I think the saying is from the Hawaiian people. When the white man came, they had the bible and we had the land. Now we have the Bible, and they have the land.
An "ethno-pharmacoligist" (Christian Rätsch) always says that his Indio friends used to say: They came and brought us the curse of alcohol. But we had our revenge by giving them tobacco.
It's from Jomo Kenyatta, the first president of Kenya:"When the Missionaries arrived, the Africans had the land and the Missionaries had the Bible. They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the land and we had the Bible".
For after all the great religions have been preached and expounded, or have been revealed by brilliant scholars, or have been written in fine books and embellished in fine language with finer covers, man, -all man- is still confronted by the Great Mystery. -Chief Luther Standing Bear, Lakota Well said! (;
Trump & the Crisis of American Psychosis [both parties as Chomsky explains] The Goldwater rule is Section 7 in the American Psychiatric Association's Principles of Medical Ethics, which states that psychiatrists have a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health, but they should not give a professional opinion about public figures whom they have not examined in person, and from whom they have not obtained consent to discuss their mental health in public statements. It is named after former US Senator and 1964 presidential nominee Barry Goldwater.
Exterminated them, haaaaa, i like how he followed the help with Exterminated them. Very descriptive and precise and concise. American culture and history, this is, you can not run away from it or hide it. Followed by slavery and nowadays something else, what else could you ask for?
@Missy V Damn he nailed it when he emphasized the COMMONality of LenninISM and CapitalISM and the ease of indoctrinated acceptance of one as 'better' as if there's a vast difference in the two highly exploitative power structures of hierarchy and forced subordination. Now THAT is insightful, unbiased thinking.
The problem with freewill debate is through the notion of Pavlovian conditioning and neurological determinism, they don't show whether you have a choice or not...they are deconstructing the concept "i" without: 1. Having any vague notion of what is acceptable for the existence of freewill 2. Without solving the Hard Problem of Consciousness. Like god, it is a pointless argument (i am an Ignostic in term of god, amd basically the same regarding freewill). People end up following red herrings because they haven't defined the term nor what its existence would be. The difference betweem determinism and fatalism is teleological only. Determinism is fatalism without god. And they tend to argue both sides. During the debate, atheists will argue against freewill. Then arguing against religion, they (we) will claim that we are the consciousness of the universe that grew so the universe could know itself. I am convinced many people don't want freewill. It seems to exist in between ignorance and certainty. The more certain you are, the more you gave defined yourself. To have a choice, you have to redefine yourself. It is subjective (as all experience is), and is likely the adaptive nature of human mind at work. Part of human nature is our ability to adapt, making it less set in stone than people would like (human nature is a basic argument for socialism vs capitalism, for example, each side with different claims). There are no purely scientific arguments for it. All arguments are philosophical. Science doesn't argue. It simply reveals the nature of reality through descriptive statements and models.
Wow. Excellent TH-cam comment. Nobody would believe the stuff I find on here. When I think of how it hinges on the teleological argument, I wonder if it makes any difference if there is a god or not. I like saying that "I have a feeling" that there is a god because people take it way too seriously. I want free will. What is that, exactly?
@duckmoose Conversely, to quote Pink Floyd, "All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be." Why do we need science and philosophy? Somehow we do. It would look like pure sadism, except we do it to ourselves without being able to help ourselves, apparently.
I agree with chomski on politics but here's the thing. Science,and Chomsky admits this, has proven before any action is carried out it starts with the subconcious mind. If the sub-concious mind is driving an action of a person without their awareness how are they making the "choice"?
Firstly, I think those experiments are very simple. Up-down, left-right type of experiments. In my opinion, all that shows is that some basic motor function is hard-wired. Much like caching on a pc. Some neurological functioning must be hard wired otherwise we would have to think-out every motion of ourselves walking or running, or recognizing objects. I am not aware of any experiments that break down how individuals make complex decisions on a neurological level (fMRIs don't count). All fMRIs show is what region of the brain is active during an activity. Presumably many different decisions can come from the same regions being active so this does not give a precise neurological mechanism. Now, one could argue that complex decisions can be broken down into simple (deterministic parts) which can be built up again to predict how individuals will behave in every situation, but this needs to be proven.
Science has 0 proofs. Science has data and constructs frameworks that satisfy this; hypothesis, theory, and even physical laws, are not exempt from being overturned given new evidence. Proof is eternal
Hmmmmm..... okay. So: 1. Noam's perspective is one of materialism, and firmly holds that reality is definitely knowable through the medium of science, or the scientific process, and that religion as it's iterated in the US isn't the greatest thing ever. In fact, it's quite destructive in many ways. 2. This religious outlook dates from the very beginning of the country, as he noted in his discussion about the seal of the Massachusetts Bay Co. And he seems to very strongly imply that the Europeans' treatment of the Native American people was undeniably a bad thing. 3. Yet .....the Native American people who lived on the American continents before the advent of the Europeans did not have science as we know it. They did indeed figure things out, however, it wasn't science, to be sure. They would sacrifice humans, for example, in order to "help" the Pleiades cluster move through the sky. 4. So does that mean that *some* religion is "okay", and others are "not okay"? The Aztecs were "okay", even though they weren't scientific, but the fundie American isn't "okay" because the Earth wasn't created 6000 years ago? Or is it because the fundie "should" reject that nonsense, since we now have science, and therefore know better than the Aztecs? 5. And if so, then should we march into those few uncontacted tribes scattered hither and thither, and enlighten them with our science, provided there's no violence? And if not, why not? Do we not, or should we not, enlighten the fundies? 6. And is this "anarchism"? Is it anarchism to try to get others to agree with you, provided that your ideas are firmly backed up with science, and to reject anything that's not backed by science, but mere faith instead? 7. And what about the various and numerous epistemological objections to "science"? Should we either ignore them all, or dismiss them all, since science and technology have so obviously triumphed, even if that triumph might be based on the very imperialism Noam deplores?
Would like Chomsky to have explained why he does not believe in determinism beyond that he does not want to believe in it. He seemed to stumble a bit here and seemed keen to move on which is not all that typical of him. Wonder if his belief in freewill is a weak spot?
thanks for links. He doesnt offer any real meat behind his belief of free will. He's quite dismissive of determinism but doesnt lay out any persuasive challenges to it.
The weak spot for those that accept free will is a straw man argument demanding that to have free will one must be able to choose differently than we have chosen. The argument is preposterous because that demonstrates the opposite of free will. Free will is demonstrated by acting according to our own will rather than in opposition to it. Compatibilism is a strong argument that has not been refuted. Determinism is not counter to free will. Free will is aptly demonstrated by the predictability of one's actions that are different, even if only sometimes, to the predictable actions of another. That is the essence of free will and has never been adequately countered except by redefining the term itself to something virtually incomprehensible or contradictory.
Bookworm A Different people through history had slightly different ideas of who God is, some nicer than others, and it's probably not helpful that we call them all by the same name. A peaceful and loving God shouldn't have to deal with the drama of guilt by association, given his busy schedule.
@@aaaatttt101 Manufacturing Consent was co-authored by the late Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky. Michael Albert was a rebellious student at MIT when Chomsky started teaching there. Been an activist since.
If so, you cannot regard that as an achievement since it would have been predetermined by external factors. Moreover those who refused to believe this would not be blameworthy in the slightest.
rump & the Crisis of American Psychosis [both parties as Chomsky explains] The Goldwater rule is Section 7 in the American Psychiatric Association's Principles of Medical Ethics, which states that psychiatrists have a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health, but they should not give a professional opinion about public figures whom they have not examined in person, and from whom they have not obtained consent to discuss their mental health in public statements. It is named after former US Senator and 1964 presidential nominee Barry Goldwater.The weak spot for those that accept free will is a straw man argument demanding that to have free will one must be able to choose differently than we have chosen. The argument is preposterous because that demonstrates the opposite of free will. Free will is demonstrated by acting according to our own will rather than in opposition to it. Compatibilism is a strong argument that has not been refuted. Determinism is not counter to free will. Free will is aptly demonstrated by the predictability of one's actions that are different, even if only sometimes, to the predictable actions of another. That is the essence of free will and has never been adequately countered except by redefining the term itself to something virtually incomprehensible or contradictory.
Anyone who does not know that most of the US Founding Fathers were Deists did not read their writings. Deists believe in a creator, but do not pay much attention to all of the other beliefs that different people and different religions add on top of that belief. I don't know for certain either way, but I do know that science doesn't know either. Anybody who claims to know for sure how the universe was created is probably a know-it-all in other fields as well. But I do know that the Founding Fathers were reasonable and wise, as were many others in history who believe in a creator or who believe in the teachings of Jesus about compassion and forgiveness. Atheists who demonize Christians in the same way that fiction writers demonize bears or whales are just spinning narratives, generalizing, stereotyping, and stirring up hate...which is the one thing that any good way of thinking should avoid.
yet that is exactly what the christians claim is it not? That their God created the universe in seven days for the whole purpose of breeding one insignificant species on one very insignificant planet on a rather insignificant solar system from one among trillion trillions of galaxies in his magnificent universe?
For someone as astute as Chomsky why does he ignore the earlier history of invading tribes such as the Anglo-Saxon invasion of England (Angland) or the Norman conquest of William, or the Danes, or the Protestants entering Ireland, etc. Then over on the continent we can examine the demise of the Etruscans by the proto Romans who took their Mediterranean impetus from the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Phoenicians as they spread circumferentially into Northern Europe, Northern Africa, and farther along the Atlantic coasts when their ships were sufficient for the journey. How much effort would it take Mr. Chomsky to tie the whole together instead of your incessant assault on the history of North America? (I won’t get into the history of Asia right here but certainly distances, topography, the superior (in length) of the growing season that allowed for 1 1/2 rice harvests vs the singular wheat harvest of the European agriculturalists permitted the feeding of a much larger population in Asia (vs Europe). Of course you might want to point the finger of causality towards the rotation (and axis wobble) of the earth and resultant weather patterns (for example as to how Plague moved and decimated vast swaths of human life at various times throughout human history). This is the kind of historical discussion and dialogue I would appreciate from you. (In exchange I might be convinced to share my understanding of “free”, clean energy generation and other designs/inventions that I have yet to share for fear of “upsetting the apple cart”). Meanwhile think on mobile perpetuam. Rsvp, J.
You do realize your entire argument is basically whataboutism, no? "US is doing something bad", "but oh what about the vikings?" If what you wanted was a discussion on violence throughout human history, there might be a video somewhere else by Professor Chomsky where he also talks about Anglo-Saxon invasion of England. Or better yet another historian who professionalizes in ancient human history instead of Professor Chomsky who professionalizes in modern history. The point being, you are entirely missing the point of this video, which is about the relationship between US policies and politics and religion, and your argument adds nor has no significant value to the topic being discussed.
@Matias Martinez Read a short book by Dr. John Rees called "Six Numbers". In it he explains that if any of those six universal forces were off by just ONE PERCENT, the universe would be devoid of life. 1% * 6 = God.
@Matias Martinez Sure it is - it's EVIDENCE. He explains it much better than I can. So "it just happened" is scientific? Go ahead and name one of your "hundreds of books." Of course, had I said otherwise, you would have immediately said, "what's your evidence?" LMAO!
@Matias Martinez Because the random chance is so minimal. It's not just complexity. It's how it all works to allow life. So your position is "we got lucky?"
@Matias Martinez Soooo... all of those forces that Dr. Rees talks about (and probably hundreds or thousands of others) just came about randomly? Like I've already asked a few times now: We just got lucky?
@Matias Martinez BTW, it's Dr. Martin Rees and the title is "Just Six Numbers." Check it out. I think Giambattista Vico's "New Science" is pretty compelling as well as a proof of the existence of God.
Chomsky doesn't articulate his words clearly. He semi-mumbles, indicating his arrogance and lack of respect for his listeners to whom he condescends as if talking to children.
@@brandonszpot8948 ~ Maybe you should look into improving your reading comprehension. I didn't say I can't understand him, altho it's often difficult because of his mumbly way of talking. He doesn't bother to enunciate his words clearly. For instance at 0:30, he starts rambling on in a barely audible way about free will. He said "I don't want to believe" in determinism, even though he conceded that scientists and philosophers accept determinism. He arbitrarily says "I don't want to believe that." So he just believes what he wants to believe. This isn't a thoughtful approach. He knocks Benjamin Franklin for racialist views that he expressed earlier in his ife. Chomsky ignores that Franklin changed and became a strong opponent of slavery later on. Ken Burns noted that Franklin "changed his mind, he acknowledged he was wrong, and he eventually became president of an abolitionist society in Pennsylvania. " But Chomsky doesn't mention that because it doesn't fit into his unrelenting anti-Americanism. Chomsky is correct to point out America's racist history, but then he goes off the rails with his absurd remark that "Hitler looks mild in comparison." (7:40) This is an ironic comment coming from Chomsky considering that in the 1970s he denied the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia. He came off as a virtual apologist for the Khmer Rouge. He also disputed Serb atrocities in Bosnia during the 1990s. Chomsky is an ideologue with a penchant for exaggeration and misstatements of facts -- as well as an arrogant condescending attitude.
"Hitler seems mild in comparison" This is why it's hard to take chomsky seriously sometimes. Because American racism existed earlier than Nazi racism, doesn't mean that it makes Hitler seem "mild in comparison"
Ok buddy, let's do a body count. Hitler's murders vs US Imperialism and corporatism's murders. BTW, the US shares Hitler's bag because without support from nazi-sympatizer US industrialists and financiers, Hitler couldn't fully Hitler.
Dr Chomsky is a Great Professor of American Linguists. He should focus on that. I find it astonishing the History that he manufactures. He discusses History and references his "facts". Please, use Common Sense, he does not have access to this information. I guess that why his books do not sell. Facts about Wars, invasions, religion, etc. He acts like he is an Expert on Politics and Societies.
"Anglo-Saxonism" may be "racist", but those darn Anglo-Saxons were sure more accomplished, innovative, industrious, and intrepid than any other group of people on the planet. Maybe those "Anglo-Saxonists" actually have a point?
No, they have no point. Upon study of their own origins one finds they do not, other than a cohesive racist amalgamated origins that eventually leads to ethno-facism. Most of the great ideas the anglo-saxon culture put forth is borrowed by the greeks, romans, arabs, french, etc.
@@johnnytocino9313 Why stop there, the whole world is the same. If any others would have become the dominate ones do you think it would have made a difference?
Getting the plague, flat-earthing, climate change denial, The Holocaust, bizarre numerals while the India invented our numbers, China had gunpowder and was trying vaccines, and The Middle East knew the earth was round. Is it me, or does none of that sound intrepid or industrious at all?
I always find Chomsky to be a linguist who is far too fond of talking about things he has no qualifications to talk about. Even his linguistic theories are proved false.
@@calldwnthesky6495 then I gather that you're not a socialist libertarian like Chomsky or myself, but rather a hierarchical thinking bourgeois. Anyway. I'm too old for this crap. Chomsky's ideas are not original apart from his linguistics. His views are typical of 60s, 70s and 80s anarchy-syndacalism and he basically has not grown up. Good luck to him. He's lived a sheltered life in academia and is still able to hold such outdated views. I do like some of his analyses of modern society, but dislike to guru status that he has attained on TH-cam..
rump & the Crisis of American Psychosis [both parties as Chomsky explains] The Goldwater rule is Section 7 in the American Psychiatric Association's Principles of Medical Ethics, which states that psychiatrists have a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health, but they should not give a professional opinion about public figures whom they have not examined in person, and from whom they have not obtained consent to discuss their mental health in public statements. It is named after former US Senator and 1964 presidential nominee Barry Goldwater.The weak spot for those that accept free will is a straw man argument demanding that to have free will one must be able to choose differently than we have chosen. The argument is preposterous because that demonstrates the opposite of free will. Free will is demonstrated by acting according to our own will rather than in opposition to it. Compatibilism is a strong argument that has not been refuted. Determinism is not counter to free will. Free will is aptly demonstrated by the predictability of one's actions that are different, even if only sometimes, to the predictable actions of another. That is the essence of free will and has never been adequately countered except by redefining the term itself to something virtually incomprehensible or contradictory.
Anyone who does not know that most of the US Founding Fathers were Deists (who believed in the separation of church and state) did not read their writings. Deists believe in a creator, but do not pay much attention to all of the other beliefs that different people and different religions add on top of that belief. I don't know for certain either way, but I do know that science doesn't know either. Anybody who claims to know for sure how the universe was created is probably a know-it-all in other fields as well. But I do know that the Founding Fathers were reasonable and wise, as were many others in history who believe in a creator or who believe in the teachings of Jesus about compassion and forgiveness. Atheists who demonize Christians in the same way that fiction writers demonize bears or whales are just spinning narratives, generalizing, stereotyping, and stirring up hate...which is the one thing that any good way of thinking should avoid.
@Matias Martinez Not every point made by atheists is without merit, but I find more merit in Christianity than most atheists would accept. The spirit of what Jesus taught was kindness. The only reason people were able to corrupt that over time is because most of them were borderline cavemen.
@Matias Martinez It has to be because before then Jesus hadn't been born. Christianity is literally the teachings of Jesus who founded, accidentally, the Christian religion.
if there's any question in your mind about whether or not the founding fathers thought there should be a separation of church and state, and how they felt about Christianity specifically, you need only to read the treaty of Tripoli.
@@intuitionz1198 Never take advice to only read one thing. It's something people suggest who have strong ideologies. Atheists have their own religion, often believing in things like transhumanism (they believe that one day everybody will be half robot)...or other beliefs that put themselves at the center of the universe.
Like always. Chomsky is brilliant, right, and brave. He may be old, but his brain shines like a beam amid the fanatism and ignorance
Chomsky makes being old cool! I wish more young people were as brilliant and non egotistical as Chomsky is.
You're right
This is popular science... Basics you learn on classical basic philosphy course
@@dcinput7645 wow you must be really really smart
I appreciate an interviewer who doesn’t feel need to interject “right” and “uhuh” every five seconds
Are you too lying on your bad watching Naom Chomsky before you go to sleep?
@@gokusayan I am.
Michael Albert isn't exactly an interviewer - he's a radical thinker in his own right. That might be why.
Noam is the Man.
I think the saying is from the Hawaiian people.
When the white man came, they had the bible and we had the land.
Now we have the Bible, and they have the land.
It's also pretty popular in African countries
@@khumomatlakane2009 the Palestinians say something similar about losing their land to Talmud-carrying settlers
An "ethno-pharmacoligist" (Christian Rätsch) always says that his Indio friends used to say:
They came and brought us the curse of alcohol. But we had our revenge by giving them tobacco.
Damn
It's from Jomo Kenyatta, the first president of Kenya:"When the Missionaries arrived, the Africans had the land and the Missionaries had the Bible. They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the land and we had the Bible".
The most insightful and revealing analysis of American culture and politics.
For after all the great religions have been preached and expounded, or have been revealed by brilliant scholars, or have been written in fine books and embellished in fine language with finer covers, man, -all man- is still confronted by the Great Mystery.
-Chief Luther Standing Bear, Lakota
Well said! (;
Trump & the Crisis of American Psychosis [both parties as Chomsky explains]
The Goldwater rule is Section 7 in the American Psychiatric Association's Principles of Medical Ethics, which states that psychiatrists have a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health, but they should not give a professional opinion about public figures whom they have not examined in person, and from whom they have not obtained consent to discuss their mental health in public statements. It is named after former US Senator and 1964 presidential nominee Barry Goldwater.
@@FrancisE.Dec.Esquire I forgot the contents of this video, meaning, I don't know what your point is.Sorry!
Exterminated them, haaaaa, i like how he followed the help with Exterminated them. Very descriptive and precise and concise. American culture and history, this is, you can not run away from it or hide it. Followed by slavery and nowadays something else, what else could you ask for?
He's a bit old, but I don't know my real dad, so I'm going going adopt Noam as my dad.
I’ll be your dad Austin, as long as you’re willing to repay me with a free show of your bubble baths
@Missy V
Damn he nailed it when he emphasized the COMMONality of LenninISM and CapitalISM and the ease of indoctrinated acceptance of one as 'better' as if there's a vast difference in the two highly exploitative power structures of hierarchy and forced subordination. Now THAT is insightful, unbiased thinking.
you're right
Rocío Aguilera.
I'll never get over the ways the saxons can hate each other. Come down.
From an old Blues Player -
Winston Lennon
..God is a concept by which we measure our pain.
"Come over and help us?"
I wonder how the various Native American tribes were able to send that message across the Atlantic to England.
Who's the interviewer? I've seen him before but but I can't find the video
Michael Albert
That’s Lyle Alzato .
That comment on Clinton was humorous.
Who spiked the punch
The problem with freewill debate is through the notion of Pavlovian conditioning and neurological determinism, they don't show whether you have a choice or not...they are deconstructing the concept "i" without:
1. Having any vague notion of what is acceptable for the existence of freewill
2. Without solving the Hard Problem of Consciousness.
Like god, it is a pointless argument (i am an Ignostic in term of god, amd basically the same regarding freewill). People end up following red herrings because they haven't defined the term nor what its existence would be.
The difference betweem determinism and fatalism is teleological only. Determinism is fatalism without god. And they tend to argue both sides. During the debate, atheists will argue against freewill. Then arguing against religion, they (we) will claim that we are the consciousness of the universe that grew so the universe could know itself.
I am convinced many people don't want freewill. It seems to exist in between ignorance and certainty. The more certain you are, the more you gave defined yourself. To have a choice, you have to redefine yourself. It is subjective (as all experience is), and is likely the adaptive nature of human mind at work. Part of human nature is our ability to adapt, making it less set in stone than people would like (human nature is a basic argument for socialism vs capitalism, for example, each side with different claims).
There are no purely scientific arguments for it. All arguments are philosophical. Science doesn't argue. It simply reveals the nature of reality through descriptive statements and models.
Wow. Excellent TH-cam comment. Nobody would believe the stuff I find on here. When I think of how it hinges on the teleological argument, I wonder if it makes any difference if there is a god or not. I like saying that "I have a feeling" that there is a god because people take it way too seriously. I want free will. What is that, exactly?
@duckmoose Conversely, to quote Pink Floyd, "All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be." Why do we need science and philosophy? Somehow we do. It would look like pure sadism, except we do it to ourselves without being able to help ourselves, apparently.
@panda bearAll you touch and all you see is significant. Science, philosophy and love are ways that we transcend the physical.
Noam Chomsky is a Jedi Master.
I agree with chomski on politics but here's the thing.
Science,and Chomsky admits this, has proven before any action is carried out it starts with the subconcious mind. If the sub-concious mind is driving an action of a person without their awareness how are they making the "choice"?
Firstly, I think those experiments are very simple. Up-down, left-right type of experiments. In my opinion, all that shows is that some basic motor function is hard-wired. Much like caching on a pc. Some neurological functioning must be hard wired otherwise we would have to think-out every motion of ourselves walking or running, or recognizing objects. I am not aware of any experiments that break down how individuals make complex decisions on a neurological level (fMRIs don't count). All fMRIs show is what region of the brain is active during an activity. Presumably many different decisions can come from the same regions being active so this does not give a precise neurological mechanism. Now, one could argue that complex decisions can be broken down into simple (deterministic parts) which can be built up again to predict how individuals will behave in every situation, but this needs to be proven.
You can adjust your subconscious that’s why
Science has 0 proofs. Science has data and constructs frameworks that satisfy this; hypothesis, theory, and even physical laws, are not exempt from being overturned given new evidence. Proof is eternal
Hmmmmm..... okay. So:
1. Noam's perspective is one of materialism, and firmly holds that reality is definitely knowable through the medium of science, or the scientific process, and that religion as it's iterated in the US isn't the greatest thing ever. In fact, it's quite destructive in many ways.
2. This religious outlook dates from the very beginning of the country, as he noted in his discussion about the seal of the Massachusetts Bay Co. And he seems to very strongly imply that the Europeans' treatment of the Native American people was undeniably a bad thing.
3. Yet .....the Native American people who lived on the American continents before the advent of the Europeans did not have science as we know it. They did indeed figure things out, however, it wasn't science, to be sure. They would sacrifice humans, for example, in order to "help" the Pleiades cluster move through the sky.
4. So does that mean that *some* religion is "okay", and others are "not okay"? The Aztecs were "okay", even though they weren't scientific, but the fundie American isn't "okay" because the Earth wasn't created 6000 years ago? Or is it because the fundie "should" reject that nonsense, since we now have science, and therefore know better than the Aztecs?
5. And if so, then should we march into those few uncontacted tribes scattered hither and thither, and enlighten them with our science, provided there's no violence? And if not, why not? Do we not, or should we not, enlighten the fundies?
6. And is this "anarchism"? Is it anarchism to try to get others to agree with you, provided that your ideas are firmly backed up with science, and to reject anything that's not backed by science, but mere faith instead?
7. And what about the various and numerous epistemological objections to "science"? Should we either ignore them all, or dismiss them all, since science and technology have so obviously triumphed, even if that triumph might be based on the very imperialism Noam deplores?
Would like Chomsky to have explained why he does not believe in determinism beyond that he does not want to believe in it. He seemed to stumble a bit here and seemed keen to move on which is not all that typical of him. Wonder if his belief in freewill is a weak spot?
th-cam.com/play/PLHZGTTZG6HcI8y4a1OS-L7I610YWh0KyA.html
Liam Mcnally He always responds to emails if you want to ask him.
thanks for links. He doesnt offer any real meat behind his belief of free will. He's quite dismissive of determinism but doesnt lay out any persuasive challenges to it.
The weak spot for those that accept free will is a straw man argument demanding that to have free will one must be able to choose differently than we have chosen. The argument is preposterous because that demonstrates the opposite of free will. Free will is demonstrated by acting according to our own will rather than in opposition to it. Compatibilism is a strong argument that has not been refuted. Determinism is not counter to free will. Free will is aptly demonstrated by the predictability of one's actions that are different, even if only sometimes, to the predictable actions of another. That is the essence of free will and has never been adequately countered except by redefining the term itself to something virtually incomprehensible or contradictory.
Jared Prince : th-cam.com/video/_rZfSTpjGl8/w-d-xo.html
This is the source of the poison.
Whish i had the money and time to become someone like him. A little bit diffrent though...
God is a retired engineer
Bookworm A Different people through history had slightly different ideas of who God is, some nicer than others, and it's probably not helpful that we call them all by the same name. A peaceful and loving God shouldn't have to deal with the drama of guilt by association, given his busy schedule.
Who's carrying out the interview?
Michael Albert, Z media founder
Joe Rogan
@@AymanB wasn't he the guy behind Manufacturing Consent?
@@aaaatttt101 Manufacturing Consent was co-authored by the late Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky.
Michael Albert was a rebellious student at MIT when Chomsky started teaching there.
Been an activist since.
@@AymanB Not the book. I was thinking of the film version.
I'm like that old guy at the video.
Chomsky? You are *NOTHING* compared to that "old guy" in the video, even if you're talking about the interviewer
Well, I'm a determinist atheist.
Groucho M is that what science says
th-cam.com/video/4GmahLqbrdQ/w-d-xo.html
well, you resumed your existence pretty easily . be yourself .
Did you have a choice?
If so, you cannot regard that as an achievement since it would have been predetermined by external factors. Moreover those who refused to believe this would not be blameworthy in the slightest.
Noam is a shining light. He looks at facts. Will be missed he's getting old. Good on him and his research.
❤️🇵🇹❤️
rump & the Crisis of American Psychosis [both parties as Chomsky explains]
The Goldwater rule is Section 7 in the American Psychiatric Association's Principles of Medical Ethics, which states that psychiatrists have a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health, but they should not give a professional opinion about public figures whom they have not examined in person, and from whom they have not obtained consent to discuss their mental health in public statements. It is named after former US Senator and 1964 presidential nominee Barry Goldwater.The weak spot for those that accept free will is a straw man argument demanding that to have free will one must be able to choose differently than we have chosen. The argument is preposterous because that demonstrates the opposite of free will. Free will is demonstrated by acting according to our own will rather than in opposition to it. Compatibilism is a strong argument that has not been refuted. Determinism is not counter to free will. Free will is aptly demonstrated by the predictability of one's actions that are different, even if only sometimes, to the predictable actions of another. That is the essence of free will and has never been adequately countered except by redefining the term itself to something virtually incomprehensible or contradictory.
Or seating on a big stick.
Anglo-Saxon=gog Magog
LOL or some mega crazy shit
They, still, doing the entire world a favor, so they think. The destruction in Iraq was a huge favor.
Anyone who does not know that most of the US Founding Fathers were Deists did not read their writings. Deists believe in a creator, but do not pay much attention to all of the other beliefs that different people and different religions add on top of that belief. I don't know for certain either way, but I do know that science doesn't know either. Anybody who claims to know for sure how the universe was created is probably a know-it-all in other fields as well. But I do know that the Founding Fathers were reasonable and wise, as were many others in history who believe in a creator or who believe in the teachings of Jesus about compassion and forgiveness. Atheists who demonize Christians in the same way that fiction writers demonize bears or whales are just spinning narratives, generalizing, stereotyping, and stirring up hate...which is the one thing that any good way of thinking should avoid.
yet that is exactly what the christians claim is it not? That their God created the universe in seven days for the whole purpose of breeding one insignificant species on one very insignificant planet on a rather insignificant solar system from one among trillion trillions of galaxies in his magnificent universe?
@@syabanskeptic2287 Especially, like how the early Hebrews treated the peoples they conquered, like the inhabitants of Jericho.
"because they are Not white enough "....WTF
@ 5:50 starts talking about Anglo-Saxon supremacy
This guy
Did Chomsky say Hitler looks mild compared to Benjamin Franklin 😵!?
No. He didn't.
what the hell do you mean "did he say"? why don't you try listening next time and then you can be sure one way or the other... idiot
For someone as astute as Chomsky why does he ignore the earlier history of invading tribes such as the Anglo-Saxon invasion of England (Angland) or the Norman conquest of William, or the Danes, or the Protestants entering Ireland, etc. Then over on the continent we can examine the demise of the Etruscans by the proto Romans who took their Mediterranean impetus from the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Phoenicians as they spread circumferentially into Northern Europe, Northern Africa, and farther along the Atlantic coasts when their ships were sufficient for the journey.
How much effort would it take Mr. Chomsky to tie the whole together instead of your incessant assault on the history of North America? (I won’t get into the history of Asia right here but certainly distances, topography, the superior (in length) of the growing season that allowed for 1 1/2 rice harvests vs the singular wheat harvest of the European agriculturalists permitted the feeding of a much larger population in Asia (vs Europe).
Of course you might want to point the finger of causality towards the rotation (and axis wobble) of the earth and resultant weather patterns (for example as to how Plague moved and decimated vast swaths of human life at various times throughout human history). This is the kind of historical discussion and dialogue I would appreciate from you. (In exchange I might be convinced to share my understanding of “free”, clean energy generation and other designs/inventions that I have yet to share for fear of “upsetting the apple cart”). Meanwhile think on mobile perpetuam. Rsvp, J.
You do realize your entire argument is basically whataboutism, no? "US is doing something bad", "but oh what about the vikings?"
If what you wanted was a discussion on violence throughout human history, there might be a video somewhere else by Professor Chomsky where he also talks about Anglo-Saxon invasion of England. Or better yet another historian who professionalizes in ancient human history instead of Professor Chomsky who professionalizes in modern history.
The point being, you are entirely missing the point of this video, which is about the relationship between US policies and politics and religion, and your argument adds nor has no significant value to the topic being discussed.
@@Albert-oo1wk totally agree with your comment.
So everything was just created randomly? I find that even more ridiculous than anything that a religion says.
@Matias Martinez Read a short book by Dr. John Rees called "Six Numbers". In it he explains that if any of those six universal forces were off by just ONE PERCENT, the universe would be devoid of life. 1% * 6 = God.
@Matias Martinez Sure it is - it's EVIDENCE. He explains it much better than I can. So "it just happened" is scientific? Go ahead and name one of your "hundreds of books." Of course, had I said otherwise, you would have immediately said, "what's your evidence?" LMAO!
@Matias Martinez Because the random chance is so minimal. It's not just complexity. It's how it all works to allow life. So your position is "we got lucky?"
@Matias Martinez Soooo... all of those forces that Dr. Rees talks about (and probably hundreds or thousands of others) just came about randomly? Like I've already asked a few times now: We just got lucky?
@Matias Martinez BTW, it's Dr. Martin Rees and the title is "Just Six Numbers." Check it out. I think Giambattista Vico's "New Science" is pretty compelling as well as a proof of the existence of God.
We tried to help the Indians, you slaved the Indians.
Not enslaved: killed
Chomsky doesn't articulate his words clearly. He semi-mumbles, indicating his arrogance and lack of respect for his listeners to whom he condescends as if talking to children.
I didn’t have any trouble understanding. Maybe you should look into hearing aids.
@@brandonszpot8948 ~ Maybe you should look into improving your reading comprehension. I didn't say I can't understand him, altho it's often difficult because of his mumbly way of talking. He doesn't bother to enunciate his words clearly. For instance at 0:30, he starts rambling on in a barely audible way about free will. He said "I don't want to believe" in determinism, even though he conceded that scientists and philosophers accept determinism. He arbitrarily says "I don't want to believe that." So he just believes what he wants to believe. This isn't a thoughtful approach.
He knocks Benjamin Franklin for racialist views that he expressed earlier in his ife. Chomsky ignores that Franklin changed and became a strong opponent of slavery later on. Ken Burns noted that Franklin "changed his mind, he acknowledged he was wrong, and he eventually became president of an abolitionist society in Pennsylvania. " But Chomsky doesn't mention that because it doesn't fit into his unrelenting anti-Americanism.
Chomsky is correct to point out America's racist history, but then he goes off the rails with his absurd remark that "Hitler looks mild in comparison." (7:40) This is an ironic comment coming from Chomsky considering that in the 1970s he denied the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia. He came off as a virtual apologist for the Khmer Rouge. He also disputed Serb atrocities in Bosnia during the 1990s. Chomsky is an ideologue with a penchant for exaggeration and misstatements of facts -- as well as an arrogant condescending attitude.
@@FrankCoffman the holocaust conducted by the US lasted centuries, it absolutely makes the fascists look mild in comparison.
"Hitler seems mild in comparison"
This is why it's hard to take chomsky seriously sometimes. Because American racism existed earlier than Nazi racism, doesn't mean that it makes Hitler seem "mild in comparison"
Ok buddy, let's do a body count. Hitler's murders vs US Imperialism and corporatism's murders. BTW, the US shares Hitler's bag because without support from nazi-sympatizer US industrialists and financiers, Hitler couldn't fully Hitler.
@@celestialnubian holy shit, how much "support" do you think Hitler got from the US? A negative amount. And that was before the US entered the war
@@rationalobserver3675 You should study history.
@@celestialnubian if you could stand by what you said you wouldn't have deleted your comment. I don't have time for trolls
It was a hyberbolic statement but not too far off
Dr Chomsky is a Great Professor of American Linguists. He should focus on that.
I find it astonishing the History that he manufactures. He discusses History and references his "facts".
Please, use Common Sense, he does not have access to this information. I guess that why his books do not sell.
Facts about Wars, invasions, religion, etc. He acts like he is an Expert on Politics and Societies.
"Anglo-Saxonism" may be "racist", but those darn Anglo-Saxons were sure more accomplished, innovative, industrious, and intrepid than any other group of people on the planet. Maybe those "Anglo-Saxonists" actually have a point?
No, they have no point. Upon study of their own origins one finds they do not, other than a cohesive racist amalgamated origins that eventually leads to ethno-facism. Most of the great ideas the anglo-saxon culture put forth is borrowed by the greeks, romans, arabs, french, etc.
@@johnnytocino9313 Why stop there, the whole world is the same. If any others would have become the dominate ones do you think it would have made a difference?
@@richardeast3328 perhaps not.
Getting the plague, flat-earthing, climate change denial, The Holocaust, bizarre numerals while the India invented our numbers, China had gunpowder and was trying vaccines, and The Middle East knew the earth was round.
Is it me, or does none of that sound intrepid or industrious at all?
@@Warriorcats64 You don't know what Anglo-Saxons are if you think they did the Holocaust.
I always find Chomsky to be a linguist who is far too fond of talking about things he has no qualifications to talk about. Even his linguistic theories are proved false.
@@calldwnthesky6495 well Chomsky is just some guy talking in TH-cam. Go fuck yourself
@@calldwnthesky6495 then I gather that you're not a socialist libertarian like Chomsky or myself, but rather a hierarchical thinking bourgeois. Anyway. I'm too old for this crap. Chomsky's ideas are not original apart from his linguistics. His views are typical of 60s, 70s and 80s anarchy-syndacalism and he basically has not grown up. Good luck to him. He's lived a sheltered life in academia and is still able to hold such outdated views. I do like some of his analyses of modern society, but dislike to guru status that he has attained on TH-cam..
rump & the Crisis of American Psychosis [both parties as Chomsky explains]
The Goldwater rule is Section 7 in the American Psychiatric Association's Principles of Medical Ethics, which states that psychiatrists have a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health, but they should not give a professional opinion about public figures whom they have not examined in person, and from whom they have not obtained consent to discuss their mental health in public statements. It is named after former US Senator and 1964 presidential nominee Barry Goldwater.The weak spot for those that accept free will is a straw man argument demanding that to have free will one must be able to choose differently than we have chosen. The argument is preposterous because that demonstrates the opposite of free will. Free will is demonstrated by acting according to our own will rather than in opposition to it. Compatibilism is a strong argument that has not been refuted. Determinism is not counter to free will. Free will is aptly demonstrated by the predictability of one's actions that are different, even if only sometimes, to the predictable actions of another. That is the essence of free will and has never been adequately countered except by redefining the term itself to something virtually incomprehensible or contradictory.
Anyone who does not know that most of the US Founding Fathers were Deists (who believed in the separation of church and state) did not read their writings. Deists believe in a creator, but do not pay much attention to all of the other beliefs that different people and different religions add on top of that belief. I don't know for certain either way, but I do know that science doesn't know either. Anybody who claims to know for sure how the universe was created is probably a know-it-all in other fields as well. But I do know that the Founding Fathers were reasonable and wise, as were many others in history who believe in a creator or who believe in the teachings of Jesus about compassion and forgiveness. Atheists who demonize Christians in the same way that fiction writers demonize bears or whales are just spinning narratives, generalizing, stereotyping, and stirring up hate...which is the one thing that any good way of thinking should avoid.
@Matias Martinez Not every point made by atheists is without merit, but I find more merit in Christianity than most atheists would accept. The spirit of what Jesus taught was kindness. The only reason people were able to corrupt that over time is because most of them were borderline cavemen.
@Matias Martinez I will disagree with that just to add an extra level.
@Matias Martinez It has to be because before then Jesus hadn't been born. Christianity is literally the teachings of Jesus who founded, accidentally, the Christian religion.
if there's any question in your mind about whether or not the founding fathers thought there should be a separation of church and state, and how they felt about Christianity specifically, you need only to read the treaty of Tripoli.
@@intuitionz1198 Never take advice to only read one thing. It's something people suggest who have strong ideologies. Atheists have their own religion, often believing in things like transhumanism (they believe that one day everybody will be half robot)...or other beliefs that put themselves at the center of the universe.