Chomsky on Humanism (1/3)

[Jrunri]

Sounds like a humanist to me :)

[DrMerkwuerdichliebe]

Mal d'Aurore. 01.

[MrRightfootleftfoot]

@Richardaberdeen you are such a fucking troll.

[supportisrael35]

Humanism is a doctrine of demons. Man is nothing but evil and deserves to be tortured forever in hell. You cannot save yourself only the Blood of Jesus can.

Man is only evil and wicked continually and God regrets making humans Genesis 6:5-6 and 8:21

The human mind is sick and deceitful above all things Jeremiah 17:9

God gave up man to a reprobate mind Romans 1:28-31 Mat 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

[Skandronicus]

@supportisrael35 Written by a bunch of old men. Nasty, vile stuff and ultimately useless to humanity.

[Ashiman12]

@supportisrael35 The Bible says it, so it must be true...I won't even bother rolling my eyes.

[FIGHTFANNERD3]

@supportisrael35 idiot

[blockhart]

take the cotton out of your move when you give intros

[neosoontoretro]

Belief in the supernatural can bring comfort but it can also create fear. A being that know your every move and thought. And if you do the wrong thing you'll go to fiery dimension fill with fire and torment. So actually not believing in the supernatural can bring comfort, because the world is not as frightening. I do agree with him when he says someone's belief doesn't effect the other person that it is not his place to change it.

[tonyteb]

@neosoontoretro Straw man

[HoGraz]

This picture is hilarious.

[BCsJonathanTM]

@5:35

wow... a smart interviewer! Ha-la-lu-ya!

[journeyer58]

3 modern intellectuals that float my boat are Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and Norman Finkelstein. these 3 individuals make me realize that the intellectuals of the US are not only spirited but they are a work in progress. I am at a loss as to how someone can call such people, leftists and lockstep thinkers. Howard Zinn, chose a life of teaching, showing the world that people are powerful in their lives. Norman Finkelstein, has called into question the policies of Israel in regards to their........

[ALTERED13TH]

Noam Chomsky is a moron, not a leading intellectual. He suffers from mental illness.

[MrJohanasBilderberg]

I am not sure which is worse.

The insufferable self promotion of Chomsky or the dick sucking synchopants he surrounds himself with.

[Dymdez]

@MrJohanasBilderberg

How can you say that when everything Chomsky says is so demonstrably true. Shame on you.

[hailtotheking324]

the left, the right. Conservative, Liberal, Republican, Democrat blah blha blah blah...oh ur just a stupid liberal. well ur a dumb redneck...SHUT THE FUCK UP..fucking people are so stupid

[MrROTD]

chomsky made me realize that it's the haves vs the have nots and we must fight and speak out to take back some power from the institutions that run our lives.

[rgwholt]

Wow only in America can you get away with a 2.09 intro of insufferable pomposity..........let the man speak for gods sake.......

[OlegKostour]

@rgwholt Thanks for the warning, knew exactly where to cut to. lol. 2.09.

[Woelfin001]

@rgwholt Thank you for letting us know where to clink in :-) 2:09 it is then....

[Xephon212]

@rgwholt I've seen this happen in British and French interviews as well.

[rgwholt]

@Xephon212 .... no you have not...we don't need reminding constantly about what we have been watching, or who we are listening to...cheers mate...

[Xephon212]

@rgwholt I find it annoying as well but it exists in many academic seminars etc. Sorry to have upset you son.

[BusinessButterfly]

this is what biological moralism can be consider in this society... and the subconsicous approach "jesus became the verb" he holds higher mental faculties as the main tool of evolution is the debate under the ability to only use 10% of our capability mentally speaking wow...

[Traitorfish]

@lol97d That assumes that "belief" necessarily implies a belief in unwavering omnibenevolence, which the briefest of glances over the history of non-Abrahamic faiths will demonstrate to be a most blatant nugget of self-righteous ignorance.

[diaverde09]

Was Chomsky more of a Psychologist or Politico?

[600percentjesus]

@residentzombie did alex jones tell you that?

[Traitorfish]

@residentzombie Wait, how in the name of Great Buggering Christ did you infer that from the explicit endorsement of anarcho-syndicalism? You must be paranoid summat fierce.

[cayetanoluis]

@residentzombie Everything you just said there was a bare-face lie.

Cunt.

[residentzombie]

@cayetanoluis Chomsky is a Zionist, grew up in a Jesuit home, and is an anarchist.  His associations are very troubling to say the least.

[cayetanoluis]

@residentzombie "His associations are very troubling"

What's "troubling" about anarchism, or growing up in a Jesuit home? Are you just showing more of your cuntness?

[6Man666666]

@residentzombie Anarchism is actually a very attractive ideology if you bother to look into it. But you may be more interested in locking onto labels which means you tend to reduce the world in self referential language without bothering on exploring beyond your boundaries...are you a fundamentalist christian?

[Castaril]

@6Man666666 Under anarchy, what happens when someone breaks into your home, kills your family, and loots your stuff?

[blackmichael75]

@Castaril In anarchism there is no profit motive and therefore no incentive to do these things. But if it did occur then the community as a whole would deal with it. There is nothing in anarchism that says a community cannot defend itself. If an individual acted in such an antisocial way, they would simply be expelled from the community.

[GodOfTheInternets]

@Castaril

Probably send to a mental hospital... Remember, customary law exists in anarchy.

[Otaconsps]

@residentzombie Yeah.....MIT what a Motley Crew....

[mistertakeda]

@Otaconsps A motley crew of troublemakers D:<

[5tc17]

@residentzombie Friend, you're wrong on all fronts. I wish I could report your comment as egregious. Chomsky is neither Zionist, nor Jesuit, nor anarchist. Irregardless, his 'associations' do not matter; the warrants he presents need to be examined and considered.

Please, don't 'say the least', say 'more', and think through those thoughts critically before expressing them.

[PositivelyBored]

@5tc17 Chomsky is certainly a self-identified left-libertarian or anarchist, more specifically anarcho-syndicalism.

[kingamber]

@residentzombie *facepalm

[Darusdei]

@residentzombie scientists have recently discovered that "free choice" is just an illusion. your subconscious has made the decision for you, you just think that you came up with it. =(

[misterchicitymayne]

@residentzombie Stop being a fucking dick.

[timbosforporn]

Your spiritual salvation come from your own inner reflection with God and not from your outer reflection with society

[Xephon212]

I'd love to see Chomsky on the O'Reilly show. But then they never have him on would they. Thanks for posting this.

[warmacre]

@Xephon212 I doubt very much Chomsky would be seen dead on Fox, especially the O'Reilly show. There would be no logic in him going on a mass media corporation channel when he openly criticises the like.

I'd pay bloody good money to see it though. Chomsky may seem like a laid-back guy, but he'll rip your head off if you don't let him speak.

[failgame]

misanthropy > humanism

you're naive if you think people can truly improve as a whole. WW3 is just around the corner, this time I'd bet the death toll will be in the billions. BILLIONS. Can you even begin to comprehend how many stinking, rotting corpses that'll be?

[CelticRaven163]

@failgame I'm assuming your trolling, have a good day mate.

[hitman1421]

@failgame It is that perspective that keeps humanity from changing...

[SUpersaiyajinjerkbag]

@failgame

WW3 will solve overpopulation and is justice

[troderick666]

@failgame that's pessimism.

[ChrisWales22]

Is that the voiceover of that Jewish guy in Family Guy?

[backaround]

chomsky rocks my socks. his ability to side step nonsensical vitriolic debates is an act to be followed (one that i clearly struggle with, lol).

[Ullbritt]

@backaround I read that Chomskys favourite expression is "rocks my socks"

[Lukeypoo91]

Radicals nowadays never get anything done. They're all too busy arguing about what's "left" and "right" and how far left or right left and right really are. God damn.

[MasterAdam100]

I'm more of an Emma Goldman dude when it comes to Anarchy. Chomsky was a great, intelligent man but I disagree with his political(or lack of) philosophy's.

[PapGripDezi]

Chomsky is a genius, no doubt, but i don't agree with everything he says. for instance, i know that he knows that Israel had killed any chance for a two state solution when the illegal annexation wall was planned to essentially bifurcate the west bank and when Israel began the process of detaching Palestinians from their cultural/political center in East Jerusalem. Yet, Chomsky does not join the most prominent academics in supporting a one state, binational, peace.

I still think he's brilliant

[larrylife4life]

@PapGripDezi that's just not true, chomsky has supported the binational state for decades, in print.

[D0g63rt]

"the left"? He criticizes the left just as vehemently as he does the right,

[ZenMuadDib1]

the left as in the radical left not the so-called left that is really centrist.

[227Morgan]

I would call it the middle right.

[tml4873]

@D0g63rt Questioning the establishment is by fiat a "left" thing to do. Besides, you can be in a group and still criticise it.

[WorshipInTruth]

@D0g63rt Are you kidding? No he doesn't, his only criticism of the "left" is that they are not left wing (communist) enough. He completely white washes the crimes of even the worst communist regimes. I still do not know why people listen to this guy.

[MrROTD]

@D0g63rt he sees past that

[XZohar123]

@D0g63rt I agree. Although, it can be said that though he criticizes right and left in America with the same frequency, it's withoout a doubt that his fundamental ideology is left of center. However, that's not surprising, considering how America's two parties are practically "moderates" on the left, and "crazy people" on the right.

[MrMutualism]

@D0g63rt He is a socialist. Socialism is left.

[lordjames12]

What are the limits of science?

Are there any inherent limits? Or is it just a matter of time before science sheds some light on things like free will or creativity?

Interested to hear what other people think.

[JonnyBoyMach2]

The limits we have on science are simply the tools and reserach methods we have at our disposal. That simple, really.

[SmokiSounds]

@lordjames12 I'm sure a 100% that science will not touch anything that goes beyond material, like free will or love, for example. Science deals with natural, while there are too many things apart from natural in our lives. Don't trust scientists to give you answer to everything.

[FunNotNuts]

I can't believe the thumbs down on various comments. Why are people so negative???? Fear?

[andyx1205]

Noam Chomsky is an idiot. So what if he teaches at MIT, anyone can get into MIT.

And no one cares about linguistics, it's a useless subject.

Also, how dare he defend Humanism.

Conservatism is leaps ahead of Humanism, Conservatism is the adherance to the old and tried, according to Abraham Lincoln, which is exactly what our society needs.

/ends sarcasm

[doston1]

Yes, anyone who's smart can get into MIT. It's something resembling a meritocracy, unlike say HARVARD, where Bush went. ;) You're an idiot.

[andyx1205]

How come my comment is voted -5?

MY COMMENT WAS SARCASTIC, didn't anyone notice that? I'm actually a die hard Chomsky fan, and have 5 of his books.

[yourboycal]

@andyx1205 sarcasim is hard to show online ,

[VanDoodah]

The interviewer sounds like Mort Goldman from "Family Guy".

[vanderbilt887]

Well, I think what literature can offer us is different for everyone of us. It deals with 'subjective realities' of humans (in the broadest sense). So take Hamlet: my interpretation of Hamlet is a man with a profound consciousness, who is deeply engaged in the world, but who is nevertheless shut of from the world (and in part himself) because he's depressed (by the murder of his father by his uncle). That's a tiny part of human experience, which I think is very real, despite it's subjectivity.

[vanderbilt887]

the chomsky hierarchy, the sound patterns of english (his work on phonology) etc. etc.

[fede2]

we'll learn more about human beings from literature than science for the time being? what exactly does that mean? what does he mean by literature? i find it hard to believe that we can aquire genuine indisputable knowlage on the matter without formal study.

[vanderbilt887]

True, but just take a look at those fields which employ the scientific method and study human nature: evolutionary psychology, sociology, linguistics etc. Although there are some significant advances, there is as of yet not a real thorough understanding of human nature.

But in general I also do find Chomsky a bit to cautious concerning these studies. This led Steven Pinker (the well known evolutionary psychologist) to describing Chomsky as ''militantly agnostic' (about how languages evolved)

[fede2]

"there is as of yet not a real thorough understanding of human nature"

i don't deny that, but if science falls short, what other disipline can give us genuine answers that aren't purely speculative?

[vanderbilt887]

I know, it's a terrible thing but I think we just have to wait. I don't think human nature is principally inaccesible to the scientific method, it's just that it's way too complex to come to know it completely now. Though I would hasten to add, that it can be seriously studied: I'd recommend Ramachandran's work (he also had a video here on youtube talking about art and the human brain, a great watch).

[fede2]

what i meant to say is that we can't rely on any other field that is not scientific to give us answers on the matter. i just want to know what exactly literature is supposed to offer.

[paganiniGOGO]

There's also a great two part BBC documentary about some of Ramachandran's cases, which is on youtube. I just watched it and was quite fascinated.

[vanderbilt887]

Thanks! I'm watching it now

[MrWizenBud]

In my experience, Science is nothing without speculation. Science is the tool we humans use to prove or disprove our speculation. Without speculation you can have no science. Without science... we wouldn't have speculation. (at least how we know it now) Both have a role to play in the evolution of man. We have limited knowledge. Only thru speculation can we begin to fill in the gaps. Time is all that is needed. Time to observe & test, then understanding will come. We just need patience.

[jct329]

Umm...the only speculation you have to have is to believe that observable reality is...well, real. The axioms of science are set down in absolute 100% observable facts.

[MrWizenBud]

Without speculation you couldn't come up with a theory to test. The act of observation isn't science. The ability to take observed "facts" and answer questions of who,what,why,where,&how. First comes speculation... then comes the test of the speculation(theory).... which in turn, leads to answers to one or all of the 5 questions. That is Science in a nutshell.

[canadarox14]

But some fact isn't observable. If you can't see or hear or touch a planet thousands of miles away, does that mean it isn't there? The five senses are very limiting. If we restrict fact to the senses, we're missing a lot.

[yourboycal]

@canadarox14 well you can see the planets with the satiltie pics to reaffirm your belief that its there right?

[canadarox14]

Absolutely. But you need to trust whoever took the picture if you're going to treat it as fact. And I'm assuming you've never met the photographer. To believe that what you're seeing is true, your using something besides the five senses, because you're looking at something you've never experienced yourself. You're choosing to believe it. If you're religious, you can call this faith. But even if you're not religious, trust is something all of us use every day.

[yourboycal]

surly , if you were to doubt the credibility of the photographer , there is one path of actually learning the logistics of making a telescope , which with the internet today shouldnt be to hard , and actually verify then for your self , and see it for your self. if you wanted to take it to that extent , just on principals and to prove a point , i would say yes and it would still be your senses

[dearyou1994]

True. Questioning the reality of reality has little point outside of philosophy. If what I see in front of me isn't real, so what? As interesting as it is, it's not something that is productive to dwell on.

Forgive me if this isn't at all what you are talking about. I'm reading what you said completely out of context.

[lordjames12]

@dearyou1994

I think we have to start talking about what it means for something to be "real."

I think most philosophers (I'm not one) would agree that the planet neptune "exists" - but its the nature of that existence that is ineffable.

Am I talking crap?

[deadgoblin86]

Not really, Heidegger raised the important point that though we talk of being as though its meaning is granted, we dont really understand what being is.

[numberonesurvivor75]

Atheism and true anarcho-capitalism are incompatible.

[numberonesurvivor75]

Isn't this guy in Industrial Workers of the World? Fight for the downtrodden linguistics professor who only make between fifty and one hundred thousand dollars a year to contribute next to nothing meaningful to society(as a linguist, I can tell you this.) There are engineers who speak English, Urdu, Chinese, and Hindi. They make around $30,000 annually in India. In America, they might get $60,000.

[vanderbilt887]

Obviously, you're not a linguist.

[numberonesurvivor75]

What makes you say that?

[numberonesurvivor75]

I probably know more languages than Chomsky. I've also written several position papers.

[numberonesurvivor75]

Oh, and now, I've got a degree.

[vanderbilt887]

Because if you really are a linguist you would:

a. know that your statement that 'Chomsky has contributed next to nothing meaningful to society(as a linguist I can tell you this)' is empty rhetoric only showing your ignorance as 'a linguist'.

b. Knowing more languages than Chomsky doesn't make you a (better) linguist

Chomsky's contributions to linguistics, psychology and (therefore) society are remarkable to say the least.

As for your contributions and degree, I couldn't tell.

[numberonesurvivor75]

Name one tangible contribution that Chomsky has made.

[vanderbilt887]

Are you serious? Alright, but be sure to correct me if I'm wrong:

Transformational grammar (from his Syntactic Structures). The idea of a innate universal grammar, underlying all human languages (and obliterating the tabula rasa fallacy). The principles and parameters approach, the minimalist program

[numberonesurvivor75]

First of all, he didn't make that up by himself. He drew from tons of philosophers, mathematicians, semioticians, and any other kind of "ician."

Secondly, what has transformational grammar done for anybody? Besides, its flawed because an innate grammar is altered by social mores in a society.

[vanderbilt887]

He was influenced by the Cambridge platonists, but that's standard practice in science. Everyone is influenced by others. He expounded on some of their ideas and took them to a whole other level.

An innate grammar isn't influenced by 'social mores', it's part of human nature (evolutionary baggage).

See: /neuro/journal/v6/n7/abs/nn107­7.html at Nature's website.

Although I do agree that there are some vailant criticims of Chomskyan linguistics, saying he contributed nothing is nonsense

[paganiniGOGO]

Everybody's wrong about a few things. People who say he contributed nothing obviously know nothing about linguistics or psychology so there's no point in responding to them.

[vanderbilt887]

Well I enjoy it... there's a reason :)

[paganiniGOGO]

Well I as I wrote that I realized that I respond to idiots more than anyone else and I should take my own advice.

But people who say things like what we were talking about can literally know nothing about psychology or linguistics and are clearly just people who disagree with his political views.

[VanDoodah]

He may be a clever linguist, but:

7:28-7:32.

Hahaha. Classic.

[numberonesurvivor75]

Noam Chomsky's philosophy threatens basic human rights everywhere and hinders the scientific education of millions of people in the United States. He wants to create a state that puts all life on an algorithm.

A so called "supernatural" belief is 100% scientific. The so called "fundamentalist" churches that influenced the Bush administration are not Christian in any biblical sense. In fact, the Jerry Falwell's and Joel Osteen's are Transcendentalist sympathizers. Character Count

[vanderbilt887]

Where's your argument? We can all state anything.

[numberonesurvivor75]

It is this deification of the state that humanism preaches that denies that imperfection. This belief that man alone is great causes man to impose his will on everyone around him unless he fears that he doesn't yet have to power to do so. It is the humanist that has encouraged compulsory school attendance. It is the humanist who favors licensing laws and guilds. It is the humanist who favors murder when it seems convenient. Recall the Odyssey, "Without God, man is nothing."

[jjmhamir89]

In this image, Chomsky looks a bit like Marcello Lippi, the Italian football coach : )

[mamchi]

@jjmhamir I cant agree more! :D

[strengthnfaith]

"I dont associate myself with any particular ism"

Noam Chomsky not His friend MR Truism

[mose3]

"The only "ism" I believe in is truism."

Noam Chomsky

[black0jackass]

you left out racism

[mose3]

"Noam Chomsky . . . Is a major scholarly resource. Not to have read [him] is to court genuine ignorance."

-The Nation

"Chomsky ranks with Marx, Shakespeare, and the Bible as one of the ten most quoted sources in the humanities."

-The Guardian

"One of the West's most influential intellectuals in the cause of peace."

-The Independent

"Our greatest unraveller of accreditid lies"

-New Statesman

"Americas most useful citizen."

-The Boston Globe

[numberonesurvivor75]

The Boston Globe is one of the most evil newspapers ever published. Seldom do their articles offer any substance and never do they attempt to provide an unbiased view of things. Frequently, they defend crook after crook to attack moral industrial values and promote massive violence in urban streets through the promotion of extremely crooked politicians with regards to the heroin trade that has devastated areas of Massachusetts. It also promoted the decline of manufacturing in the area.

[adredo9]

lolz

[gypsyfish300]

No

That was his friend's quote

[fede2]

who did he say his philosopher friend was?

[semigotbanned]

he didn't say who that was, idiot

[polymath7]

@fede2 No, but it's almost certainly Hilary Putnam.

[boredsun]

nice talk

nice picture too lol

[erby1kabogey]

Great post! Always look forward to hearing as much as possible from Chomsky!

[theinternetscholar]

on the social sciences, yeah humans are exceptionally hard to understand . . . very much more to do in the research of ourselves

laissez-faire religion, i like that . . . believe and follow what you want as long as it isn't affecting or imposing on anyone else

[Rassgatibala]

I agree on the religion.

[tabuma]

chomsky shines the light on everything. he's so sane. very refreshing

[Zoidborg1]

chomsky seems to be very positivist

very like a Sci guy never assume we only know what we know

[fede2]

well, he is much less so than most, i would say. he adds an humanistic element to his philosophy with regards to human nature, morality, solidarity, etc. that i don't find in a lot of those within the traditional rationalist/empiricist school.

[drsakhr]

interesting , thanks

[TasteySauce]

Do we have a date on this interview?

[maldoror01]

May 27, 2007