The Ideas of Chomsky-BBC interview (2)

[pinoypr1d3]

as technology increases people have become too dumb to ask these kinds of questions

[danielmizzle]

I've watched almost all of these videos and have found them to be very helpful as companions to studying the various philosophers focused on here... does anybody know what this show is called and if there is anything like this on television today?

[German1184]

@danielmizzle "does anybody know what this show is called?"

Bryan Magee's BBC Television series "Men of Ideas"(1978) and "The Great Philosophers" (1987).

Take a look at:

1) "Talking Philosophy: Dialogues with Fifteen Leading Philosophers" (Oxford, 2001) -- This book is the transcript of Bryan Magee's BBC Television series "Men of Ideas".

2) "The Great Philosophers: An Introduction to Western Philosophy" (Oxford, 2001) -- Transcripts of his television series "The Great Philosophers".

[littleflags]

LAME!!! I'm going to watch Jersey Shore.

[littleflags]

@smrndoff ---- yes, i was being sarcastic (;

[goPistons06]

First of all, Bryan Magee is awesome. second, Chomsky's ideas on linguistics, philosophy and psychology are not just awesome, but very interesting. it is a shame his political commentary largely overshadows this.

[KungFuKing1916]

@goPistons06 i know right? his political studies are actually secondary, that is to say, its not even his best subject. his linguistics are revolutionary

[kingchrisuk2009]

Can you imagine Johnothan Ross trying to interview Chomsky? BBC standards have slipped so much :(

[BSFBOPE]

@kingchrisuk2009 indeed they have alas the bbc isnt what it used to be

[siamco]

"For *ethical* reason, we do not conduct intrusive experiments with human beings ... If we were dealing with a *defenseless* organism that we were allowed to ..."

I love this guy.

[mistermoen]

This is fuckin' interesting.

[thedelta88]

he has a very gradual change from his slick back to his current hair. its like he slowly gave up on it.

[andyx1205]

Chomsky will go down in history as the successor to Bertrand Russell.

[227Morgan]

As true as ever. It's so funny to see him with black hair.

[ELIOSE]

"we do not conduct intrusive experiments with human beings"

[septrenarion]

Does anyone know of any philosophy who has done any work about innate economics principles within humans?

[Diosibundo]

@septrenarion

What do you mean "Innate economic principles"? There's some work in psychology regarding "game theory"... people acting cooperatively in some situations, but being competitive and nasty if they feel they are on the defensive... you mean that? Or something else regarding capitalism, socialism etc?

[septrenarion]

I thought Nash's game theory has been debunked by Nash even. I was just wondering that since we were born with language, and math. Wouldn't the principles of value and exchange be innate. I assume they are in some way, and wouldn't they be communicated and expressed In the market?

[IrishClaudius]

Marx: Humans are producers and in the being producers develop culturally and mentally and politically to the point where we have a choice now to accept the return to barbarism as the end of capitalism or a transition to socialism.

[LongliveSnak2e]

@septrenarion austrian economics.

[rring88]

@septrenarion People on both sides of the spectrum try to argue that human nature is such...

[Nintendomanwill]

@septrenarion

The whole science of economics, where it has been studied within the boundaries allowed by sound, epistemological bases of human choice, have studied human action in reacting to cognition of external reality. It is a social science, without human choice it means nothing. Which is why economists do not advocate removing the freedom of contract in interpersonal relations; force is not economically rational in the productive, interpersonal order. THIS is morality: productivity.

[alisayf]

I love it when Chomsky adjusts his glasses

Brilliant man!

[SmokiSounds]

@alisayf YES, that's just classic!!

[wungabunga]

Chomsky always appears on the edge of telling you to stop fantasising and grow up. He is Spock.

[tariqjuneja]

yes i think so - it serves well in a clinical scientific setting - very different and I must say I enjoy the different analysis of thought/language/society being employed here. Stimulating.

[tariqjuneja]

It's pretty compelling stuff - but I sometimes just don't get how he knows this stuff??? It's so different from math and physics wheer the proofs are so quantified.

[stephengnelson]

well thats the thing with philosophy isnt it? theres no "evidence" for the platonic forms, yet this is what philosophers continually come back to. perhaps youre stuck in an empirical line of thinking?

[katalukon]

WTF? Did you even listen to the video? This is completely and nothing but an empirical matter. "Every utterance produced is an experiment" (4:14).

And Plato had empirical evidence for his forms-- ever read the Meno? Socrates finds that the slave boy knows geometry subconsciously. And philosophers such as C.S. Peirce (ie. good ones) would see Plato's resort to idealism as a misapplication of abductive reasoning.

Just so that this is a proper youtube comment: ur a retard

[stephengnelson]

utube comment retort:

red republik u libtard! Plato b all like, yo, philosophers can never be garenteed to have nolidghe of the forms. cuz that shits down 2 revelation yo. aint nooo garantee of dat shit , nigga

[katalukon]

My post above is in response to stephengnelson.

There are several other problems with Stephen's response. First, Tariq mentioned math, the token sort of non-empirical sort of reasoning, so it is hillarious for you to suggest that he is "stuck in an empirical line of thinking."

Secondly, you suggest that philosophers don't use evidence to support their views. This is an enormous fallacy among non-philosophers. Philosophy is not "rapping about ideas man", but REASONED discussion of points.

[stephengnelson]

actually, that should read "proof" of the forms.

[katalukon]

Anyways, Tariq, if you look at the work linguists do, it is very mathy looking. Once you have some good mathey theories there are a number of ways of getting "philosophical" conclusions from that.

[wungabunga]

Look at Piaget, he reshaped an entire education system on the basis of watching his own kids grow up. People argue against his ideas.

[tariqjuneja]

thanks reading up on Piaget now.

[Darean51]

He has to be one of the smartest men ever and in such a unique way.

[TheToltec]

Great Interview:)

[firebreathone2]

We will never be able to say how the principles we are led to are attributed to the system. we know (still) nothing about how the neurological structures add anything to why we make certain choices.

We cannot (and probably never will) study the human brain 100% because the very organ we use for studying that ogan is the brain itself.

[TheSpineyOne]

Wittgenstein was a beery swine

[lGnossos]

I love this interviewer, by far the most intelligent I've seen on youtube lol

[Cosbibi]

True! This must be the best Chomsky interview I've seen, normally the interviewer just gets intellectually outclassed too much. Or they seem to be unaware of Chomsky's views.

[2pac4life7777]

thats seems to be common when one interviews chomsky. This guy did an excellent job.

[3rdEarlRussell]

The interviewer is a philosopher by the name of Brian McGee, he had a show on the BBC where he interviewed philosophers. Look up some of his other interviews to people like Searle, Ayer, Singer, Putnam and others here on youtube.

[fatimel]

Hi..would anyone tell me more about the different perspectives about acquiring language..I know that there are two different perspectives cognetive and social one..so would you please tell me about the differences between the two perspectives ??? please

best regards

[boopdeedeedoo]

hello! well there are two main theories, one is that we accquire language by being around people, this is as a socialized process, you learn your language because yore in a society that speaks it --- social perspective The other, would be that language is something within any human being, that is already inside our minds and all we need is to develop it, thats what Chomsky thinks, that a child already knows and understands the basical and deep meaning and order of words in a sentence

[alexrsuarez1]

Early? He looks like he is in his 50s, he was talking about this in his 30s.

[t0kt0k]

Oh wow, I wish there was programming like this on TV today.

[fringefries]

There never will be because chomsky can't be reduced to sound bites and let's face it we're all ready too far gone as a nation.

[Amebixfan]

I'm glad I got the CBC :)

[ekirent]

AMEN!!

[jgar6]

@t0kt0k PBS?



[lysol5555]

@t0kt0k the closest thing we have today is Charlie Rose. And mike wallace and larry king only knows how to ask borderline rude, confrontational question.

[sweetpotos]

One can see in this Chomsky's self-limiting classical liberal worldview that who lead him to an innatist position of language being an immaterial yet fundamental core of human beings; much in the same way as the classical liberal thinkers talked about an innate "human nature" being the basis of politics. A good Marxist on the other hand would see and point out the dialectical nature of language as a movement of the "base"(environment, experience, etc.) and the "superstructure" (genetics, etc.).

[semasiologistics]

It is not because language is taught or learned in various ways that it is not innate. One can be trained to see or hear or remember or even speak, on certain levels, that is. However, this does not demonstrate theoretically then, that Chomsky is than limited in his "worldview".

[ARCHETECTONIC]

I think you've been un-fairly voted against, sweetpotos, and I agree with the first half of what you said. And, yes, a Marxist would see this, as its taken for granted that everything is dialectic from a Marxist perspective (except the end point, which is convergence, for Hegel, class-less system for Marx). But this is still maintaining the same power-structures that you accuse liberals of setting up in their classical liberal view. Your replacing one master with the other.

[b4skin]

speechless...can't even comment

oh,wait...crap

AWESOME vid post(s) thx

[achtpriorideaI972]

Don't watch Breakfast TV. Listen to your favourite music instead. Anarchist Spirit 2007.

[accordingtococker]

Great video. Thanks.

[juliangibson]

Because today they just want us to buy stuff; we don't do that if we're actually learning and thinking. Chomsky talks about this in 'Manufacturing Consent'

[abe3443]

Holy crap! I wish interviewers today asked such high quality, provocative, interesting questions. What the hell has happened to the state of our media???

[eht12369]

Because in today's day in age, what is most important about an interview is how it makes the interviewee look. In the age that this interview was conducted, however, what was more important was the general pursuit of knowledge. Therefore, the interviewer's questions were not screened (as heavily) for anything that might be hard for NC to answer, lest he look like a fool on national television.

[eht12369]

Also, in this specific case, Noam Chomsky is smart enough that he can handle the more provocative questions. If the interview was of somebody less intellectually gifted then the questions would probably not be as insightful.

[Hallibutbouy]

In the UK the government and the BBC had a 'vertical' idea of culture (They thought some to be more worthy persuits than others) and they aimed to work the population up the ladder. This was on the highest level of programming.

Since the New Right movement, this idea has dissapeared, all the influence in the media is now corporate, profit motivated. Intellectual debate is unprofitable, mindless TV encourages purchases.

SEACRH FOR MORE BRYAN MAGEE INTERVIEWS ON YOUTUBE - FLAME430 HAS LOADS.

[willonz]

@abe3443 because the average demographic would only become bored and change the channel, that being the last thing the media would want.

[Manwithcam]

@abe3443 It's been hijacked by pigs who want to feed the world lowbrow, middle-of-the-road, boring-as-hell nonsense.

[batongbakalpare]

@abe3443 American media has always sucked. BBC owns.

[dhar1985]

Interesting video .. keep em comming

[johnmair]

hello