comes from a great American tradition!
Chomsky has certainly been influenced by the ideas of John Dewey. And as a piece of trivia: up until high school, Chomsky even went to a Deweyite school.
This is an interesting and thought provoking talk, as always. I like to think that cultures that are still reppressive in some or many ways are capable of reflecting and changing. Sadly, to me, going through excrutiating pain and loss is the way we do it...We learn from loss and crises. Actually, I hope that we learn from loss and crises because too often i see history repeating, as some of us fail to learn.
TH-cam has an uncanny way of addressing topics I was just thinking about. I have long held the view that if I understood other cultures, I would embrace them. Although I have found this to be true in general, it now seems to be simplistic.
@@omalone1169 I used to sound so naieve. I did not have many friends of other cultures, as I had recently moved to Canada. I would not say such a thing now.
the fixed basis for morality is in my view: human ability to empathize, and human selfishness in the absolutest form, starting from the genes and ending in everyday behavior and thought. if you combine the ability to see in select others yourself, those you can empathize with enough, and the innate selfishness you see i think the whole spectrum of morality in any of its forms. this theory i started by thinking about an old saying thats extremely common, that goes by: would you like this done to you? or treat others as you would want them to treat you.
I personally find a problem in the view of ''Seeing in others, yourself'' or ''To put yourself in someone else's shoes''. This is just a self projection and one of the worst kinds of Anthropomorphisms. We see it time and time again in the case of various Animal activists, Climate activists, Vegans, Vegetarians etc. This projecting of ourselves, our capacity of mind and our conscious experience upon things which are not us and do not have our Quantitative capacities (Very important to not mean Qualitative). I could ''put my self in someone else's shoes'' but that wouldn't solve anything for that person or animal (Or me) who I'm apparently attempting to ''Empathise'' with. Because I would react to the situation as I would react to it, as only I could/can, with my capacities, experiences, emotions etc which are not the same as the person who's shoes and situation I am projecting myself onto. I am only me and not them and them are only them and not me. The problem is that I would react to the situation how I would react to it and want to react to it which would likely be different from that person. People state that one should put themselves in the ''shoes'' of animals, so we shouldn't ''Harm them'', but the problem is, is that I'm still, thinking/experiencing/feeling like a human animal with this, I'm not experiencing anything of the ''Pig'' mind/conscious experience. I'm not experiencing the life or nature of a ''Pig'', I'm doing nothing of the sort except just in a state of imaginative illusion. Its just an Anthropomorphic projection. This, I feel, is the same outcome for the other maxim ''Treat others as you would want to be treated''. This maxim would have to apply all the time, I would have to treat all others as if (Effectively) they were me. The problem is, is that what is ''good'' for me is ''bad'' for someone else and could also be ''Indifferent'' to someone else further still (As Spinoza remarks). So, following the maxim, I would not attack anybody because I would not be attacked, but that only extends as far as me and my actions in reality, for I am only this singularity. If somebody else attacks me, I will defend myself, for I do not want to be destroyed, but If I'm following the maxim (Of treating people as I would want to be treated, and ultimately projecting myself upon everyone as if they were me), I surely should not defend myself?, for if I was the one attacking, I would not want somebody to defend themselves against me as that would impede my attack and goal of overpowering you (for whatever reason), but that would just be absurd on my part and the maxim ultimately becomes incoherent projection. The maxim only makes sense in a case of Moral Relativism. How I want to be treated is ultimately different from how somebody else wants to be treated. There is no fixed platonic objective moral standard pervading above us to which we should strive to adhere to.
Every argument or point of view, no matter what it is, always leaves out something. That's why there is always room for a counter-argument -- ad infinitum.
We have been progressing toward “more tolerance of diversity and more opposition to coercion and control.” Feeling safer and as such valuing freedom and creativity more than safety. Good for us!
She's saying that as we become more tolerant of diversity, we're less afraid of people that look and speak differently from us. We're not as frightened of our differences, we feel safer. Hence we don't need oppressive structures (racial segregation, subjugation of women) to protect some idea of "safety" (which more often than not manifests as fear of some "other").
I get the problems you get with Foucault and similar theorists. And I also feel like there‘s some higher absolutes that are formed above the cultural level. However, I think that it‘s not a psychological/ genetic thing as Chomsky proposes (I‘m not an expert here, but that‘s what his argument seems like to me.) To the contrary, I think that it‘s the fact of plurality - the fact that we live with other living beings and our lives are related to them - that makes us form absolutes in the form of morals like justice or equality. That‘s why people from all kinds of different times and cultures come up with different ideas: they all live together with others, and they grow close to them, and they become dependent on them, and they aim to survive living with them. I don‘t know if that makes me a relativist or an absolutist or whatever you would call the opposite, but I think it‘s as simple as that.
Well you're just saying it is this because it is this. We all know that our lives are related to other living beings in some sense. But wouldn't you say that's nature? or that's because of our nature? or in other words biology? I don't like the latter term but it's basically the other face of the same coin. I think we have innate disposition to view intrinsic value in each other. This is my view because of my religion, Islam. Now, anyone can say I'm an absolutist but at least I'm coherent as I think Noam Chomsky would put it.
It's both. You can't learn anything without an algorithm to facilitate that learning. So, if a child derives moral values by observing others, it must be born with algorithms that facilitate it. That analyze the data (observations) and build appropriate structures in its brain. Of course, when a child is born, it's still "being built," the facility might not be ready, but it's internal. A child born without any "programming" would never learn anything. It must be something based in biology, something entirely internal. If you get something, it can't come out of nothing. That's what Chomsky is talking about (that internal structure which makes the leap possible). What you're talking about are those scattered data points that he talks about as well. You need both. Data and an algorithm. Food and process. What Chomsky argues, I believe, is that the algorithm largely shapes the outcome because there are many voids to fill between individual data points. I guess you could imagine it like a curve fit. Algorithm is the curve. And you manipulate that curve to fit your observations. Or more precisely, algorithm would describe the process of curve fitting. But in order to do that, it must internally work with a curve or set of curves. Take homosexuality. The pivotal point was the realization that sexual orientation is not your choice. And that was a scientific discovery. Actually, the underlying research, as far as I know, was military - because some young men tried to avoid service by claiming to be homosexual. A device was created for measuring sexual arousal. What they proved was that homosexuality actually exists, that there is such a thing as sexual orientation. It's not just a decadent behaviour you choose to engage in or disease you can cure. And if it's outside of their control, it's wrong to punish them for it. So, our understanding of human nature evolved and as a result application of our moral code evolved. But that discovery in itself didn't prove that it's not a disorder and that it should be tolerated. There was a shift probably related to what I wrote (not in their control => wrong to punish) - their behaviour causes us no direct harm and we started seeing them as victims (of nature's bad joke). You might think this process was right and I'm not saying it wasn't, but try applying the same logic to pedophiles. It probably won't go down well. Yet they are just as incapable of influencing their preference. Personally, I never saw any point in the persecution of homosexuals exactly because they cause me no harm but that was related to the general attitude of our prevailing religions towards sex (it serves to procreate and anything else is wrong). Sodomy (essentially, you could say sex for pleasure) was seen as a choice (not the urge but you acting on it). So, the change in religious attitudes was a precursor. Without it, we wouldn't make the shift. We could still choose to condemn them and burn them at the stake for our enjoyment (indeed, in places like Bruges, people were burned at a stake for their sexual activities). And remember, we're talking about a "crime" that leaves practically no evidence. They would simply torture you until you confessed. Of course, if you were a respectable citizen, you were far less likely to suffer that fate as substantial evidence would be needed to touch you. In general, I think there is the question of undesirability of certain attributes and how we treat people who possess them. On one hand, you've got people who believe that some things are undesirable and they go out to eradicate those people to get rid of it, to stop it from spreading. On the other hand, you've got people who say anything goes, there is no such thing as undesirable, everything is natural, human, etc. Personally, I'm in the middle. I do believe that some things are undesirable or downright inferior, but I don't want to be cruel to the people. Isn't it bad enough that they suffer from whatever it is they suffer from? In my eyes, it really comes down to evolution and the unpleasant fact that for evolution to happen, someone has to die or not reproduce. And I have a feeling that without this continuous trimming, we're going to deteriorate and degenerate as a species. Which I find undesirable. It looks like entropy to me. Yet I wouldn't want the power and responsibility for choosing what is superior, what is right. Because one way forward is to use genetic engineering to fix problems as needed. So, even people with defects could reproduce, we could just fix those problems in their children. I'm not sure we should have that power. I don't think we have evolved far enough. I think our tools are further than our minds. It's kind of like giving nuclear weapons to children. But what is the alternative? Let the weak die? Sterilize them? That probably doesn't sound very appealing.
The only truth I have discovered philosophically true from the 21st century is to find people that like for who you are- and the better you know who you are, the more rewarding life is 🥂🍾 initially I constructed myself as the best person I could conceive of being. Then I accepted the person I became.
"In discussing human affairs you don't have proofs, we don't understand enough" (15:51) A good metric for discussing human affairs in a sensible manner is the degree to which we relate to others, the Otherness Quotient of the individual, the group, the society, the culture. In high crime neighborhoods the "other" has no value except with a few individuals.
I love watching Noam destroy questions almost from the off, my favourite is when he replies 'there isn't even a debate anymore' or 'it's quite the norm across the industry/field/spectrum' etc , it's a good style and he's being doing it all his career
Those phrases hardly “destroy” questions. By saying there isn’t a debate anymore, either the issues must have been reconciled or it’s admitting concession. Otherwise it’s just declaring “I win” and copping out. They’re parlor tricks.
@@-dash if you bring a point that is not even debated or, in other words, is factually wrong then it is good to be reminded that it is so otherwise people will think that your assumption is valid and common. Where in reality it's no longer a matter of debate that it is wrong. So I think it's fair. That doesn't mean he won't entertain the idea but that he will do so only on that basis. At the end of the day if something isn't commonly held to be true and you're using it as a precursor for bigger argument you're making a bigger claim than you can support. Question your foundations first.
@@j.r.r.tolkien8724 there isnt even a debate anymore, that you are completely wrong. I won’t elaborate, just know that consensus has been reached, and I win, and you lost.
To know philosophy and language better , we should know ( what life is ? ).: < life is , to find self surrounded and connected consciously > this definition may solve many dark sids of language and philosophy .
There is a masterclass on Systems Theory within the framework of Chomsky's logic for his argument here. There is (what I feel is) a logical fallacy of non-systematized systems in question. By predicating his assertion on analogs and anecdotes of human biology, he's arriving at a conclusion of predicative sub-systems (a set of meta-principles that govern relative principles and the variations of those principles). This falls apart if biology/physics doesn't serve as the primary driving mechanism of morality generation. Practically speaking, Chomsky's probably right from a sociobiological perspective and wrong from a purely biological perspective. One only needs to think of a simple hypothetical experiment to test this: assess the gradual moral changes of a particular human society that has been isolated from every culture here on Earth for the entirety of their history, with no apriori exposure to any citizen's mind. This could very well be a possibility in the future with further space colonization. Chomsky's assertion in this scenario would still be that this society would indeed develop through similar (if not exactly the same) meta-moral changes over the course of its existence; however, I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe this would actually be the outcome. Too many exterior factors influence our current understanding of psychology and sociology. If this isolated version of humanity's environment had an intellectual stimulus that promoted something radically different from any form of moral analog on Earth, would they still find themselves on a similar track to their Earth analogs after enough time passed? I don't think so personally, unless it is so deeply inherently tied to our biological frameworks of hormone control, sensory experiences, and bodily regulation. A side note: humanity's broad thought projects (aka most of philosophy) are limited by its contextual precedents in both biological (neurological structures) and existential situatedness (place and time in the universe). We're damned to never find truth because of our tie to our biology. Such is the way it goes.
Humans are not just biological systems but a stack of systems built on top of a base innate biological structure. Humans living in an isolated, cutthroat environment like medieval northern Europe for example will have a very limited moral sphere. But in order for societies to scale up there has to be an increase in reciprocity between people of different groups, as it has been proven both in game theory and empirical economics that the long term mutual benefits of cooperation and specialization are greater than those of egoistic behavior, both on individual and group level. People usually say humans are social animals, and that is the foundation of our power. When a society reaches significant scale and prosperity it is thus quite probable that moral concern and reciprocity are extended to more groups like slaves, homosexuals etc. like mentioned in the video. The only society I could think of where this wouldn't be true is one where power is more disconnected from social cooperation, like the ruling class using military robots to control the society instead of other humans. That is an entrenchment of power which is completely resistant to revolution. My point is if you look at it from a big enough perspective I think biological and social perspectives on morality converge.
The view: you adopt morals from observing your culture, AKA the set of behaviors you observe from those around you, making moral values universal in some regard. Despite what extremists believe, moral disagreements can be debated and you don't have to scream at each other.
19:43 The direction is towards more tolerance and variation and more opposition to coercion and control. It doesn’t mean we tolerate everything. We have to discern. Don’t want false equivalence.
Only real problem with what Chomsky said was the rental car analogy. You take care of the rental car because if you don't you will be fucked by the business and the law.
Matthew Frazier well, partly, but presumably even if you knew you wouldn't be legally punished for damaging it, you would still feel that you owed it to the real owner not to damage his property as far as possible.
I think, from what Chomsky is saying in this interview and others, that he would agree that there is nothing transcendantale moral. Rather morality is a consequence of the physical nature of humans and their history. If it is true that Foucault believed that there are unlimited moral frameworks it must be under the premise that any number of histories with any number of sapient being are creating these moral systems. For instance surely Foucault would not deny ought implies can, it cannot be immoral for a human not to fly like superman because we cannot fly like superman . Therefore some limits must exist on possible moral frameworks. I think rather that the takeaway is that morality is not innate it is a social system created by interaction of humans with other humans. There may be an innate system promoting the creation and preservation of people groups, but this system depends on are work as moral agents to be defined. Absolute relativism is absurd on the face of it. But it allows us to question what is at the core of human experience allowing us to discard bias we might otherwise be incapable of perceiving. There are by now systems such as intersectionality and falsifiability that allow us to move away from relativism into a new paradigm without losing track of what we have learned from postmodernism. There is no meaning except that which we produce ourselves.
I also think what he is saying is - as you put it - that there is nothing transcendantale moral. At 14:49 he says that "there must be a fixed basis" which, as I understand, is a basis which follows from human biological nature - e.g. we are biologically pre-determined to build culture in a certain way which essentially entails for example the belief that killing other people is morally wrong. But to me, such a "fixed basis" actually sounds like an argument in favor of moral relativism, and not against it. For example, there could be an alien species whose biological nature pre-determined them to consider killing others of their kind as morally acceptable - their "fixed basis" would be different to ours. Similarly, theoretically human biological nature may also undergo some modifications in the future (e.g. due to evolution or due to technological advancement) which would change our "fixed basis". So, since the "fixed basis" which pre-determines morality is susceptible to change, this essentially means that morality itself is also susceptible to change, and thus relative. Absolute morality would mean that there are some transcendetal rules of morality which are independent of one's biological nature and remain the same regardless of the changes to this biological nature. I wonder what you think about this and whether there is any further reading you could suggest on this.
@@Pushkodlon "Let me tell you what chomsky actually meant with my pedantic rant about how actually he leaned more towards postmodern philosophy HURR durr"
" I think rather that the takeaway is that morality is not innate it is a social system created by interaction of humans with other humans. " But you can also ask whether the social system that promotes these kind of interactions of humans with other humans is in itself moral or not. You can morally judge the social system itself by the kind of interactions it leads to and this judgement can't come from the social system itself, it must be transcendental in the sense of transcending mere cultural habit and being grounded in something else instead.
@@thechadeuropeanfederalist893 You can ask whether a social system is moral, but you must do so from the framework of some social system, because the question is being asked by a person and that person exists within a society that colors their moral beliefs. There is no context free morality. Rather than transcending society your example is more analogous to a chicken and egg problem.
@@rath60 "Context Free Morality" 😂😂 If there was ever one! You'd think Chomsky would've been the one to have found or invented it! Given his invention of Context Free Grammar!
There should be a Noam Chomsky for everyone who can tell you, that there is good in everone, when you feel down. One thing that bothers me though, is that he doesn't really answer the guys last question. It comes down to the question if human dignity is more important then the power of religious leaders (i think). In my opinion it is a really good question that has a lot of value/importance right now. I would have liked to hear his opinion on that.
I like Chomsky's explanation that within the variation of moral values, there has to be a fixed basis. What is missed out in this discussion, however, is that moral values are based on the state of the society, they are simply rationalizations of rules that makes societies work. Slavery was accepted because it was necessary at the time. As society changed, it was no longer needed and it was abandoned. However, the society changes faster than the moral values, in other worlds, the moral values are always a bit behind. And when they catch up, then we have what Chomsky calls moral progress. In the past 100 years, technology is making changes in society much faster than in the past, so this delay in the moral values is more pronounced than ever. The "fixed base" that Chomsky is talking about is related to the fact that many of our biological functions have not and will not change, regardless of the technological change, and therefore that part does not change. Not because its not relative, but simply because the rules are limited by our biological needs.
@@demetridar506 Speaking of relative and objective what do you make of empiricism? The scientific method itself is based on the assumption that there is objective truth in the world out there. It's a metaphysical claim as a basis for science. Do you think there is objective truth?
@@j.r.r.tolkien8724 The scientific method assumes certain statements to be true, i.e. axioms, and builds upon them. These axioms are what you call empirical observation. However, the axioms can always change, and that is one of the ways science advances, and improves. So, no, I do not think there is objective truth. "Truth" is like a cloud, a vague and elusive existence that perhaps we can approach, or think we are approaching it, but it simply slips away and alters itself. Truth also depends on the observer's perception, which also of course depends on the observer's own interests. That is one of the main reasons that we cannot really define what is "fair". This is the ancient Greek philosopher's point of view, and also the Asian perspective. The rules of law are necessary for the society to function, but there is nothing absolute about them. Most of the time they help society function well, other times it falls behind the technological changes and becomes obsolete, as I said on my first post.
@@demetridar506 The axioms that science relies on are not empirical. They are metaphysical assumptions about the world. Whereas the knowledge that scientists acquire through the use of empiricism can be said to be objective truth. The physical constants for example. When I said truth I meant in the empirical sense. Not talking about morals. Say for example "water freezes at 0 degrees". That is a truth. An Objective Truth. You cannot say it's only true from my perspective. And it shouldn't be mixed up with metaphysical truths and concepts of justice and other value judgements.
It's interesting that what Chomsky is saying about innate structures is so intuitively simple and observably true, that some people have a hard time grasping it.
They don't want it to be true so they won't see it or entertain it as plausible. They are already militantly committed to their own radical conceptual framework that everything else is false ad hoc.
This is not a rhetorical question but a genuine one: what are the basis of those intuitions and observations that suggest that morality is in some sense contingent upon internal structures of biology, as Chomsky seems to argue? Are there, in the very least, empirically verifiable foundations to hold this view on morality? Not gonna lie, what Chomsky suggests in the video does not render his claim incontrovertible by any standard.
@@ashraykotian1 I think he does make the assumption that moral systems, like all others (visual, language, whatever), are biological. Given this assumption then that is the emperical evidence I suppose, it's self-evident, given the assumption. But I also agree with you that this does not emperically prove that our reason is biological in nature. I am not sure if I agree with this assumption of his. I am catholic so I think morality originates from God. However according to church philosophers, this morality is also innate to us and man can discover it by reason alone, which actually kind of aligns with Chomsky's view. I am not sure where Chomsky's thinking goes beyond this, as in, how did it become innate in the first place? Naturalism would say its origins are purely natural and try to form various theories about that like evolution (which I think are wrong). Religions would obviously say they were put their by God.
@@geofreyr I just don't see how the appeal to biological basis for morality, which at face is entirely reasonable and I'd even say observable, can be used to leap to the conclusion that some objective moral basis exists under it all. Even accepting that we're limited in what morals we can conceive due to our limited compute capacity (genetics and such), one must acknowledge that the biological systems themselves are not fixed. With every birth the genetic source code varies slightly. And it continues to vary slightly until death. So, it follows that the entire "objective basis" for a biological morality is also fluid. And as such, is neither objective nor fixed, but rather a function of some genetic or physical parameters.
I do agree there are constraints on moral selection and choice, and I agree broadly with many elements of the thesis. But I do want to quibble with the word 'fixed'. There's precious little evolutionarily speaking that is truly 'fixed' except for that which is propagated through successive generations (as a purely pragmatic factor, those traits, including moral attitudes, that do not foster propagation are more likely to not be propagated). My great interest is to see what our greater and greater rates of technological and social adaptation will do to things that for millenia have been constrained by evolutionary imperative. How many things that we retained culturally as imperatives will instead be, objectively viewed, superfluous holdovers. If viewed through the lense of innate imperative, what will truly be innate and a constraint, and what will be innate but simply a product of an earlier evolutionary stage where such things were imperative. And how much of our morality will actually be constructed (as all morality so thought truly is), but without any current (as opposed to past) innate imperative?
with the light of belief more then anything. I wonder what he would say today to this statement for moral progress. His belief must be shaken significantly
There’s no progress. Of any kind. The ape is, and will forever remain, just that- an ape. The so- called ‘moral progress’ is just the product of temporarily muting the animal instincts with the material comfort in the relatively affluent West. The Enlightenment goes through the stomach. Take away the take aways, the Facebook, the petrol, in short, scratch a little the varnish of civilisation and see the apes in all their wild ‘splendour’. Capitalism is a relatively comfy slavery (for the middle class which acts as a buffer and means of repression of the lower class including the ‘untouchables’- the poor, the disabled, the elderly). So is communism- a more obvious form of slavery; communism failed as a social experiment because the communist regimes weren’t clever enough to create and buy a middle class large enough to reach critical mass to be effective. You sell yourself on the job market for more or less money. Morality is NOT based on the biology. Animals are amoral. Humans were supposed to be moral- if only they could have become more than animals. In nature, the strongest animal survives, not one with moral qualms which has come to be associated with being psychologically deficient. Do not kill, do not steal, do not lie- these are AGAINST the natural animal impulses. The moral law is definitely not the product of the ape mind. The fact that morality didn’t really catch with human apes is the best proof. You can create the perfect legal systems to enshrine the moral law…what do apes do? Create ways to circumvent the laws. Give them any reason to be truly themselves i.e. unhinged animals and they will wipe their arses with ‘Do not kill’ in exchange for a war medal, redemption of their souls, or just for the pleasure of killing. Throw them a bait in social media and they will gang- up against ‘the adversary’ waiving the bloody flag of the day, barking the bloody slogans of the day, cheering for the bloody influencer of the day. Watch them lynching those who are not like them. What morality? Like capitalism and communism, the entire apekind is a failed experiment and no amount of wishful thinking or nice philosophy will change that.
What I love about Chomsky is how he can be so right about so many things but so stubbornly wrong about so many others. Especially his ideas on objective truth and morality. So much circular reasonin here.
@Sophia G. I believe in objective truths and it is an assumption for the scientific method not that empirical science is the best tool to acquire such truths.
@@thembluetube The closest you'll get to truth in science is a theory. Which is induction. It is not meant to be _absolutely_ universal. It is meant to be the purest form of induction there is. It's like saying asking me the time and i say "10:30" "not absolute enough" "10:30:22" "nope" "10:30±10sec " "not yet" "Here's a probability distribution of the time over the whole clock" "Nooo" "The time is now" "Perfect!"
This is a really good talk by Chomsky. When we label people right wing, left wing, etc. you have to agree that there are other ways of considering issues and in Chomsky's little talk it is considering the issues in terms of their range over time. He lays out that the right concept to consider is progress. He points to the advance of human rights as only moving in one direction and that being away from advocacy of coercive and punitive reactions and toward acceptance of a wider range of non violent human behaviors.
This is absolutely brilliant, mind-expanding analysis. Poetic almost, artistic in word play but dynamic in observation of the boundaries, limitations but expansiveness of human consciousness as interconnected to the parameters of layers of levels of existence that many other beings and entities must also conform to, but fluctuate from within and outwardly into a flux of levels of awareness and "moral relativity" combined.
Chomsky makes three points: (1) The acquisition of moral values presupposes an innate basis for them. (2) Variation in moral systems is within quite narrow limits. (3) There is moral progress. (1) and (2) are incontrovertible, though the limits of (2) are still pretty broad - allowing both for people to seriously debate whether eliminating a bacteria constitutes genocides, to actually advocating human genocide. (3) though doesn't follow from them, and given the increase in wars, and insane conspiracy theories promoting prejudices, the notion that in general we move forward seems questionable.
Agreed. (1) and (2) amount to "humans have the morals that they do because they are human." Which may be true but is a bit hard to get excited about. And (3) is, in Chomsky's words, "not even wrong" because "progress" is a moral term, and one not at all implied by (1) and (2). "Of course there is moral progress because obviously" - Noam Chomsky.
It's interesting that, despite how much Noam Chomsky, Sam Harris, and Jordan Peterson differ politically and religiously, they all concur on this topic, moral relativism. As much as I enjoyed reading Foucault's work in graduate school, today it seems quite obvious to me that his work really creates more heat than light.
I noticed this convergence with Harris here too. The state of play being that morals lie on top of factual statements and factual statements can be disproven seems inarguable. Why did Aztecs practice human sacrifice? Because they believed factually that the world required it to continue existing as it does, and it is ludicrous to think if they had truly ceased to believe that they would have done it with all the same vigour just because they liked it. The primary argument for slavery in 19th century America was that black Africans were factually more suited to it cognitively and behaviourally than anything else they could be doing, and that factual claim being so wrong is why it was immoral.
It is interesting that problems that are addressed as a result of living in times of plenty and stable or that come as a result of technology or inovation is viewed as "progress" in morality as opposed to decadence. When real problems hit society see how long your concept of progress is useful for. Relativism is not meant to be a moral compass it is used to understand another perspective it is a tool. Foucault introduced it as though it was a world view because he wished to disrupt the same as Marx did.
I think there is a huge difference between morality and culture. There's always been the few who think deeply, and truly want to know right action because they want to inflict the least harm on others while providing the greatest possible benefit. And then there is culture an amalgamation of the past the present and the path of least resistance, which is the sphere most people live their lives. It's culture that is subjective not morality. It's easy to say I'm part of this group there for I'm moral, it's harder face your own nature and ask the question am I lying to myself, why do I do what I do?
It is amazing that all the examples of relative morality discussed here are just systems of opression by those in power towards those that are different from them. I agree with Chomsky that we are getting closer to a deeper morality, in the sense that on average we are removing bigotry from the conversation. Honestly, even to define those examples as moral issues is pernicious. And self-defeating for Foucault, since you can identify the common pattern and (i think) universally agree on its nature.
Like, reparations might be a moral issue. Slavery isn't. It's bs rhetoric to avoid talking about reparations is what it is. Taxation of the rich there's your modern moral dilemma. Or how much you owe the countries your external accounts are helping destroy and how you'll make up for it.
If Chomsky is arguing that we have an innate system which allows us to advance in our morality and recent advances such as those regarding gay rights, women's rights and slavery are moral advances then does this not imply that there is a set standard of morality which each person/group/society must reach. Then this would imply that societies where morality is perhaps in contrast to that of say Britain is backwards as they have not yet reached the next level of morality?
+Sarah El-Abdli Sarah I think Chomsky points out the innate system has a narrow range of moral opinion, which differs slightly over time & space. This difference is the result of our environment.
Yeah, I don't personally buy into moral relativism, but I think that he didn't do a very good job of addressing normative relativism. I think that the point he makes in the beginning, that no one actually acts like a normative relativist is valid argument against it, but this follows from the view that moral relativism collapses into moral nihilism, which I happen to hold. When one removes objectivity from the equation, then a key function of morality is removed, the ability to condemn others who don't share our views for immoral behavior (for example condemning Assad for the use of chemical weapons). When there are no grounds for forming moral beliefs, or for criticizing others, then this amounts to moral nihilism, and moral nihilism is not a position that one can hold (if one is human). I think this is partly an issue with the use of evidence on the side of the moral relativists, since they point to variations between cultures as evidence for both normative and descriptive relativism, which is probably why Chomsky deals more with those questions.
I wouldn't necessarily hold Britain as a paradigm of moral advancement, but yeah some societies are clearly backwards. Societies with systemic oppression are going to be more backwards than societies that make an effort to purge systems of oppression.
He essentially says exactly this at the end. But here I think Chomsky would argue that progress is indeed relative as he alludes to earlier when he says the slavers argued that they were more just than the capitalists "and there is some merit to that."
Chomsky doesn't hold up Britain or America as paragons of anything - his whole career has been about blaming them for being dangerously powerful. But they got some things right on these particular issues of morality. I expect he thinks other cultures have got other things right.
9:50 We all may want, not to forget, several of these mentioned moral values as others which were not mentioned have accured in different societies over the centuries as a given and through time were lost again. I think one of our major obligations is not only to gain more freedoms, but to keep and defend those we already have and our ancestors bleeded for. Carving them into the constitution of our countries is not enough, there also should be carved into the duty to punish those who try to take them away. Which in some sense often is, like the phrase "enemies of the state, foreign or domestic". Why was Bush & Co not convicted for taking away and deminishing freedoms in the US? Survialance, Torture and invading countries without reason other then greed and power. This should not have been possible in the first place. I don't know if another different formulation within the constitution could have protected the people from such deeds, but still why the fuck are these sickos still not in jail or even alife(no fan of the death penalty, but hey its the USA ^^)? Is american exceptionalism and hybris standing in your way or are you just well fed and silently acceping that the world is raped by US interests over and over again for the gains of the US people in particular and their allies people in general? I struggle with only making capitalism responsible for all of this, when the people seem to be complacent to a large degree.
where is the full video of this debate? I can't find it and i can't tell when it was from or what venue it was done in or who the speakers are. Someone please reply.
Although I wouldn't consider myself a moral relativist by any standard, I would hazard to make a few observations about the subject. It seems to me, considering moral relativism as a valid moral position has only two logical outcomes: Either, an individual must totally surrender his ability to criticize and evaluate another individual (or culture/ state’s) actions even while bearing witness to all sorts of atrocities and injustices or, he must become comfortable with an extreme form of what we have now; namely, the situation where institutions, influential intellectuals and academics, government bodies and ruling ideologues dictate absolute morality to individuals at the cost of personal freedom, social ostracization and state sanctioned punishment. The former is quite obviously abhorrent to all those who consider evil and heinous acts to be outside the realm of social acceptability. The latter exhibits a more creeping form of social control that manifests itself in the desire of individuals and institutions to route out those among the population who dissent from the prevailing view of morality or any other contentious subject up for debate. Basically, when discussing issues of morality devolves into policing people on campus and on social media and elsewhere; destroying people’s lives and careers over politically incorrect comments and doing something immoral to achieve a ‘moral” objective. What Mr. Foucault focused a lot of intellectual energy on is finding out how power and knowledge interact with each other and how social institutions exert control over a populace with this power. There is no more important a subject to examine along this vein than examining how ruling institutions use competing concepts of morality to control different segments of the population, especially concerning pitting people against one another along racial or ethnic or gender lines, and across borders. It is pretty remarkable that Chomsky is able to flippantly shrug off Foucault’s belief that institutions and government bodies have significant power (“regimes of truth”) and exert major control over scientific (and admittedly by Chomsky, social-scientific) progress of the day. This should be a point that Chomsky automatically agrees with in full, keeping consistent with all of his criticism of U.S. domestic and foreign policy, and of course, related to his total and obvious adherence to (ironically enough) Foucault’s concept of governmentality. I think it is a virtual counter-truism that scientific progress and what is and what is not socially/ scientifically acceptable (they often go hand in hand) mirrors quite closely what past governments have allowed. I suspect Chomsky no longer feels this way now that he is the influential ideologue who gets to exert control over others… In essence, I think Foucault is much more aware of how government and institutions, especially ones that purport to be “neutral and independent of political power” like universities (paraphrasing from the actual Chomsky v Foucault debate) influence our perceptions of morality. Chomsky takes the position of not caring so much what trends have emerged over time and which people or institutions have affected the topic, only what can we define in absolute terms as what is moral. While I would lean more towards finding incorruptible principles of morality, I don't think anything on this earth is incorruptible.
JChambs So Foucault stated that governments and human institutions in general exercise control over what the population finds to be moral? I must say that I find that to be intriguely although it's certainly difficult to wholly accept given Foucault's amoral values
I agree that what comes across in this video is Chomsky's lesser concern with the fact that the wielders of power influence a society's morality and culture. But I think he more or less admits that himself. He says that has making a structural argument against the idea of a complete or total moral relativism. He admits that many of Foucault's viewpoints are true to some extent, but simply "too extreme" for him to accept wholesale. It's this kind of moderate sensibility that is appealing to me. But there is something to be said for the fact that Foucault was more specifically focused on the dynamic between power and morality.
i'm totally on board with your text because that's also how i've always understood Foucault. Governemant/Ruling institution are much more of a defining factor on morality than morality itself. We're not more or less moral than our predecessors who were all for slavery because i do think with an appropriate amount of social engineering by govs, we could go back to accept the same slavery we puke over today as the only way to go.
Once you give up the idea of absolute morals, atrocities and injustices simply cease to exist as a concept. They are just events - without any judgement, since there is nothing to judge them by.
As a social species there have to be rules by which we operate so we don’t totally annihilate each other in the pursuit of selfish means. But like he said the rules can vary across culture and time. I think moral philosophy ultimately comes down to an arbitrary preference. In that sense it is relative. However once a standard is set, then you can measure against the standard objectively. What we ‘ought’ to do depends entirely on where we want to go.
@@rippedtorn2310 Hitler definitely believed in his cause. If you were to ask him, he would say he was doing the “right” thing. We now say that he was evil, causing so much pain and death in the pursuit of a utopia. We in the west had a different vision of the future, and we happened to win that war. In another timeline, who knows what would have happened and what our current moral framework would be. Personally, I grew up in the west and in a Christian culture where these things are seen as evil. I feel them as evil. But I cannot say that they are objectively evil, unless we clarify what we mean by that word.
@dialogos You think in some alternate world/timeline if Hitler had won the war and history was changed then there is a possibility that he would have been moral in his actions? In other words, moral framework depends on who “wins”?
@@jasonru9628 how would you prove it otherwise with so many historical accounts of the contrary being true (colonialism, capitalism itself, etc.). We should take into account chomsky BELIEVES social sistems have some kind of biologically predetermined structure. He has no scientific proof of such a thing being true. What reason is there to believe all social constructs aren't merely contextual?
Asked about the real question of relativism ("progress implies an underlying, innate sense of ... justice, or whether these cultural choices are wholly arbitrary") at 14:14 Chomsky gives an incoherent argument. He says that there "must be a fixed basis" of morality. There may be a biological limit to what moral values are possible, given our limits and capabilities as human organisms. But does our history really show that there is innate moral progress? "slavery, subjugation, repression of homosexuals... were perfectly acceptable... now all regarded as completely unacceptable. .. I think that's evidence ... that somehow, as our own history/culture develops, we penetrate more deeply into our actual, real, cultural/normative values. And we expand the moral sphere in fairly definite ways." Does history really demonstrate this? Slavery was unacceptable before it became acceptable, and then it was reluctantly abolished again. Homosexuality was a non-issue for generations until it was pathologized and prohibited in the Victorian era, and then reluctantly repealed in the present era. Subjugation of women was not such an obvious fact of life in ancient times, when sacred women such as healers and priestesses were venerated and respected -- before being repressed in the Middle Ages and liberated in modern times. Our history does not show some innate moral value that is progressing towards it full realization and revelation on the surface of our actions. Our history shows a cyclical approach to and retreat from the values which Chomsky calls "tolerance," and even in the present day the values of tolerance are neither universal nor necessary for a functional society/culture/moral system. Tolerance is not even a core value of the culture which values tolerance; tolerance is necessarily a response to repression, which actually treats the repressive morals as primary, as the Real Thing which must be resisted so that repressed persons can become included, can become Tolerated. If women were already included in society, if homosexuality had never been demonized, if slavery had never been instated, then it would not be necessary to tolerate free women, homosexuals, or freedmen. They would already be accepted members of normal, mainstream society. So, history does not vindicate the view that tolerance is an essential value of our culture or that we are making continuous progress towards it. History shows that tolerance is only possible in response to repressions which are just as much a part of our social progress and are just as valid as moral values. Praising tolerance is a relativistic truth, and it is a weak value to place at the fore of any moral system, anyway! Disclaimer: I am a tolerant and inclusive person, but tolerance is a weaker position than either acceptance or abhorrence.
i am commenting to this here 2 years old comment just to tell you, that your comment is the best comment I've come upon not just under this particular video but in the comment sections of about 30 other clips of chomsky and foucault and derrida, and there were a lot of comments.
Experience enlightenment. You now have experienced the wellspring from which morality is derived from. It's not arbitrary, but even the experiences vary from person to person. The general notion within the state is the love of humanity, the desire to spread joy and develop oneself in a way to help others, and putting others before yourself. The directions you pull from enlightenment will vary depending on who you are, but the -feeling- of humanity, a love and appreciation for life is resonant within you. However, morality is not the only way of life. It's the best benchmarker we have for intuiting the nature of "good". All has its place in the human drama.
My philosophy professor asked the class to raise hands if we read the 20 pages on moral relativism he assigned. We raised our hands. He then asked us to raise our hands if we believed that “people believed different things” before we read the 20 pages. He said, “you should all be raising your hands. The author just told us in 20 pages that people believe different things, but if you already knew that, you didn’t need to do the reading... she did nothing to prove moral relativism.”
@@mouwersor according to the largest survey of academic philosophers (philpapers survey) large majority of the professional philosophers believe in moral realism (objectivity). and they are also atheists. not religious.
'Our moral-system is tied to our biological-system'. This is incredibly profound; and ABSOLUTELY correct. Realizing this would certainly make understanding most of human behaviors a great-deal easier.
After watching this I have the feeling that Philosophy exists precisely to alert Humanity of misleading thinking practiques such as Chomsky's. Chomsky's positivists arguments can be used precisely for the opposite moral pruposes he claims to have, and I think that was Foucault said in the famous debate.
if you think, as foucault did, that there was a danger in chomsky's sort of thinking, a danger that his arguments could be used in the wrong way, then you are presupposing a notion of moral progress that you minimally do not wish to depart from and especially do not wish to reverse if this is the case then you are, like foucault was, simply confused about whether you even disagree with chomsky in the first place
I'm just chilling around watching philosophy debates and end up watching this video. Then as I look at the members of the panel I'm surprised to see that my grandmother is there to the left, and her companion is the one asking the questions. What a find.
victor gaudu Hey - what's your grandmother's name? And the other panelists, if you don't mind?
Hello, Her name is Diana Jonstone although she can be found with the last name Johnstone as well I believe. She's an american born, French nationalised journalist. The one asking the questions is Jean Bricmont. He's a Belgium Physicist, amongst other things. I do not know the name of the man sitting to the right of Chomsky though.
Thanks for your response - I've previously encountered Bricmont's public work via his contributions to the Sokal affair, and I shall watch out for your grandmother's contributions in the future.
RochesFan She published multiple books that might be of interest to you. Her books focus on the Yougoslavian affairs and the mistakes of the Clinton foreign policy. One title aimed in particular at Hillary Clinton is quite recent : “Queen of Chaos”. Another very recent book would also interest you : “From MAD to madness” this is the memoirs of my great grandfather who worked for the Pentagon and who denounces the nuclear war planning of the US followed by a commentary of my grandmother about the memoirs. It is an extremely recent book and has been very successful in Europe and most particularly in Germany. I don’t know if these subjects interest you but i would say it’s at least interesting to read about the inner workings of the Pentagon.
Thank you all for sharing this information that enriches the watching of this video.
That is the most French accent I’ve ever heard
That's funny! I've always thought the Belgian French sound Frencher than French!
I actually think its Israeli/Hebrew accent, not French.
@@henkjanssen1252 No, Jean Bricmont is Belgian, as I was saying.
@henk Agree... sounds far more Hebrew than French... but i guess that's Flemish :)
Lol....what u just said is so funny that I even doubt you realize how much funny it really is...
Yes this french accent can't possibly get anymore French thah that..... lol
P.s. it's an accent by a jew coming from an Eastern European country
Greetings from Athens greece
Man went to grad school during Alan Turing's day and is still this sharp at his age
He is still wrong however.
Lol ce magnifique accent m’a fait tellement rire
@@erichaynes4049 how is he wrong?
Eric Haynes explain
well, we can said he been trainning his brain a lot for good across all his life...these the results for good exersize..
I don't agree with him on some things (albeit instinctively; I would fail miserably debating him), but I admire that every single word he says is important and relevant to his argument. He's different than any other public intellectual in that way. Chomsky is the most consistent thinker alive I can think of.
Exactly. Sometimes he repeats the same phrases and explanations verbatim. Probably saves him mental space.
Although no longer alive, the writer I learned the most from as a young man was Gerhard Lenski. His book "Power and Privilege" continues to be worth the time to read and study.
@@ellcally508 Yes, he does that. I sent emails to him, he repeated those words and phrases. For him, content and understanding are more important than style.
Well said, however I think that is actually his weakness.
j knowlton i think that wasnt supposed to be directed at me...
His main point is that since humans are biologically restricted, their moral systems are also restricted to a universal spectrum of morals, which therefore does not expand indefinitely.
+Kyle Witzen Does THAT make any sense to you? I mean, of course, what's the point of having a moral system that is based on what we don't know. That, to me, sounds a lot like religion. I thought he was not a religious guy
+Claudio M
Does your post make any sense to you???
I don't think he means we have to know what set of morals we define for ourselves, like a religion or a society would try to. He means that humans have a Relative spectrum of capacities, but one that is definite because it does not extend to all human capacities. One could argue that if mere Free Will were the basis for all actions, morality would mean barely anything, and the spectrum would extend to anything humans were capable of. But I think he refers to moral systems shared by societies because societies can only function within a definite spectrum of moral principles. We can't all go around killing one another or ourselves: a society wouldn't function like that.
Sound reasoning but can any "spectrum" truely be regarded as universal? I mean isn't a spectrum impossible to be regarded in totality hench it is "spectrum"
Joris van Veen it's fun because we are discussing trying to apply logic here, which is universal. I'm sure just basic logic restricts A LOT the range of that moral spectrum. The more logical we're, the better. This postmodernism stuff is just a construction based on nothing. You can literally come up with infinite theories like that one by picking up just some patterns in human behaviour and start imagining shit from it. Postmodernism doesn't provide anything tangible to the World as physics or mathematics do. That's a big hint that suggests it's not real Science.
"It's not even false" - I LOVE IT!
7:25
Im gonna use that now
Chomsky misquotes Pauli. His famous put-down was "You are not even wrong!"
@@BMerker Nope. His actual quote was "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch" which is "That is not only not right; it is not even wrong (or false which is a 1 to 1 translation) " the second part which is the relevant , Chomsky quotes correctly.
@@aggsar4411 this is the funniest thing I have read, I can only wish to have been there when he said that whole thing
A man who thinks and expresses himself in whole coherent sentences and paragraphs ! Bravo Prof Chomsky !
@Brandon Johnson Moral relativism is the biggest killer in the 20th Century.
A human being would not survive if they were a skeptic?
th-cam.com/video/i63_kAw3WmE/w-d-xo.html
@@DanielWieser In the sense that you could not survive as a 'brain in a vat'. Kant too says something similar in The Critique of Pure Reason about scepticism, that you could deny the existence of the world IN THOUGHT but you could not in experience (that can still be called human).
High bar 🥂🍾
He talks in simple language because he isn't hiding anything.
Chomsky is someone I admire because he is not just a critic of prevailing systems. He acknowledges human progress and also offers solutions according to his philosophy
07;38
Solutions that no world leader will even pay attention to, alas. Humankind - definitely the most doomed species ever.
Mr. Chomsky's microphone fashionably matches his sweater!
He's in France ... they would never miss that!
Dustin Kick its in his rider
@@ignatz1967 Haha, that and the bowl of green M&Ms.
Typical Chomsky, such a fashion victim...
Whao, if you get distracted and even write a comment on this, i wonder if you paid attention to the discussion itself!?
I fully share Chomsky's values, but most of his arguments here, albeit intriguing, don't strike me as very strong. When he takes change as evidence for 'a universal moral grammar', his reasoning seems to be based on the idea that this change must be for the better, but that idea itself remains unmotivated. He just assumes progress towards a more correct moral system, but the objective difference in correctness is the very thing that he needs to prove in this discussion.
If we continue the analogy with his linguistic theories - like languages, moral systems vary in space, as well as in time; like languages, children appear to learn different moral systems just as easily. And no linguist claims that one language as a whole at a given point in time is inherently closer to universal grammar than another, or that language change is progress towards perfect alignment with universal grammar. I don't see why that should be claimed about morality.
I think the closest he came to a good argument was in the beginning. You literally can't be a moral relativist in practice, at least not without being a moral nihilist. To have a moral system *is* to consider it to be *the* right moral system. You can't hold the moral view that slaughtering children is bad and yet accept as equally valid the view of some other culture that it is good. It's inevitable that you should consider it evil, seek to discourage everybody else from doing it and otherwise try to prevent it if possible - if you don't, then you do not truly hold that moral view.
It seems to me that ultimately, at the roots of every moral system, you find axioms that are based on feeling and experience, and the latter are subjective. To the extent that the axioms are shared, you can indeed progressively deepen your understanding of their consequences. But when they aren't shared or are differently weighted, rational discussion can't bring consensus about morality. For example, if somebody, as outlined by the person to the right, thinks that the 'survival' of a certain 'culture' (i.e. its preservation in a given state) is a value more important than the happiness and freedom of the individual human beings within it, then I think that it's difficult to prove him wrong with rational arguments - the only thing that I think may be likely to change his mind is further emotional experience.
yes I thought he laid out a fairly
Indeed. I think your last paragraph relates to Hume's guillotine (the is/ought problem), which makes it impossible to make these kinds of comparisons based on purely logical reasoning.
Don't you think our morals are also influenced by the facts we discover in the world? Like if you think it's a fact that seizers are cause by epilepsy you might think of them differently than if you think they are caused by demonic possession. When we know a criminal has a brain tumor we might have a different moral evaluation of responsibility. It could in theory be possible to discover something about the world that would inform us as to whether individual freedom is more important that cultural survival. Just because we don't know everything about ourselves and the world doesn't mean it's not in principal possible to arrive at the "right" moral decisions. Often people's morals change when presented with new information.
In reference to your last paragraph, you might not able to convince the person in question, but you can prove him wrong through demonstrating that his value leads to far more suffering and overrall maladaptivity than yours. The only response you could make then would be, well why is maladaptivity wrong? I'd respond by prompting you to consider what Homo sapien sapiens primates really mean when they say right/wrong; clearly not Good and Evil with caps in the sky, and to consider the purpose of our morality - a function of our brain evolved only for survival and reproduction - so anchored ultimately to survival and cooperation, no?
@@duxliberty7593 No, I completely disagree with the notion that evolutionary adaptiveness is a relevant criterion for right and wrong. The fact that we are shaped by evolution does not in any way mean that we must consciously choose for ourselves the same goals as evolution. We aren't male spiders that impale themselves on the female's fangs. Nor would such an adaptiveness-based 'morality' be the same as what most of us consider morally acceptable. We aren't male lions that eat the cubs of the previous leader of the pride. It isn't true that what humans 'really mean' by right/wrong is evolutionary adaptiveness/maladaptiveness - on the contrary, our various moral systems have always required us to choose completely maladaptive actions such as perform harakiri, die as martyrs for the faith, become celibate and many others.
"The direction is towards more tolerance of variation and more opposition to coercion and control. I think that's a very definite tendency and I think it suggests something pretty strong what the fundamental moral values are"
Actually, that's not true of the West (maybe you're referring to a different culture). We trended toward more freedom and tolerance because of a degree of coercion and control which brought us enough prosperity and high standard of living that we gained the individual power to demand and sustain our freedoms and tolerance. Now we are beginning to reign in our freedoms and tolerance because when you give a population that many degrees of freedom and tolerance of variation, the result becomes highly variable and unpredictable. Therefore, societies always oscillate back and forth between freedom and coercion on many different parameters. The hope is that we are balanced somewhere in the middle.
@@beanlegume9965 the problem is not freedom and tolerance itself.
The problem lies in the divorce of freedom and accountability, as well as the tolerance to behaviors that destroys tolerance.
It's probably related to clean and safe environment. As soon as a major disaster hits people instantly forget about all of the tolerance and freedom of individuals
@@Bogdanko93 urgent survival is a more basic goal than freedom, which is the next goal from which later security and structure can be forged.
@@Bogdanko93 that all stands, but does one excludes another? I don't believe that any major environment agreement would be possible in the war time. Generally speaking, we based the most of our production sector on destroying the environments, it isn't very promising position for society since we depend largely on both of these,hopefully we will get much smarter.
Chomsky is a reminder to me how hard it is to actually remain logically consistent and exercise dry truth. Completely negate any flights of fancy from our thought.
We're all misguided by each other
He's just wrong on this issue.
@@Camcolito why don't you show us?
@@shengloongtan229 His arguments are a version of the naturalistic fallacy and he's not addressing the issue.
@@Camcolito if you have any knowledge about cognitive function and behavior and also in history and current trends, and how we overthrow suppression, oppression for a more free and tolerable society, only you'll know what he's saying. Only books you read are the bibles??
there is so much tension among the panelists! noam is super chill..
That's because he's destroying their idiotic ideology with facts and one thing that Post Modernists hate, it's facts. They know with Chomsky they can't use their usual polysyllabic slieght of hand because he'll ruin them, so they just get frustrated. The woman particularly was livid.
@@derekrushe The guy on the right also wasn't bad, nearly hyperventilating and attempting interruptions when he started to question again near the end of the video. The canonical reaction of someone not too smart that sees their "deeply held beliefs" contested.
@@derekrushe fakts n logik
He is too old to care about it. Its Like thinking about what do to in an endurance race (his life) when its already ending. The results are already there, you cant change your position, theres nothing to do, Just keep racing.
I had correspondence with his friend Finkelstein. Finkelstein explained to me: " confidence in your knowledge" . That is what gives you that chill
Chomsky needs to download himself into an artificial body and become the curator to a museum dedicated to himself and his transition from human into digital entity. Right?
Funded by Disney. Yeah...
yes , but out of respect for the man will not hit the like button till he is actually deceased! : )
and curator for humanity
Ivan Cannon yeah
Ivan Cannon Or someone can do it for him using dialog from his many many recorded discussions, but that someone should get his written approval for this soon before he leaves the planet. ;)
I want a pillow made out of chomsky's voice
So, a scratchy woollen couch cushion? 😄
When you're so logically sound even the camera started nodding
😂😂😂😂😂
This is the best joke so far.
Glad someone pointed out this is a joke. His logic is ... nonexistent.
@@AmadeusD
I'm actually funny unlike your mom
@@shengloongtan229 obviously not
Long live Prof Chomsky and his legacy !!! براك الله في حضرتك
many of Chomsky's scientific discoveries and observation expose philosophical extremes. He seems so pragmatic, practical, and measured scientifically. This is a gem of a presentation and helped me understand that "morality" can have (or likely does have) a scientifically measurable foundation. I often wondered why he said Foucault was the most amoral person he has ever met, and now I understand
It is difficult to come to grips with Butler's ideas, because it is difficult to figure out what they are. Butler is a very smart person. In public discussions, she proves that she can speak clearly and has a quick grasp of what is said to her. Her written style, however, is ponderous and obscure. It is dense with allusions to other theorists, drawn from a wide range of different theoretical traditions. In addition to Foucault, and to a more recent focus on Freud, Butler's work relies heavily on the thought of Louis Althusser, the French lesbian theorist Monique Wittig, the American anthropologist Gayle Rubin, Jacques Lacan, J.L. Austin, and the American philosopher of language Saul Kripke. These figures do not all agree with one another, to say the least; so an initial problem in reading Butler is that one is bewildered to find her arguments buttressed by appeal to so many contradictory concepts and doctrines, usually without any account of how the apparent contradictions will be resolved.
he seems to reject abstract philosophising in favour of, as you've noted, a far more pragmatic view on the utility of normative moral & ethical philosophy. I think that probably stems from his studies in language, giving him keen insight into the significance of intersubjective meaning, which is highly relevant when discussing the formulation and communication of moral ideals.
He has never made any scientific discoveries lol
@@Laocoon283 You should read his work on the Theory of Language. It is widely recognized as one of the most important achievements in my field, psychology.
@@MiguelCisnerosSaucedo And what part of that theory has any scientific backing? What data is he using to support his argument lol? None. It's literally just an idea that he has without any explicit evidence to support it. It's called philosophy because it lacks the merits to be considered science.
wow! the moral responsibility towards ones self and how it develops as applied to others- is one of the best of Dr. Chomsky's many best's.
What a comfortable listen. 20 minutes seems like 20 seconds.
@@jimbodriver1015 many
@@thestone7747 What does it mean for the agency of a subject to presuppose its own subordination? Is the act of presupposing the same as the act of reinstating, or is there a discontinuity between the power presupposed and the power reinstated? Consider that in the very act by which the subject reproduces the conditions of its own subordination, the subject exemplifies a temporally based vulnerability that belongs to those conditions, specifically, to the exigencies of their renewal.
Came here from a Jordan Peterson video. The difference is night and day.
@@RadMLM Peterson is a lot of filler for sure.
After his debate with Matt Dillahunty I can tell that Jordan Peterson doesn’t understand how morality functions
@@precisi0n86 😂😂😂 Peterson fanatic confirmed. It's ironical that the situation is exactly reversed.
I've never really watched Peterson but Chomsky says lots of intellectual dishonest and dismissive things. He is a very smart guy and I enjoy listening to him but if the pompous liberals that listen to him had actually read a true philosopher, they would realize his work is not very difficult to understand
I think it's namely a difference of specialization. Jordan Peterson, despite how he may project himself, is less of a philosopher and more of a psychologist. He has a much more nuanced view of philosophy due to his profession I think.
The Catholic speaker may seems like not win in this round of academic assembly，But the humble and beautiful behavior of filling up the cap for Chomsky has won my heart.
Too many people sweep too many incongruous things under the label of postmodernism. Unless you've read the majority of the French philosophers from this era, you'd be tempted to think that this was a doctrine, and a homogenous one at that. Nothing could be further from the truth. There were many different and conflicting positions during the 70s and 80s among french philosophers, and in fact none of them ever called themselves "postmodern" thinkers. This is a label that was bestowed on them by American academic circles, on the basis that the concept of post-modernity was frequently cited (among others) in those days. It's impossible to conflate the hallucinatory discourse of Lacan and Derrida, with that of Deleuze and Lyotard, for instance (and I read them in French, my native tongue). Lacan was a scam artist living off his impersonation of psychoanalytical discourse and amazing ability to improvise incoherent discourse in front of a mesmerized student audience. Derrida was somewhat similar but slightly more coherent while not offering a particularly potent set of ideas. At the opposite, Deleuze was highly coherent and we owe him among other things powerful concepts such as the rhizome, in place of the antique concepts of hierarchy and arborescence. In parallel, Lyotard's admirable and visionary essay, The Postmodern Condition, predicted back in the mid-70s everything that we witness today with social media, knowledge databases and the collapse of traditional discourse. A must read. There's not a shred of what's come to plague US academia in these works: so-called "cultural studies", gender studies, identity politics and so forth. It would be a fallacy to claim otherwise. These are anglo-saxon extrapolations stemming from a gross misreading of many of these philosophers' various intents.
Phil Pan the way it's used on line by alt right is pretty much a boogey man term. It's coupled with Marxism to sound even scarier. It's a 4channic way to misuse language.
Agree with you! People nowadays prefer to hearing from left-wing intellectuals like Chomsky than to reading actual "postmodern" works. And about the 1971 debate between Chomsky & Foucault, I would say that Chomsky was as idealistic as he is now.
And the funny thing is that most philosophers who were "postmodern" discarded their initial Marxism, whereas orthodox Marxists and leftists (like Chomsky) are militantly against "postmodernism", and specifically the critique of objectivity.
Chomsky showed Foucault's "ideas" to be a waste of time.
@Joe Duke I'm sorry mate, but anybody who bases their understanding of the world upon Wikipedia articles is severely lacking in intellectual rigour
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 📚 Noam Chomsky discusses moral relativism and Michel Foucault's views.
01:21 🌍 Moral relativism exists in philosophy but not in ordinary life; it encompasses a broad spectrum.
04:11 🤔 Extreme moral relativism that claims values can range indefinitely is incoherent; it implies the existence of universal values.
10:58 🗣️ Moral disagreements can be debated and often resolved through reasoned discourse.
16:11 🌐 Over time, there is evidence of moral progress and a broadening of moral values towards greater tolerance and opposition to coercion.
I love Noam Chomsky. If only there were more like him. Keep chugging along old man we still need you .
Neh, pretty sure he might end up to have Died Suddenly fairly soon too.
@@axs-xq7cq :( we shall appreciate him more
I think the other panelists are actually grasping at good points and valid criticisms of Chomsky's argument, but they let themselves get all worked up and flustered for some reason and it totally undermines the arguments they're trying to make.
Thank you Professor Chomsky.
Chomsky applies a very similar framework, as to what underpins moral acquisition, as he applied to language acquisition. Compelling argument.
I admire Chomsky's optimism and wish I'd share it.
Yeah, post modern condition sucks
He’s right, moral relativism or subjectivism is entirely incoherent.
Toothfairism makes you happier 😇☺☺☺
Thanks for posting! Really good stuff. Do you know on what date this discussion took place?
+lhhs152 2011, for anyone else wondering the same thing.
+lhhs152 March 2011
1946.
@jaye see: it can't be 1946 because Chomsky looks about 60-70 in the video. That would put him at 130-140 yrs today (he's still around). Now that is very unlikely.
@kvrk2000 I would have gone with a much more daft response and said:
It can't be 1946 because the video is in color. We know from footage that the world in 1946 was almost entirely black and white. Occasionally the world had color around that time because we have some footage of a colored world back then, but those were extremely rare occurrences. Therefore, the discussion could possibly have taken place in the mid-50s but more likely in the late 60s or early 70s.
But the style of clothing does give me pause. And who allowed that housewife to have microphone, and why is she talking?!!
Ah TH-cam, the place where idiots shine in their equal opportunity.
I agree with David Hume on the subject, that our moral values and ethical systems are rooted in our sentiments. The universe in and of itself is amoral; however, human society must have moral and ethical systems to be a cohesive group. These systems vary from machine to machine (to borrow a term from Deleuze) based on the rhizomes that connect them. It is each of our own responsibilities as individuals and more broadly social groups to develop consistent ethical systems predicated on a set of base values that align with our sentiments.
Very similar to Spinoza as well. (I'm influenced by Spinoza/Deleuze).
Sounds easy enough. Now try to let everyone wholeheartedly agree to that set of base values. There are many, many schools of ethics. Some even joke that there is always one that supports the outcome you desire. And none of them have been proven consistent. There has always been some smart philosopher who found a particular case that was consistent with that particular ethical system, but completely incompatible with what is generally accepted.
I just love him. Not only for his stance at advocacy on things, but the way he explains things. While some of the things post-modernists go into are definitely intriguing, it ends up, getting pretty woolly and obscure pretty quickly, and then the defence is, well, that’s because you don’t understand it, because of all these obscure things that are happening in your brain, which are the very things you can’t understand. That may be true, but it also might just be a convenient way to stop the conversation
Thanks for posting
Does anyone know where I could find the full interview of this forum?
I get the sense that Chomsky is invalidating the philosophical careers of these other panelists.
:) you think?
As far as I know, the two guys with Chomsky, Jean Bricmont and Normand Baillargeon are part of "the Chomsky left". I think they are more vocal than him on the dangers of postmodernism, "the new left". Jean Bricmont might have wanted Chomsky's idea on it.
I get the sense that Ch is animalising humans and humanizing animals.
philosophy is all about invalidating the careers of other philosophers, that's what Hume and DesCartes were known for
How?
This whole thing completely misses the real objection to moral relativism: you can't jump from there being widespread disagreement to there being no correct answer. Chomsky here is just saying "well the disagreement really isn't that wide, it's bounded", but that's beside the point. There very well could be unlimited disagreement (there isn't, Chomsky's right about that, but we can suppose that there were), and that would say nothing at all about whether any of those many positions different people held, or some other position nobody holds, is the correct or incorrect one.
Agreement is not the same thing as truth, and disagreement (however wide or narrow) says absolutely nothing about whether or not there is a truth to the matter. The truth could be a position that nobody presently holds. Consider, for a different example, the true theory of physics that unites our quantum and relativistic models. Nobody knows what that is, and opinions on what it might be vary, within limits but still, they vary. But nobody with half a brain takes that to mean that there is no truth of the matter to be found. Just that the question of what that truth is has not yet been adequately settled.
Excellent point! But I don't think Chomsky would actually say that progress is the same as truth. Truth is itself a concept. Also, there always remains the possibility that moral progress be followed by degradation if, for example, extreme circumstances occur on the environmental level and consequently on the economic and social level), to give a very concrete example. Chomsky has been always a freedom fighter, to give another example, yet he does not have a clear ideological truth. He observes, studies, and expresses his views.
A very fair point.
The problem isn't that we disagree on the answer, but that there is an answer to be had. The problem is that we disagree on what it would mean know the answer at all. What would count as evidence, explanation, or knowledge of the answer. This is not the same as disagreements in the natural sciences (although i think even in physics this is not so clear).
Moral relativism may be interpreted as a claim about bounded infinity. While the idea that knowing the bounds could anchor the social order is an optimistic one, the bounds can be so general and open ended as to leave the field of morality open for infinitely many conflicts that are irresolvable in any absolute way.
Chomsky had been a great linguist, but for the rest is a shitty and simplistic thinker. Very overrated.
This is the most optimist speech that I've heard since so long.
dont worry there is truth somewhere and it will help the sapiens that wield it
@@lesolstice_3465 Feminist thinkers of the new symbolic type would appear to believe that the way to do feminist politics is to use words in a subversive way, in academic publications of lofty obscurity and disdainful abstractness. These symbolic gestures, it is believed, are themselves a form of political resistance; and so one need not engage with messy things such as legislatures and movements in order to act daringly. The new feminism, moreover, instructs its members that there is little room for large-scale social change, and maybe no room at all. We are all, more or less, prisoners of the structures of power that have defined our identity as women; we can never change those structures in a large-scale way, and we can never escape from them. All that we can hope to do is to find spaces within the structures of power in which to parody them, to poke fun at them, to transgress them in speech. And so symbolic verbal politics, in addition to being offered as a type of real politics, is held to be the only politics that is really possible.
These developments owe much to the recent prominence of French postmodernist thought. Many young feminists, whatever their concrete affiliations with this or that French thinker, have been influenced by the extremely French idea that the intellectual does politics by speaking seditiously, and that this is a significant type of political action. Many have also derived from the writings of Michel Foucault (rightly or wrongly) the fatalistic idea that we are prisoners of an all-enveloping structure of power, and that real-life reform movements usually end up serving power in new and insidious ways. Such feminists therefore find comfort in the idea that the subversive use of words is still available to feminist intellectuals. Deprived of the hope of larger or more lasting changes, we can still perform our resistance by the reworking of verbal categories, and thus, at the margins, of the selves who are constituted by them.
@@omalone1169 Yes indeed this is a trap every generation of intellectuals have fallen into(obviously just a portion of it). The context and actual application might be different. But I believe the underlying cause remains the same. The inability to differentiate the constructs of the mind, from the actual things they ere made to represent.
@@klaussone 'every generation of intellectuals'. How you philosophy majors speak to anyone outside a classroom is out there to me
@@Emileave You might want to elaborate, I have no idea what value you are trying to bring to the conversation.
My line of thinking is similar to Chomsky, namely through Jungian ideas (and Bastian) that there is a universality of behavior patterns and cognitive functions etc. but I have no problem admitting that this is an abstraction.
Chomsky misses Foucault's point entirely. I don't think that Foucault was a moral relativist. I think Foucault's main interest was how regimes of power act upon the individual and that a priori abstractions of human nature were often inaccurate because they are conflated with the structural manifestations. This happens all the time.
As Foucault said, "we don't know what our natures are." Perhaps a more cutting response by Chomsky to Foucault would have been, "yes true, but we know what our natures aren't."
But Foucault has a point that is important to grasp. Foucault has a critique similar to that of Nietzsche's critique of Christianity and similar to Freud's idea of the superego.
Namely that the institution of Christianity became a structural morality which conditioned the individual while considering itself universal.
So why wouldn't other regimes of power consider themselves universal and then condition a morality which the participants naively consider "the natural order of things" when it's not.
Christianity universalized itself but was not universal. Humanism, Science etc. is not necessarily an escape from this conditioning effect on the individual and collectively. The notion of universality has a blind spot.
Take Foucault's elaboration of homosexuality. The gay movement at the time of Foucault naively pointed to Ancient Greece as a time when it was socially acceptable to be gay. Foucault pointed out that the modern idea of "gay" was not at all like the homosexuality of Ancient Greece. The Ancient Greeks saw effeminacy as shameful, saw being penetrated by a man as adolescent and feminine and shameful for an adult male, and marriage to woman was obligatory.
What the gay movement was doing was romanticizing and overly universalizing and was completely blind by their romantic musing.
Chomsky, here, even uses the phrase "the oppression of homosexuals" as if homosexuality is the ontological essence of certain human beings, which is a common modern idea, but the Ancient Greeks didn't believe that. "The homosexual" is a western structural idea.
And if you look at another analogous structure like Native American two spirit, also romanticized by LGBT activists, it was structured radically differently. Male born Two spirits for example were not allowed to marry each other they married normative males. A completely different structural phenomenon. So were the normative males the two spirits married gay or homosexual. The native Americans would not have this idea.
Our notions of human nature is always conflated and blurred with specific structural cultural manifestations. And is specifically because our notions of human nature are often abstract potentialities.
And this is not trivial.
Has there not been wars waged because a culture understood God differently? We can wage war on other cultures who understand human nature differently and we do.
We can also try to "liberate" another culture which is really imposing our structure onto another culture.
I believe that the psyche is as Chomsky describes but overconfidence in our notions of universality is arrogant and has been used before as an excuse for violence.
Thanks for the infotmative post. But if morals are really relative, on which grounds do we condemn slavery and genocide. A nazi could easily say its ok in his moral framework to commit genocide. And he could also accuse you of imposing your liberal values upon him. If you stop him you would be imposing your values. If you don't you would allow genocide.
@@freandwhickquest Here in America we have a president who tries to invalidate the concept of truth; in fact, he just lost an election and is trying to say he actually won it. Is he just imposing his values on the people of America, or is actually a lying POS trying to subvert democratic institutions?
@@JeffRebornNow in an era when the right wing tries the invalidate the concept of truth, left wing should defend rationalism, justice, openess, human rights and critical thinking. Post truth is becoming a right wing tactic. This is the reason why, while i still respect foucault, i find chomsky much accurate in his defence of the pursuit of reality.
@@freandwhickquest I agree. I think the cultural relativists cut their own throats making truth merely the imposition of a regime of power. I thought they were wrong 30 years ago when I was in graduate school and reading Foucault and learning all this shit. The humanities professors -- the tenured radicals -- were so hopped up on attacking Western Civ. for its imperialism that they were willing to downgrade (or make completely relative) all of Western Civ.'s cultural acquisitions, including logical reasoning and the scientific method.
@@JeffRebornNow it feels to me that that extreme versions of relativism started to lose power even in acedemia. (Yes they still seem vocal because they are anxious) In the earliest days of postmodernism, concepts like truth and morality was being used by the conservative establishment to control the power discourse. In order to allow the percieved "immoral" modes of behaviors, to bypass the christian dogmatism, the existence of morality started to be denied.(they went to far) This was actually a tactic. Some professors etc. took the concept seriously. Over time the left itself became the dominant culture. Now it is slowy going to leave relativism just believe me. This extreme relativist wave is almost about to reach its peak. New paradigm will not be the same as the ancient one, it will balance the relativism with rationalism.
I agree with Chomsky for sure. I just want to inform everybody that John Dewey, Charles S. Peirce and William James were saying the same thing not to long ago. Chomsky comes from a great American tradition!
Just a note to highlight that John Dewey strongly embraced the solutions to our societal problems contained in the writings of Henry George.
Chomsky has certainly been influenced by the ideas of John Dewey. And as a piece of trivia: up until high school, Chomsky even went to a Deweyite school.
This is an interesting and thought provoking talk, as always. I like to think that cultures that are still reppressive in some or many ways are capable of reflecting and changing. Sadly, to me, going through excrutiating pain and loss is the way we do it...We learn from loss and crises. Actually, I hope that we learn from loss and crises because too often i see history repeating, as some of us fail to learn.
he balances on both magical thinking and naturalistic bias so elegantly
They postmodernists dont believe in truth so what are they attempting to convey? The school is foundationally contradictory and incoherent .
TH-cam has an uncanny way of addressing topics I was just thinking about. I have long held the view that if I understood other cultures, I would embrace them. Although I have found this to be true in general, it now seems to be simplistic.
11:10 my favourite argument there. Own or rent them
@@omalone1169 I used to sound so naieve. I did not have many friends of other cultures, as I had recently moved to Canada. I would not say such a thing now.
the fixed basis for morality is in my view: human ability to empathize, and human selfishness in the absolutest form, starting from the genes and ending in everyday behavior and thought. if you combine the ability to see in select others yourself, those you can empathize with enough, and the innate selfishness you see i think the whole spectrum of morality in any of its forms.
this theory i started by thinking about an old saying thats extremely common, that goes by: would you like this done to you?
or treat others as you would want them to treat you.
I personally find a problem in the view of ''Seeing in others, yourself'' or ''To put yourself in someone else's shoes''. This is just a self projection and one of the worst kinds of Anthropomorphisms. We see it time and time again in the case of various Animal activists, Climate activists, Vegans, Vegetarians etc. This projecting of ourselves, our capacity of mind and our conscious experience upon things which are not us and do not have our Quantitative capacities (Very important to not mean Qualitative). I could ''put my self in someone else's shoes'' but that wouldn't solve anything for that person or animal (Or me) who I'm apparently attempting to ''Empathise'' with. Because I would react to the situation as I would react to it, as only I could/can, with my capacities, experiences, emotions etc which are not the same as the person who's shoes and situation I am projecting myself onto. I am only me and not them and them are only them and not me. The problem is that I would react to the situation how I would react to it and want to react to it which would likely be different from that person. People state that one should put themselves in the ''shoes'' of animals, so we shouldn't ''Harm them'', but the problem is, is that I'm still, thinking/experiencing/feeling like a human animal with this, I'm not experiencing anything of the ''Pig'' mind/conscious experience. I'm not experiencing the life or nature of a ''Pig'', I'm doing nothing of the sort except just in a state of imaginative illusion. Its just an Anthropomorphic projection.
This, I feel, is the same outcome for the other maxim ''Treat others as you would want to be treated''. This maxim would have to apply all the time, I would have to treat all others as if (Effectively) they were me. The problem is, is that what is ''good'' for me is ''bad'' for someone else and could also be ''Indifferent'' to someone else further still (As Spinoza remarks). So, following the maxim, I would not attack anybody because I would not be attacked, but that only extends as far as me and my actions in reality, for I am only this singularity. If somebody else attacks me, I will defend myself, for I do not want to be destroyed, but If I'm following the maxim (Of treating people as I would want to be treated, and ultimately projecting myself upon everyone as if they were me), I surely should not defend myself?, for if I was the one attacking, I would not want somebody to defend themselves against me as that would impede my attack and goal of overpowering you (for whatever reason), but that would just be absurd on my part and the maxim ultimately becomes incoherent projection.
The maxim only makes sense in a case of Moral Relativism. How I want to be treated is ultimately different from how somebody else wants to be treated. There is no fixed platonic objective moral standard pervading above us to which we should strive to adhere to.
Every argument or point of view, no matter what it is, always leaves out something. That's why there is always room for a counter-argument -- ad infinitum.
Thank you, maitre.
We have been progressing toward “more tolerance of diversity and more opposition to coercion and control.”
Feeling safer and as such valuing freedom and creativity more than safety. Good for us!
are u trying to say that coercion and control equate to greater safety? because i would really like to know how u justify that
She's saying that as we become more tolerant of diversity, we're less afraid of people that look and speak differently from us.
We're not as frightened of our differences, we feel safer.
Hence we don't need oppressive structures (racial segregation, subjugation of women) to protect some idea of "safety" (which more often than not manifests as fear of some "other").
@@Rabidmonkey73 ahhhhhh i see. thank you for clarifying!
We have not.
I get the problems you get with Foucault and similar theorists. And I also feel like there‘s some higher absolutes that are formed above the cultural level. However, I think that it‘s not a psychological/ genetic thing as Chomsky proposes (I‘m not an expert here, but that‘s what his argument seems like to me.) To the contrary, I think that it‘s the fact of plurality - the fact that we live with other living beings and our lives are related to them - that makes us form absolutes in the form of morals like justice or equality. That‘s why people from all kinds of different times and cultures come up with different ideas: they all live together with others, and they grow close to them, and they become dependent on them, and they aim to survive living with them. I don‘t know if that makes me a relativist or an absolutist or whatever you would call the opposite, but I think it‘s as simple as that.
Well you're just saying it is this because it is this. We all know that our lives are related to other living beings in some sense. But wouldn't you say that's nature? or that's because of our nature? or in other words biology? I don't like the latter term but it's basically the other face of the same coin. I think we have innate disposition to view intrinsic value in each other. This is my view because of my religion, Islam. Now, anyone can say I'm an absolutist but at least I'm coherent as I think Noam Chomsky would put it.
It's both. You can't learn anything without an algorithm to facilitate that learning. So, if a child derives moral values by observing others, it must be born with algorithms that facilitate it. That analyze the data (observations) and build appropriate structures in its brain. Of course, when a child is born, it's still "being built," the facility might not be ready, but it's internal. A child born without any "programming" would never learn anything. It must be something based in biology, something entirely internal. If you get something, it can't come out of nothing.
That's what Chomsky is talking about (that internal structure which makes the leap possible). What you're talking about are those scattered data points that he talks about as well. You need both. Data and an algorithm. Food and process. What Chomsky argues, I believe, is that the algorithm largely shapes the outcome because there are many voids to fill between individual data points. I guess you could imagine it like a curve fit. Algorithm is the curve. And you manipulate that curve to fit your observations. Or more precisely, algorithm would describe the process of curve fitting. But in order to do that, it must internally work with a curve or set of curves.
Take homosexuality. The pivotal point was the realization that sexual orientation is not your choice. And that was a scientific discovery. Actually, the underlying research, as far as I know, was military - because some young men tried to avoid service by claiming to be homosexual. A device was created for measuring sexual arousal. What they proved was that homosexuality actually exists, that there is such a thing as sexual orientation. It's not just a decadent behaviour you choose to engage in or disease you can cure. And if it's outside of their control, it's wrong to punish them for it. So, our understanding of human nature evolved and as a result application of our moral code evolved. But that discovery in itself didn't prove that it's not a disorder and that it should be tolerated. There was a shift probably related to what I wrote (not in their control => wrong to punish) - their behaviour causes us no direct harm and we started seeing them as victims (of nature's bad joke). You might think this process was right and I'm not saying it wasn't, but try applying the same logic to pedophiles. It probably won't go down well. Yet they are just as incapable of influencing their preference. Personally, I never saw any point in the persecution of homosexuals exactly because they cause me no harm but that was related to the general attitude of our prevailing religions towards sex (it serves to procreate and anything else is wrong). Sodomy (essentially, you could say sex for pleasure) was seen as a choice (not the urge but you acting on it). So, the change in religious attitudes was a precursor. Without it, we wouldn't make the shift. We could still choose to condemn them and burn them at the stake for our enjoyment (indeed, in places like Bruges, people were burned at a stake for their sexual activities). And remember, we're talking about a "crime" that leaves practically no evidence. They would simply torture you until you confessed. Of course, if you were a respectable citizen, you were far less likely to suffer that fate as substantial evidence would be needed to touch you.
In general, I think there is the question of undesirability of certain attributes and how we treat people who possess them. On one hand, you've got people who believe that some things are undesirable and they go out to eradicate those people to get rid of it, to stop it from spreading. On the other hand, you've got people who say anything goes, there is no such thing as undesirable, everything is natural, human, etc. Personally, I'm in the middle. I do believe that some things are undesirable or downright inferior, but I don't want to be cruel to the people. Isn't it bad enough that they suffer from whatever it is they suffer from? In my eyes, it really comes down to evolution and the unpleasant fact that for evolution to happen, someone has to die or not reproduce. And I have a feeling that without this continuous trimming, we're going to deteriorate and degenerate as a species. Which I find undesirable. It looks like entropy to me. Yet I wouldn't want the power and responsibility for choosing what is superior, what is right. Because one way forward is to use genetic engineering to fix problems as needed. So, even people with defects could reproduce, we could just fix those problems in their children. I'm not sure we should have that power. I don't think we have evolved far enough. I think our tools are further than our minds. It's kind of like giving nuclear weapons to children. But what is the alternative? Let the weak die? Sterilize them? That probably doesn't sound very appealing.
The only truth I have discovered philosophically true from the 21st century is to find people that like for who you are- and the better you know who you are, the more rewarding life is 🥂🍾 initially I constructed myself as the best person I could conceive of being. Then I accepted the person I became.
"In discussing human affairs you don't have proofs, we don't understand enough" (15:51) A good metric for discussing human affairs in a sensible manner is the degree to which we relate to others, the Otherness Quotient of the individual, the group, the society, the culture. In high crime neighborhoods the "other" has no value except with a few individuals.
Although he's dodged talking about transgenderism, from this comment, it is clear what Chomsky's stance on it is now. Thank you for making this clip.
I love watching Noam destroy questions almost from the off, my favourite is when he replies 'there isn't even a debate anymore' or 'it's quite the norm across the industry/field/spectrum' etc , it's a good style and he's being doing it all his career
Those phrases hardly “destroy” questions. By saying there isn’t a debate anymore, either the issues must have been reconciled or it’s admitting concession. Otherwise it’s just declaring “I win” and copping out. They’re parlor tricks.
@@-dash if you bring a point that is not even debated or, in other words, is factually wrong then it is good to be reminded that it is so otherwise people will think that your assumption is valid and common. Where in reality it's no longer a matter of debate that it is wrong. So I think it's fair. That doesn't mean he won't entertain the idea but that he will do so only on that basis. At the end of the day if something isn't commonly held to be true and you're using it as a precursor for bigger argument you're making a bigger claim than you can support. Question your foundations first.
@@j.r.r.tolkien8724 there isnt even a debate anymore, that you are completely wrong. I won’t elaborate, just know that consensus has been reached, and I win, and you lost.
An admirable individual.
To know philosophy and language better , we should know ( what life is ? ).:
< life is , to find self surrounded and connected consciously >
this definition may solve many dark sids of language and philosophy .
There is a masterclass on Systems Theory within the framework of Chomsky's logic for his argument here. There is (what I feel is) a logical fallacy of non-systematized systems in question. By predicating his assertion on analogs and anecdotes of human biology, he's arriving at a conclusion of predicative sub-systems (a set of meta-principles that govern relative principles and the variations of those principles). This falls apart if biology/physics doesn't serve as the primary driving mechanism of morality generation. Practically speaking, Chomsky's probably right from a sociobiological perspective and wrong from a purely biological perspective.
One only needs to think of a simple hypothetical experiment to test this: assess the gradual moral changes of a particular human society that has been isolated from every culture here on Earth for the entirety of their history, with no apriori exposure to any citizen's mind. This could very well be a possibility in the future with further space colonization. Chomsky's assertion in this scenario would still be that this society would indeed develop through similar (if not exactly the same) meta-moral changes over the course of its existence; however, I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe this would actually be the outcome. Too many exterior factors influence our current understanding of psychology and sociology. If this isolated version of humanity's environment had an intellectual stimulus that promoted something radically different from any form of moral analog on Earth, would they still find themselves on a similar track to their Earth analogs after enough time passed? I don't think so personally, unless it is so deeply inherently tied to our biological frameworks of hormone control, sensory experiences, and bodily regulation.
A side note: humanity's broad thought projects (aka most of philosophy) are limited by its contextual precedents in both biological (neurological structures) and existential situatedness (place and time in the universe). We're damned to never find truth because of our tie to our biology. Such is the way it goes.
Humans are not just biological systems but a stack of systems built on top of a base innate biological structure. Humans living in an isolated, cutthroat environment like medieval northern Europe for example will have a very limited moral sphere.
But in order for societies to scale up there has to be an increase in reciprocity between people of different groups, as it has been proven both in game theory and empirical economics that the long term mutual benefits of cooperation and specialization are greater than those of egoistic behavior, both on individual and group level.
People usually say humans are social animals, and that is the foundation of our power. When a society reaches significant scale and prosperity it is thus quite probable that moral concern and reciprocity are extended to more groups like slaves, homosexuals etc. like mentioned in the video. The only society I could think of where this wouldn't be true is one where power is more disconnected from social cooperation, like the ruling class using military robots to control the society instead of other humans. That is an entrenchment of power which is completely resistant to revolution.
My point is if you look at it from a big enough perspective I think biological and social perspectives on morality converge.
Respect to Alan Turing an amazing human
We should have statues of him everywhere
Most underrated scientist ever.
The view: you adopt morals from observing your culture, AKA the set of behaviors you observe from those around you, making moral values universal in some regard.
Despite what extremists believe, moral disagreements can be debated and you don't have to scream at each other.
19:43 The direction is towards more tolerance and variation and more opposition to coercion and control.
It doesn’t mean we tolerate everything. We have to discern. Don’t want false equivalence.
Only real problem with what Chomsky said was the rental car analogy. You take care of the rental car because if you don't you will be fucked by the business and the law.
Matthew Frazier well, partly, but presumably even if you knew you wouldn't be legally punished for damaging it, you would still feel that you owed it to the real owner not to damage his property as far as possible.
I think, from what Chomsky is saying in this interview and others, that he would agree that there is nothing transcendantale moral. Rather morality is a consequence of the physical nature of humans and their history. If it is true that Foucault believed that there are unlimited moral frameworks it must be under the premise that any number of histories with any number of sapient being are creating these moral systems.
For instance surely Foucault would not deny ought implies can, it cannot be immoral for a human not to fly like superman because we cannot fly like superman . Therefore some limits must exist on possible moral frameworks. I think rather that the takeaway is that morality is not innate it is a social system created by interaction of humans with other humans. There may be an innate system promoting the creation and preservation of people groups, but this system depends on are work as moral agents to be defined.
Absolute relativism is absurd on the face of it. But it allows us to question what is at the core of human experience allowing us to discard bias we might otherwise be incapable of perceiving. There are by now systems such as intersectionality and falsifiability that allow us to move away from relativism into a new paradigm without losing track of what we have learned from postmodernism. There is no meaning except that which we produce ourselves.
I also think what he is saying is - as you put it - that there is nothing transcendantale moral. At 14:49 he says that "there must be a fixed basis" which, as I understand, is a basis which follows from human biological nature - e.g. we are biologically pre-determined to build culture in a certain way which essentially entails for example the belief that killing other people is morally wrong.
But to me, such a "fixed basis" actually sounds like an argument in favor of moral relativism, and not against it. For example, there could be an alien species whose biological nature pre-determined them to consider killing others of their kind as morally acceptable - their "fixed basis" would be different to ours. Similarly, theoretically human biological nature may also undergo some modifications in the future (e.g. due to evolution or due to technological advancement) which would change our "fixed basis".
So, since the "fixed basis" which pre-determines morality is susceptible to change, this essentially means that morality itself is also susceptible to change, and thus relative. Absolute morality would mean that there are some transcendetal rules of morality which are independent of one's biological nature and remain the same regardless of the changes to this biological nature.
I wonder what you think about this and whether there is any further reading you could suggest on this.
@@Pushkodlon "Let me tell you what chomsky actually meant with my pedantic rant about how actually he leaned more towards postmodern philosophy HURR durr"
" I think rather that the takeaway is that morality is not innate it is a social system created by interaction of humans with other humans. "
But you can also ask whether the social system that promotes these kind of interactions of humans with other humans is in itself moral or not. You can morally judge the social system itself by the kind of interactions it leads to and this judgement can't come from the social system itself, it must be transcendental in the sense of transcending mere cultural habit and being grounded in something else instead.
@@thechadeuropeanfederalist893 You can ask whether a social system is moral, but you must do so from the framework of some social system, because the question is being asked by a person and that person exists within a society that colors their moral beliefs. There is no context free morality. Rather than transcending society your example is more analogous to a chicken and egg problem.
@@rath60 "Context Free Morality" 😂😂 If there was ever one! You'd think Chomsky would've been the one to have found or invented it! Given his invention of Context Free Grammar!
There should be a Noam Chomsky for everyone who can tell you, that there is good in everone, when you feel down.
One thing that bothers me though, is that he doesn't really answer the guys last question. It comes down to the question if human dignity is more important then the power of religious leaders (i think). In my opinion it is a really good question that has a lot of value/importance right now. I would have liked to hear his opinion on that.
the best definition of the word ideologie i saw was in reading Foucault 's Les mots et les choses
I like Chomsky's explanation that within the variation of moral values, there has to be a fixed basis. What is missed out in this discussion, however, is that moral values are based on the state of the society, they are simply rationalizations of rules that makes societies work. Slavery was accepted because it was necessary at the time. As society changed, it was no longer needed and it was abandoned. However, the society changes faster than the moral values, in other worlds, the moral values are always a bit behind. And when they catch up, then we have what Chomsky calls moral progress. In the past 100 years, technology is making changes in society much faster than in the past, so this delay in the moral values is more pronounced than ever. The "fixed base" that Chomsky is talking about is related to the fact that many of our biological functions have not and will not change, regardless of the technological change, and therefore that part does not change. Not because its not relative, but simply because the rules are limited by our biological needs.
by our nature.
@@j.r.r.tolkien8724 Glad somebody read by long post!
@@demetridar506 Speaking of relative and objective what do you make of empiricism? The scientific method itself is based on the assumption that there is objective truth in the world out there. It's a metaphysical claim as a basis for science. Do you think there is objective truth?
@@j.r.r.tolkien8724 The scientific method assumes certain statements to be true, i.e. axioms, and builds upon them. These axioms are what you call empirical observation. However, the axioms can always change, and that is one of the ways science advances, and improves. So, no, I do not think there is objective truth. "Truth" is like a cloud, a vague and elusive existence that perhaps we can approach, or think we are approaching it, but it simply slips away and alters itself. Truth also depends on the observer's perception, which also of course depends on the observer's own interests. That is one of the main reasons that we cannot really define what is "fair". This is the ancient Greek philosopher's point of view, and also the Asian perspective. The rules of law are necessary for the society to function, but there is nothing absolute about them. Most of the time they help society function well, other times it falls behind the technological changes and becomes obsolete, as I said on my first post.
@@demetridar506 The axioms that science relies on are not empirical. They are metaphysical assumptions about the world. Whereas the knowledge that scientists acquire through the use of empiricism can be said to be objective truth. The physical constants for example.
When I said truth I meant in the empirical sense. Not talking about morals. Say for example "water freezes at 0 degrees". That is a truth. An Objective Truth. You cannot say it's only true from my perspective. And it shouldn't be mixed up with metaphysical truths and concepts of justice and other value judgements.
l accent frenglish de l introduction est magnifique
Can someone tell me where to find the research on different visual perspectives to an object? Something like that would also be great!
noam chomsky..please live forever
Is the whole discussion available somewhere?
Yo homie did you ever find it dawg
It's interesting that what Chomsky is saying about innate structures is so intuitively simple and observably true, that some people have a hard time grasping it.
They don't want it to be true so they won't see it or entertain it as plausible. They are already militantly committed to their own radical conceptual framework that everything else is false ad hoc.
This is not a rhetorical question but a genuine one: what are the basis of those intuitions and observations that suggest that morality is in some sense contingent upon internal structures of biology, as Chomsky seems to argue? Are there, in the very least, empirically verifiable foundations to hold this view on morality? Not gonna lie, what Chomsky suggests in the video does not render his claim incontrovertible by any standard.
@@ashraykotian1 I think he does make the assumption that moral systems, like all others (visual, language, whatever), are biological. Given this assumption then that is the emperical evidence I suppose, it's self-evident, given the assumption.
But I also agree with you that this does not emperically prove that our reason is biological in nature. I am not sure if I agree with this assumption of his. I am catholic so I think morality originates from God. However according to church philosophers, this morality is also innate to us and man can discover it by reason alone, which actually kind of aligns with Chomsky's view. I am not sure where Chomsky's thinking goes beyond this, as in, how did it become innate in the first place? Naturalism would say its origins are purely natural and try to form various theories about that like evolution (which I think are wrong). Religions would obviously say they were put their by God.
@@geofreyr I just don't see how the appeal to biological basis for morality, which at face is entirely reasonable and I'd even say observable, can be used to leap to the conclusion that some objective moral basis exists under it all. Even accepting that we're limited in what morals we can conceive due to our limited compute capacity (genetics and such), one must acknowledge that the biological systems themselves are not fixed. With every birth the genetic source code varies slightly. And it continues to vary slightly until death. So, it follows that the entire "objective basis" for a biological morality is also fluid. And as such, is neither objective nor fixed, but rather a function of some genetic or physical parameters.
I do agree there are constraints on moral selection and choice, and I agree broadly with many elements of the thesis. But I do want to quibble with the word 'fixed'. There's precious little evolutionarily speaking that is truly 'fixed' except for that which is propagated through successive generations (as a purely pragmatic factor, those traits, including moral attitudes, that do not foster propagation are more likely to not be propagated).
My great interest is to see what our greater and greater rates of technological and social adaptation will do to things that for millenia have been constrained by evolutionary imperative. How many things that we retained culturally as imperatives will instead be, objectively viewed, superfluous holdovers. If viewed through the lense of innate imperative, what will truly be innate and a constraint, and what will be innate but simply a product of an earlier evolutionary stage where such things were imperative. And how much of our morality will actually be constructed (as all morality so thought truly is), but without any current (as opposed to past) innate imperative?
Great video
There is moral progress.... That's a statement filled with the light of hope. ❤
with the light of belief more then anything. I wonder what he would say today to this statement for moral progress. His belief must be shaken significantly
@@peshopeshev7787 there's backsliding, we have to keep going
There’s no progress. Of any kind. The ape is, and will forever remain, just that- an ape. The so- called ‘moral progress’ is just the product of temporarily muting the animal instincts with the material comfort in the relatively affluent West. The Enlightenment goes through the stomach. Take away the take aways, the Facebook, the petrol, in short, scratch a little the varnish of civilisation and see the apes in all their wild ‘splendour’.
Capitalism is a relatively comfy slavery (for the middle class which acts as a buffer and means of repression of the lower class including the ‘untouchables’- the poor, the disabled, the elderly). So is communism- a more obvious form of slavery; communism failed as a social experiment because the communist regimes weren’t clever enough to create and buy a middle class large enough to reach critical mass to be effective. You sell yourself on the job market for more or less money.
Morality is NOT based on the biology. Animals are amoral. Humans were supposed to be moral- if only they could have become more than animals. In nature, the strongest animal survives, not one with moral qualms which has come to be associated with being psychologically deficient. Do not kill, do not steal, do not lie- these are AGAINST the natural animal impulses. The moral law is definitely not the product of the ape mind. The fact that morality didn’t really catch with human apes is the best proof. You can create the perfect legal systems to enshrine the moral law…what do apes do? Create ways to circumvent the laws. Give them any reason to be truly themselves i.e. unhinged animals and they will wipe their arses with ‘Do not kill’ in exchange for a war medal, redemption of their souls, or just for the pleasure of killing. Throw them a bait in social media and they will gang- up against ‘the adversary’ waiving the bloody flag of the day, barking the bloody slogans of the day, cheering for the bloody influencer of the day. Watch them lynching those who are not like them.
What morality? Like capitalism and communism, the entire apekind is a failed experiment and no amount of wishful thinking or nice philosophy will change that.
What I love about Chomsky is how he can be so right about so many things but so stubbornly wrong about so many others. Especially his ideas on objective truth and morality. So much circular reasonin here.
Don't know if that is something to 'love' but I agree his arguments here are rubbish.
@Sophia G. Depends on the definition of objective. I don't believe scientific truths are objective in an absolute sense.
@Sophia G. I believe in objective truths and it is an assumption for the scientific method not that empirical science is the best tool to acquire such truths.
@@thembluetube The closest you'll get to truth in science is a theory. Which is induction. It is not meant to be _absolutely_ universal. It is meant to be the purest form of induction there is.
It's like saying asking me the time and i say
"10:30"
"not absolute enough"
"10:30:22"
"nope"
"10:30±10sec "
"not yet"
"Here's a probability distribution of the time over the whole clock"
"Nooo"
"The time is now"
"Perfect!"
Circular reasoning is when someone says something and I don't understand it.
This is a really good talk by Chomsky. When we label people right wing, left wing, etc. you have to agree that there are other ways of considering issues and in Chomsky's little talk it is considering the issues in terms of their range over time. He lays out that the right concept to consider is progress. He points to the advance of human rights as only moving in one direction and that being away from advocacy of coercive and punitive reactions and toward acceptance of a wider range of non violent human behaviors.
07:38 who?
@@omalone1169 I have tried to see what you are asking about and frankly think you need to be more clear.
where can I find the rest of this debate?
This is absolutely brilliant, mind-expanding analysis. Poetic almost, artistic in word play but dynamic in observation of the boundaries, limitations but expansiveness of human consciousness as interconnected to the parameters of layers of levels of existence that many other beings and entities must also conform to, but fluctuate from within and outwardly into a flux of levels of awareness and "moral relativity" combined.
Huh? It's a simple argument, and Chomsky makes it over and over here.
This is just the sort of postmodernist word salad that would make Chomsky metaphorically roll his eyes.
I'd love to see him have this conversation with Judith Butler
She really isn't a bright woman.
@@petrabrown4232 😂
Chomsky makes three points:
(1) The acquisition of moral values presupposes an innate basis for them.
(2) Variation in moral systems is within quite narrow limits.
(3) There is moral progress.
(1) and (2) are incontrovertible, though the limits of (2) are still pretty broad - allowing both for people to seriously debate whether eliminating a bacteria constitutes genocides, to actually advocating human genocide.
(3) though doesn't follow from them, and given the increase in wars, and insane conspiracy theories promoting prejudices, the notion that in general we move forward seems questionable.
Agreed. (1) and (2) amount to "humans have the morals that they do because they are human." Which may be true but is a bit hard to get excited about. And (3) is, in Chomsky's words, "not even wrong" because "progress" is a moral term, and one not at all implied by (1) and (2). "Of course there is moral progress because obviously" - Noam Chomsky.
It's interesting that, despite how much Noam Chomsky, Sam Harris, and Jordan Peterson differ politically and religiously, they all concur on this topic, moral relativism. As much as I enjoyed reading Foucault's work in graduate school, today it seems quite obvious to me that his work really creates more heat than light.
I noticed this convergence with Harris here too. The state of play being that morals lie on top of factual statements and factual statements can be disproven seems inarguable. Why did Aztecs practice human sacrifice? Because they believed factually that the world required it to continue existing as it does, and it is ludicrous to think if they had truly ceased to believe that they would have done it with all the same vigour just because they liked it. The primary argument for slavery in 19th century America was that black Africans were factually more suited to it cognitively and behaviourally than anything else they could be doing, and that factual claim being so wrong is why it was immoral.
can some post a link to the complete discussion?
+Benjamin Hickling yeah seriously
Agreed. I’d love to hear this full talk.
I would like to see the complete video, is that available? When and where was this? And who are the other speakers?
does anyone know where the complete interview is?
It is interesting that problems that are addressed as a result of living in times of plenty and stable or that come as a result of technology or inovation is viewed as "progress" in morality as opposed to decadence. When real problems hit society see how long your concept of progress is useful for.
Relativism is not meant to be a moral compass it is used to understand another perspective it is a tool. Foucault introduced it as though it was a world view because he wished to disrupt the same as Marx did.
Fair enough.
I think there is a huge difference between morality and culture. There's always been the few who think deeply, and truly want to know right action because they want to inflict the least harm on others while providing the greatest possible benefit. And then there is culture an amalgamation of the past the present and the path of least resistance, which is the sphere most people live their lives. It's culture that is subjective not morality. It's easy to say I'm part of this group there for I'm moral, it's harder face your own nature and ask the question am I lying to myself, why do I do what I do?
Fair enough
It is amazing that all the examples of relative morality discussed here are just systems of opression by those in power towards those that are different from them. I agree with Chomsky that we are getting closer to a deeper morality, in the sense that on average we are removing bigotry from the conversation. Honestly, even to define those examples as moral issues is pernicious. And self-defeating for Foucault, since you can identify the common pattern and (i think) universally agree on its nature.
Like, reparations might be a moral issue. Slavery isn't. It's bs rhetoric to avoid talking about reparations is what it is. Taxation of the rich there's your modern moral dilemma. Or how much you owe the countries your external accounts are helping destroy and how you'll make up for it.
Where is the full length version of this talk at wherever this is.
i love old chompers. don't ever die!
I like him too. And that is also my nickname for him: Chomper, or the chomper. Hehe.
If Chomsky is arguing that we have an innate system which allows us to advance in our morality and recent advances such as those regarding gay rights, women's rights and slavery are moral advances then does this not imply that there is a set standard of morality which each person/group/society must reach. Then this would imply that societies where morality is perhaps in contrast to that of say Britain is backwards as they have not yet reached the next level of morality?
+Sarah El-Abdli Sarah I think Chomsky points out the innate system has a narrow range of moral opinion, which differs slightly over time & space. This difference is the result of our environment.
Yeah, I don't personally buy into moral relativism, but I think that he didn't do a very good job of addressing normative relativism. I think that the point he makes in the beginning, that no one actually acts like a normative relativist is valid argument against it, but this follows from the view that moral relativism collapses into moral nihilism, which I happen to hold. When one removes objectivity from the equation, then a key function of morality is removed, the ability to condemn others who don't share our views for immoral behavior (for example condemning Assad for the use of chemical weapons). When there are no grounds for forming moral beliefs, or for criticizing others, then this amounts to moral nihilism, and moral nihilism is not a position that one can hold (if one is human). I think this is partly an issue with the use of evidence on the side of the moral relativists, since they point to variations between cultures as evidence for both normative and descriptive relativism, which is probably why Chomsky deals more with those questions.
I wouldn't necessarily hold Britain as a paradigm of moral advancement, but yeah some societies are clearly backwards. Societies with systemic oppression are going to be more backwards than societies that make an effort to purge systems of oppression.
He essentially says exactly this at the end. But here I think Chomsky would argue that progress is indeed relative as he alludes to earlier when he says the slavers argued that they were more just than the capitalists "and there is some merit to that."
Chomsky doesn't hold up Britain or America as paragons of anything - his whole career has been about blaming them for being dangerously powerful. But they got some things right on these particular issues of morality. I expect he thinks other cultures have got other things right.
Agree with Chomsky and others or not, you know when you have crossed paths with an obviously gifted academic and intellectual worthy of our attention.
Can anybody recommend a place where Chomsky has formulated this argument in writing? Or any contemporary philosophers with similar views?
9:50 We all may want, not to forget, several of these mentioned moral values as others which were not mentioned have accured in different societies over the centuries as a given and through time were lost again. I think one of our major obligations is not only to gain more freedoms, but to keep and defend those we already have and our ancestors bleeded for. Carving them into the constitution of our countries is not enough, there also should be carved into the duty to punish those who try to take them away. Which in some sense often is, like the phrase "enemies of the state, foreign or domestic". Why was Bush & Co not convicted for taking away and deminishing freedoms in the US? Survialance, Torture and invading countries without reason other then greed and power. This should not have been possible in the first place. I don't know if another different formulation within the constitution could have protected the people from such deeds, but still why the fuck are these sickos still not in jail or even alife(no fan of the death penalty, but hey its the USA ^^)?
Is american exceptionalism and hybris standing in your way or are you just well fed and silently acceping that the world is raped by US interests over and over again for the gains of the US people in particular and their allies people in general?
I struggle with only making capitalism responsible for all of this, when the people seem to be complacent to a large degree.
where is the full video of this debate? I can't find it and i can't tell when it was from or what venue it was done in or who the speakers are. Someone please reply.
Do you know when has this interview been filmed and where? Thank you
What is this talk? Where can I find full video?
Although I wouldn't consider myself a moral relativist by any standard, I would hazard to make a few observations about the subject. It seems to me, considering moral relativism as a valid moral position has only two logical outcomes: Either, an individual must totally surrender his ability to criticize and evaluate another individual (or culture/ state’s) actions even while bearing witness to all sorts of atrocities and injustices or, he must become comfortable with an extreme form of what we have now; namely, the situation where institutions, influential intellectuals and academics, government bodies and ruling ideologues dictate absolute morality to individuals at the cost of personal freedom, social ostracization and state sanctioned punishment. The former is quite obviously abhorrent to all those who consider evil and heinous acts to be outside the realm of social acceptability. The latter exhibits a more creeping form of social control that manifests itself in the desire of individuals and institutions to route out those among the population who dissent from the prevailing view of morality or any other contentious subject up for debate. Basically, when discussing issues of morality devolves into policing people on campus and on social media and elsewhere; destroying people’s lives and careers over politically incorrect comments and doing something immoral to achieve a ‘moral” objective.
What Mr. Foucault focused a lot of intellectual energy on is finding out how power and knowledge interact with each other and how social institutions exert control over a populace with this power. There is no more important a subject to examine along this vein than examining how ruling institutions use competing concepts of morality to control different segments of the population, especially concerning pitting people against one another along racial or ethnic or gender lines, and across borders. It is pretty remarkable that Chomsky is able to flippantly shrug off Foucault’s belief that institutions and government bodies have significant power (“regimes of truth”) and exert major control over scientific (and admittedly by Chomsky, social-scientific) progress of the day. This should be a point that Chomsky automatically agrees with in full, keeping consistent with all of his criticism of U.S. domestic and foreign policy, and of course, related to his total and obvious adherence to (ironically enough) Foucault’s concept of governmentality. I think it is a virtual counter-truism that scientific progress and what is and what is not socially/ scientifically acceptable (they often go hand in hand) mirrors quite closely what past governments have allowed. I suspect Chomsky no longer feels this way now that he is the influential ideologue who gets to exert control over others…
In essence, I think Foucault is much more aware of how government and institutions, especially ones that purport to be “neutral and independent of political power” like universities (paraphrasing from the actual Chomsky v Foucault debate) influence our perceptions of morality. Chomsky takes the position of not caring so much what trends have emerged over time and which people or institutions have affected the topic, only what can we define in absolute terms as what is moral. While I would lean more towards finding incorruptible principles of morality, I don't think anything on this earth is incorruptible.
JChambs So Foucault stated that governments and human institutions in general exercise control over what the population finds to be moral? I must say that I find that to be intriguely although it's certainly difficult to wholly accept given Foucault's amoral values
JChambs, I’m saving your comment. Thumbs up.
I agree that what comes across in this video is Chomsky's lesser concern with the fact that the wielders of power influence a society's morality and culture. But I think he more or less admits that himself. He says that has making a structural argument against the idea of a complete or total moral relativism. He admits that many of Foucault's viewpoints are true to some extent, but simply "too extreme" for him to accept wholesale. It's this kind of moderate sensibility that is appealing to me. But there is something to be said for the fact that Foucault was more specifically focused on the dynamic between power and morality.
i'm totally on board with your text because that's also how i've always understood Foucault.
Governemant/Ruling institution are much more of a defining factor on morality than morality itself. We're not more or less moral than our predecessors who were all for slavery because i do think with an appropriate amount of social engineering by govs, we could go back to accept the same slavery we puke over today as the only way to go.
Once you give up the idea of absolute morals, atrocities and injustices simply cease to exist as a concept. They are just events - without any judgement, since there is nothing to judge them by.
As a social species there have to be rules by which we operate so we don’t totally annihilate each other in the pursuit of selfish means. But like he said the rules can vary across culture and time. I think moral philosophy ultimately comes down to an arbitrary preference. In that sense it is relative. However once a standard is set, then you can measure against the standard objectively. What we ‘ought’ to do depends entirely on where we want to go.
nno . In that sense Hitler was moral coz thats where his society was at .
@@rippedtorn2310 Hitler definitely believed in his cause. If you were to ask him, he would say he was doing the “right” thing. We now say that he was evil, causing so much pain and death in the pursuit of a utopia. We in the west had a different vision of the future, and we happened to win that war. In another timeline, who knows what would have happened and what our current moral framework would be. Personally, I grew up in the west and in a Christian culture where these things are seen as evil. I feel them as evil. But I cannot say that they are objectively evil, unless we clarify what we mean by that word.
@dialogos You think in some alternate world/timeline if Hitler had won the war and history was changed then there is a possibility that he would have been moral in his actions?
In other words, moral framework depends on who “wins”?
@@jasonru9628 please define “moral”
@@jasonru9628 how would you prove it otherwise with so many historical accounts of the contrary being true (colonialism, capitalism itself, etc.). We should take into account chomsky BELIEVES social sistems have some kind of biologically predetermined structure. He has no scientific proof of such a thing being true. What reason is there to believe all social constructs aren't merely contextual?
Asked about the real question of relativism ("progress implies an underlying, innate sense of ... justice, or whether these cultural choices are wholly arbitrary") at 14:14 Chomsky gives an incoherent argument.
He says that there "must be a fixed basis" of morality. There may be a biological limit to what moral values are possible, given our limits and capabilities as human organisms. But does our history really show that there is innate moral progress?
"slavery, subjugation, repression of homosexuals... were perfectly acceptable... now all regarded as completely unacceptable. .. I think that's evidence ... that somehow, as our own history/culture develops, we penetrate more deeply into our actual, real, cultural/normative values. And we expand the moral sphere in fairly definite ways."
Does history really demonstrate this? Slavery was unacceptable before it became acceptable, and then it was reluctantly abolished again. Homosexuality was a non-issue for generations until it was pathologized and prohibited in the Victorian era, and then reluctantly repealed in the present era. Subjugation of women was not such an obvious fact of life in ancient times, when sacred women such as healers and priestesses were venerated and respected -- before being repressed in the Middle Ages and liberated in modern times.
Our history does not show some innate moral value that is progressing towards it full realization and revelation on the surface of our actions. Our history shows a cyclical approach to and retreat from the values which Chomsky calls "tolerance," and even in the present day the values of tolerance are neither universal nor necessary for a functional society/culture/moral system.
Tolerance is not even a core value of the culture which values tolerance; tolerance is necessarily a response to repression, which actually treats the repressive morals as primary, as the Real Thing which must be resisted so that repressed persons can become included, can become Tolerated. If women were already included in society, if homosexuality had never been demonized, if slavery had never been instated, then it would not be necessary to tolerate free women, homosexuals, or freedmen. They would already be accepted members of normal, mainstream society.
So, history does not vindicate the view that tolerance is an essential value of our culture or that we are making continuous progress towards it. History shows that tolerance is only possible in response to repressions which are just as much a part of our social progress and are just as valid as moral values.
Praising tolerance is a relativistic truth, and it is a weak value to place at the fore of any moral system, anyway!
Disclaimer: I am a tolerant and inclusive person, but tolerance is a weaker position than either acceptance or abhorrence.
i am commenting to this here 2 years old comment just to tell you, that your comment is the best comment I've come upon not just under this particular video but in the comment sections of about 30 other clips of chomsky and foucault and derrida, and there were a lot of comments.
Experience enlightenment. You now have experienced the wellspring from which morality is derived from. It's not arbitrary, but even the experiences vary from person to person. The general notion within the state is the love of humanity, the desire to spread joy and develop oneself in a way to help others, and putting others before yourself. The directions you pull from enlightenment will vary depending on who you are, but the -feeling- of humanity, a love and appreciation for life is resonant within you.
However, morality is not the only way of life. It's the best benchmarker we have for intuiting the nature of "good". All has its place in the human drama.
09:30 his slavery and female comparison is suss
My philosophy professor asked the class to raise hands if we read the 20 pages on moral relativism he assigned. We raised our hands. He then asked us to raise our hands if we believed that “people believed different things” before we read the 20 pages. He said, “you should all be raising your hands. The author just told us in 20 pages that people believe different things, but if you already knew that, you didn’t need to do the reading... she did nothing to prove moral relativism.”
The burden of proof is one the person stating there are moral facts.
@@mouwersor according to the largest survey of academic philosophers (philpapers survey) large majority of the professional philosophers believe in moral realism (objectivity). and they are also atheists. not religious.
@@freandwhickquest Argumentum ad populum.
@@mouwersor are you a nihilist?
@@freandwhickquest No.
'Our moral-system is tied to our biological-system'. This is incredibly profound; and ABSOLUTELY correct. Realizing this would certainly make understanding most of human behaviors a great-deal easier.
so what you are saying is racism is inherently "moral" kk
@@bubblegumgun3292 I think you may have missed the point of Noam's argument.
That’s why Foucault needed to argue that biology is a social construct. It’s the only way to justify his dead-end nihilism.
Always be wary of a line of reasoning that involves “understanding most of human behaviors a great deal easier.”
Really not that profound unless you come from a Humanities discipline and have been brainwashed to think that biology plays no role in human behavior
You need time to listen to Chomsky. Totally worth is!
I think I've seen this discussion in full, but don't remember where it is from. Does anyone remember?
After watching this I have the feeling that Philosophy exists precisely to alert Humanity of misleading thinking practiques such as Chomsky's. Chomsky's positivists arguments can be used precisely for the opposite moral pruposes he claims to have, and I think that was Foucault said in the famous debate.
if you think, as foucault did, that there was a danger in chomsky's sort of thinking, a danger that his arguments could be used in the wrong way, then you are presupposing a notion of moral progress that you minimally do not wish to depart from and especially do not wish to reverse
if this is the case then you are, like foucault was, simply confused about whether you even disagree with chomsky in the first place
Do you think moral relativist discourse can't be missused?