The Ideas of Chomsky-BBC interview (4)

[Jason011987]

Arnold Schoenberg was to conventional harmony what Friedrich Nietzsche was to God.

[Raysyedrocks]

Do anyone know which talk show this is?

[ClintDeVille]

@Raysyedrocks

"Men of Ideas" The host is Bryan Magee.

[SeedsofJoy]

I wish he would talk about his work in linguistics rather than all that political stuff he seems more preoccupied with nowadays.

[castano2001]

What is he saying at 2:18 about the substantial difference of the two children of the same day?? Had to go to work and didn't have the time to re-listen the discussion :'(

[dronbod]

This interview could not be shown today because, as Chomsky himself points out, all television channels, including the BBC, along with all newspapers, including so-called left-of-centre papers (like the Guardian) are run by profit-motivated boards and establishment-oriented trusts. Only programme-makers and journalists who support shows and articles which are PROvEN to appeal to advertisers, governments and sufficiently large numbers of consumers can get promoted in such a system.

[WastedTourist]

I wonder if there is any topic on which he can't talk with erudition. The closest I've ever seen him admit his ignorance on a question was a technical military question.

[film4thefuture]

Can you imagine something like this on UK TV these days? About the closest you'd get is an interview with Mark Lawson, and he's an idiot.

[mxdblessing]

a disagreement i have is his implied definition of music: he seems not to acknowledge it as a language. i have personally, after years of introspective musicianship, as of yet failed to find a single component one can attribute to language that music does not satisfy. i'd like to hear his theories applied to music, rather than divide music from the tradition of language. any disagreements with my perspectively are wholeheartedly welcome.

[olemunati]

Music is not a language in the sense of the linguistic approach Chomsky and others are using. When you disagree with Chomsky on this your not the only one. To understand this exremely comlex field, one might have to at least know what the minimalistic program is and how it relates to genes. Also the story of how math could express infinity was proven in the 50´s and that language can do the exact same thing. And this important scientific work was proven by Chomsky in the 70´s.

[esoervik]

@olemunati I agree... phonology is one thing, but then there's semantics, syntax and morphology, among other things, to consider... a shedload of intricate cognitive processes and linguistic functions trumps play with sounds and rhythm in terms of information content, unless you're a mathematician, I guess ;P

[FinishTheNewLine]

@mxdblessing There are lots of reasons why music isn't considered language. Fundamentally I would start with the fact that we don't use the same areas of the brain when listening to either music or speech.

[genesisplan]

Without a doubt this interview truly show Chomsky's genius :-)

[fedeman2]

i'm really glad that he rejects empiricism. proof that he is realistic and serious.

[paganiniGOGO]

well that's his whole philosophy

[jamestandrews]

actually quite to the contrary, how do you suppose it realistic. serious on the other hand is granted, moreso that it denotes a wider breadth of consideration in his though.

[fede2]

i just think that empiricism as a philosophy of totality falls way too short. also, i did write this comment a while back ago, so i don't have the disdain for it i used to. it was before i started studying philosophy.

[ColdCypher]

@fedeman2 Are you a person of faith?

[jerryhello100]

@fedeman2 absolutely.

[erby1kabogey]

jesus christ, I'm starting to think you people just like using big words to make yourself sound smarter, it all comes across as very pompous and arrogant in many ways. Chomsky has to be one of the greatest minds of our time and it seems everyone else just wants to pretend that they are just as intelligent, in my opinion

[paganiniGOGO]

No one is trying to 'pretend' that they're anything. People are simply expressing their opinions with the succinctness and eloquence required in order to adequately communicate what are naturally abstract and complex ideas and conceptions.

It is most likely that you find these comments to be pretentious due to your unfamiliarity with, and inability to comprehend, them.

In the end, you give the impression of being the most pompous and arrogant one here

[SChamp]

"We are being concise, but the subject requires some complex terms for the sake of precision. Don't criticise if you happen to dislike that."

Hey look, you WERE just being a blustering fool after all!

[paganiniGOGO]

I was just joking myself and when I look at my comment 2 months later I realize not everything I said even made sense.

Schamp, your response was the most concise and the least pompous or arrogant.

[paganiniGOGO]

My recommendation to you would be to look for a less intellectually stimulating environment for conversation or at least to refrain from glancing at the comments when watching videos of an intellectual nature.

[johnnycorvo]

WE ARE ALL ROBOTS

[CaptainKhrenov]

of course ...

[karlobarlo]

motohistoriodor- Art is also an equally valid way of knowing? Explain? Very profound statement that you simply brandished there with no attemtp to explain what you mean. I will also remind you that Chomsky has been on record many times stating the limitations of science and 'the scientfic lens of the west' as you put it.

[mitohistoriador]

Check out "Julia Kristeva - On Linguistics" here on u-tube for a criticism of Chomsky's Cartesianism and the fact that the "musical faculty" cannot be distinguished from the "language faculty" at its origin. C's compartamentalized picture of the mind remains within an objectivist epistemology.

[mitohistoriador]

Yes, it is rare to hear Chomsky speak of the arts; and his limitations as a thinker are most obvious there; he has even admitted that somehow (his) brain is not "programed" to understand Stravinsky or the Mona Lisa. Eventhough I admire his political thinking his "philosophy" of language leaves me cold with the jargon of a shy intellectualist who must always be "cautious" and not bold in every statement.

[gotgatGIT54]

mitohistoriador: caution is the mark of a scientific approach -- always open to new evidence. Being 'bold' is not a virtue in the sciences. And what you call 'jargon' is the terminology of linguistics and related disciplines. What else would you expect? Also, I don't think it's meant to inflame you: it's not rhetoric, but reasoned scientific inquiry.

[mitohistoriador]

Thank you for your intelligent reply--rare in the u-tube universe. Of course you are right about scientific "caution" within a scientific framework. Although any ground-breaking theory does make bold claims. But my point is rather that Art can hardly be understood "scientifically" and Chomsky is a case in point. His limitations as a thinker are most obvious there.

[gotgatGIT54]

I don't think C was even remotely subjecting 'art' to scientific analysis. He was, I think - based on those few words - drawing a parallel between music and verbal language as modes of expression. After all, the latter includes poetry, which is overwhelmingly art, and therefore beyond analysis - of course you're right on that -- but yet utilizes the resources of language. (more)

[gotgatGIT54]

He was postulating that music might have similar innate foundations, or even different aspects of the same innate bedrock. Even if he was tone-deaf, it wouldn't disqualify him for this line in inquiry.

[mitohistoriador]

Well, what I see is also a certain insecurity with regards to the tacit phonocentrism of his linguistic position, besides betraying his cartesian metaphysical assumptions. He cannot allow "music" to belong to "the language faculty" but has to postulate an absurd "musical faculty"--as if language does not develop on the ground of musical tonality--as children learn.

[gotgatGIT54]

I agree with you there. It reveals the fact that music reveals nothing to him -- and is therefore not expressive as language is, and therefore must be put in its own box. Having said that, I'm sure he too would agree about his limitations. He's nothing if not intellectually honest.

[mitohistoriador]

Check out "Julia Kristeva - On Linguistics" here on u-tube for a criticism of Chomsky's Cartesianism and the fact that the "musical faculty" cannot be distinguished from the "language faculty" at its origin. C's compartamentalized picture of the mind remains within an objectivist epistemology.

[gotgatGIT54]

I'll do that. Thanks for the pointer. They 'cannot be distinguished'? I believe that, though with no foundation, except the illegitimate one that I am both musician and writer, and find both activities remarkably similar in my internal processes. It's a 'fact'? I can hardly wait.

[mitohistoriador]

My pleasure, seeing that I too am a writer--a poet of sorts-- and a visual artist. For as you will have learned from Kristeva, it is in poetry where the musical essence of language asserts itself most strongly, without a doubt. Something you can also read in Nietzsche's BIRTH OF TRAGEDY FROM THE SPIRIT OF MUSIC. Enjoy!

[mitohistoriador]

Another case in point is Chomsky's rejection of post-modernism, which he also can't understand because it is not reducible to an impersonal objectivity--like Art. Chomsky talks as if the only way of knowing the world is through the scientific lens of the West. But Art is another equally valid way of knowing which Chomsky apparently knows little about. Indeed, in understanding Art the timidity (not caution) of the objective scientist is out of place or simply inadequate.

[gotgatGIT54]

Try this as a demarcation of C's domain. A parallel. On the one hand, a master chef -- the artist. On the other, the physiologist who studies taste buds. The neurologist studying the 'tasting' mechanism. The biochemist, the nutritionist etc. C is all of the latter. So what if he can neither make nor appreciate an edible dish?

[wagnerian1979]

Wow it seems rare to hear Chomsky discuss the arts and culture, especially music, although I suspect there is an in-depth discussion published somewhere. He displays quite a large knowledge of western classical music (as he seems to with most things!). Would be good to hear some more of his views on the subject.

[FA8T]

The psychology of music, brilliant!

[tchicherine]

I don't think so either. But it's nice to have the opportunity to sharpen my own ideas about these things by discussing them with someone who knows their stuff but comes from a slightly different angle. So thanks.

[tchicherine]

I hope I don't offend you, but I think there is some underlying prejudice in your (implicit) argument that only the Western tradition could produce highly developed artificial systems that deviate from (or, let's say, complexify) common rules of consonance and dissonance.

[tchicherine]

Additionally, I disagree with your point about cochlear "mapping": I think frequencies exist externally to our perception of them, and that the perception of, say, a major 5th as consonant is a recognition of an aspect of physical reality, rather than a culturally constructed reaction.

[tchicherine]

I definitely agree with you here. However, I would say that the subjective differences between, say, late 18th-C Western art music and the shout-songs of the Suya people, does not preclude these two musics sharing underlying fundamental principles. As Chomsky says of language formation, the generative principles may be limited, but the scope of expression they can produce is virtually infinite.

[tchicherine]

I'm not only suggesting that harmonic resonance is an innate response in humans to certain frequencies, but that certain frequencies are objectively resonant. For examples, see the harmonic series, the circle of fifths, the Fibonacci patterns to be found in the twelve-note scale, and so on. The "innate response", which is common to many cultures, is an in-built reaction to consonance, defined as how closely the frequencies of certain pitches "fit" into each other.

[tchicherine]

I disagree. Music is actually harmonically very similar across a wide range of societies. For example, the pentatonic scale is a marked feature of the music of many isolated cultures, as are techniques such as canon and call-and-response. I think Chomsky is correct when he says that 20th century western art music -- in particular serialism and atonalism -- are more artificial and less naturally accessible than other forms of music.

[TrystanCJ]

I love th way Chomsky says "are".

[AntonBatey]

lol, me too. I picked that up from him and say it like that sometimes. I also picked up his various hand gestures, and before I make a point, I preface it by saying, "Well if you really wanna be serious about it, ...". Yeah, I listen to him too much...

[assaultivebear]

Oh god not the hand gestures they are infectious as sin particularly the kind of hand sweeping outwards one and the rubbing of the back of the neck.

[AntonBatey]

lol!!! Yeah, I do that one where your hand face outward. I never picked up on the rubbing of the back of the neck yet.