The Ideas of Chomsky-BBC interview (5 of 5)

[ericNA82]

What is so refreshingly remarkable about Chomsky, whether you agree with his ideas or not, is that he is one of the few true Renaissance men left in today's world of one-track specialists whose views on man and his place in the world are all too often relegated to a very narrow slice of the greater pie. Deepest respect!

[niriop]

I wish I could have heard the post-interview natter we can see over the end credits

[KilVall]

What an excellent interview.

[stephenblackman2003a]

Interviewer should have made as much room for Chomsky's politics as for his linguistics. If what Chomsky claims in his political ideas are even partially valid then their importance far outweigh the preceeding scientific discussion.

[WastedTourist]

This is the best thing on Youtube.

[RobertHartlepool]

You note how the interviewer in this programme was able to analyse the subject and persue a line of questioning aimed at increasing the insight into the subject. Counterpose it with the likes of Paxman now, and his superficial arrogance. This regression is entirely the product of the wave of neoliberalism, and deliberate simplification to allow such ideas to propogate. Neoliberalism in itself prevents class mobility, and in doing so leads to nepotism as the main reason for recruitment.

[succorelle]

@RobertHartlepool Pretty sure you're just spouting off now. If you want me to believe that nepotism and, for some reason, the debilitated state of media are a result of so-called "neoliberalism", you're going to have to point me towards some research. Especially since the trends I see are largely towards more regulation, not less.

[RobertHartlepool]

@succorelle Hmm, are you a paid troll person willing to betray your fellow man for the foolish ideas of the greedy rich and the bones your masters through to you, or a troll computer programme responding to the use of the word neoliberalism? I suppose your asinine ill substantiated response has similar lack of value in either case.

[beev7]

I wish this went on and on. I always learn new things when watching Chomsky!

[Luzaazul]

1979

[USAneedsaChange]

both a good interviewer and a good "interviewee"(Chomsky). Not learned about the linguistics side of Chomsky before, but I know it was his job. They both made this very interesting. and I think that the BBC is full of good stuff today too. Like "The Earth" etc..

[jerryhello100]

"...I we must, alas, end there."

I love the language of academics.

[nimphes]

This interview is from 1978.

[fastfriendtigerlily]

@nimphes The credit board at the end says MCMLXXVII, which is 1977.

[yellow6100]

thumbs up for noam chomsky!

[bizakis9]

Oh how I wish he were advising President Obama, and that we got to hear him in the mainstream media in America. The greatest mind of our times.. I have posted this, and the other 4 videos, to the Education Now! FB Page and my own FB Wall. Thank you for posting all the videos.

[bizakis9]

Oh how I wish Chomsky were advising President Obama, and that we got to hear him in the American mainstream press... The greatest mind of our time...

[ast453000]

Dammit! They just barely got started talking! I wish this interview had gone on much longer. Magee just scratched the surface of Chomsky's genius.

[Keinlicht]

@ast453000 I could watch an interview like this for hours on end.

[nknoori]

I love Chomsky and would give up all the wealth in the world to have him as a mentoring grandfather

[nknoori]

I love Chomsky

[Jwhite1979]

Leave it to Bryan Magee to have conducted the most intriguing Chomsky interview on YouTube. @assaultivebear, I chucked at your description because I always wince when I see the question coming--when the interviewer tries to make that tenuous connection between Chomsky's linguistics and his politics. As soon as Magee starts to articulate his question, it is clear that he is going in a direction that Chomsky can't dismiss so easily (although he does dismiss it by not answering it). :-)

[realitycheck888]

This is the Noam Chomsky I love. The quite, young, supremely intelligent and articulate linguist (mainly) with just a few political criticisms thrown in as an extra.

[Defsolid]

@realitycheck888 'the quite' lol, he never was quite, he was an activist even in those days, a man of truth and reason

[castano2001]

1:30 even GREATER from here on, about Liberal Tradition and the changes over the years and the reasons for current conditions, massive private conglomerate power centers, the state etc. SIMPLY GREAT!! (GLORIOUS 5 1/2 MINUTES)

[malezgerd]

I like the noch at 2:38.

[xhemexx]

One good example is that One aboriginal Austrialian tribe has the word "Dog" for DOG. Just like us in English. What are the chances of that happening?? But it is true. It is even spelled the same and means the exact same animal subject. I beleive any given language/dialect etc can be related and have similarities with any other language(s) and dialect(s) in the world that exist and ever have existed

[ILIKESFLAN]

@xhemexx lol, you're a fag

[xhemexx]

@ILIKESFLAN Why, what do you think about this??

[ILIKESFLAN]

@xhemexx lol

[astroboomboy]

@xhemexx I think either theory is to speculative; one being that several languages developed independent from each other, or that all languages have a common origin. Both seem plausible, and I don't think we have the means (at this moment) to find out. But of course it is interesting to speculate!

[watayapupuya]

@astroboomboy

What is it that you do not understand?

Linguistic capacity is INNATE to the human mind.

[astroboomboy]

@watayapupuya I know language is innate, but language as we know them today (being culturally modified) might have developed separately, or they might have a common thread back to one tribe that started using speech. The issue was not whether language is innate or not. Thnx.

[stoprainingonme]

@astroboomboy Yes. Trying to reconstruct proto-Germanic is one thing (and, I suspect, very difficult). Attempts at recontructing proto-Indo-European must be impossible (I've seen speculations as to PIE words and it seems like people are trying too hard to make something fit). Identifying common ancestral link between PIE and proto-Afro-Asiatic (for example)? Much like much of evolutionary psychology, speculation is essentially all we have.

[astroboomboy]

@stoprainingonme Yes, evolutionary psychology seems like it at best is professional speculation, no scientific way of proving the theories (at least for now).

[xhemexx]

For all we know there may be infinite variables in and about Language. Infinite dimensions, concepts, rules, possiblilities in linguistics and languages and dialects and all speech forms. Each language has innumerable peculiarities unique to itself, but also I find that all languages and speech forms are interrelated and interconnected to eachother with certain peculiarities being unique to every pairing of a given two or more languages.

[natmanprime]

@xhemexx very interesting comment! I didn't know about the 'dog' thing. Also, you're comment leads me to think that there can be a unified language, with the 'backbone' of similarity made up of words like 'dog' that have developed for common instinctive(-ish) reasons, but at the same time enriched, because the unifying process will involve each language recieving new words from the other languages to express a greater variety of nuance that couldn't be expressed before. Best of both worlds.

[olliemoore11]

Magee's reaction is hilarious when Chomsky finishes speaking. He's either baffled or impressed with Chomsky's answer. Maybe both.

[andyx1205]

@olliemoore11 It seems like after they ran out of time, Magee popped out a bottle of wine and proceeded on with his discussion with the Professor.

[72Yonatan]

Liberalism and libertarian thought have walked different paths today, and will never meet again.

[andyx1205]

@72Yonatan libertarianism today seems to have been shifted to the right, there's no way it can work today since with libertarianism the corporations would have even more power and they'd have their own private armies

as chomsky says, the core of john stuart mill's political ideology was concerned with civil disobedience, anti-authoritarianism, etc and the works of proudhon and bakunin (social anarchists) and others (socialists that opposed marx) seem to reflect the same ideology

[Diosibundo]

Wow. This was actually ON TELEVISION? Am I imagining this or was TV back then j ust more intelligent than it is now?

[ANDjjela]

@Diosibundo mayb it wasn't american television

[ANDjjela]

@ANDjjela comment was stupid, because it says BBC

[Diosibundo]

@ANDjjela

Even so... what I am wondering is about the audience... it just seems the level of discussion is much more intelligent than discourse today. I get the feeling modern TV audiences would switch channels three minutes into the show.

[ANDjjela]

yeah that's true, I think that everyone should go to university because I might have found these talks boring, but after routine 3hour lectures it's a piece of cake:P and lectures are fun too:D

[rbh104]

Fucking television. I find it very frustrating when I see the quality of the programmes that used to be televised compared to the facile, patronising trash that they show today. That's why I smashed up my TV and won't get a new one.

[Diosibundo]

@rbh104

I get the feeling that it's bigger than just television... seems like the whole culture has gone that way.

Read political debates fifty years ago, it's as if you're looking at a different planet.

[natmanprime]

@rbh104 lol I got rid of mine

: )

But I bought a new one

: U

But I only use it for youtube as a computer monitor and VHS tapes!

; )

[MrKaniyaw]

That interview was enormously stimulating. The quesion should be asked now is the following;education does not have the same value if one accepts this theory which to me is a common sense, compared to the previously classic view about human mind. This literally deminishes any view with regards to SUPER HUMAN or he difference between race or people if we all to accept (which I assue and accept) the view that we all have one ancestor and that was not verey long ago (in the evolutionary sense).

[trufiend138]

after so many years me and noam split ways...he says that pornography has no value and its exploitive and degrading to women etc....oh noam dont be such a tool!

[BlobOfMark]

Absolutely amazing. God bless the BBC.

[sillyliza]

Excellent explanation of the divergence of classical liberalism from liberalism. Very interesting take, thanks Chomsky.

[samdathi]

Chomsky is beautifully eloquent here. You don't get realise eloquent he used to be when you watch his modern footage.

Question: whose more eloquent: Matt Dillahunty or Noam Chomsky?

[Balefan83]

Great inteview thanks for putting it up

[ddaly1]

Yes, such a profound point missed on so many, namely that you must think of certain political/social/economic theories in the historical context in which they were written/developed. For instance, I think, as I believe Chomsky does, that Adam Smith would be disgusted by what is today called "capitalism."

[stevebrizzle]

Thanks for putting this up.

[924142707]

Thank you ver much for the video.

[kahmed89]

A great interview...

May Professor Chomsky explain from where the "a priori knowledge" comes from. If it doesn't comes from thousands and millions of years of evolution than what's the source of this knowledge.

[924142707]

God. He is in no way a Christian nor is he a creationist but he's ideas lead, logically, to some other creative force or a Creator. People hate this because they want to believe God is dead and that they can do whatever they want.

[fede2]

really? they lead logically to another "creator"? how do you figure?

[rorshach93]

The a priori nature and the complexity of having an innate capability of speaking, from what I've seen, supersede the capabilities and nature of evolutionary theory in the context of pure materialism.

[schmam121]

I think a priori knowledge is simple semantics. Such a statement as 'all batchelors are unmarried' is intrinsically a priori, but doesnt depend upon innate knowledge. The concept of 'batchelorism' is a social construct, and it takes linguists to put this sort of statement across

[ihavesittenonakitten]

A bachelor is defined as an unmarried man (you might call this a "social construct") but then it takes some machinery to know that therefore for all x which are unmarried men, x is a bachelor. That's what's innate. You can imagine a complex being which can't do that.

[schmam121]

Well, quite. a priori knowledge doesnt rely on a human factor. It's something true in and of itself, by definition.

[ihavesittenonakitten]

@schmam121 Humans are evolved to use logic instinctually.

Whether that's because we're adapted to the way the world works or because our minds define it to be so is a metaphysical question we probably can't answer satisfactorally.

I *feel* some nominalist sympathies myself but I sure as hell can't argue that it's literally true.

[CaptainKhrenov]

amazing interview with the Chomsky encyclopedia/supercomputer

thanks for uploading, assaultivebear!!

dog bless!

[fede2]

i don't think his libertarian socialism comes directly from classical liberalism. it's true that it has become very distorted since the conception of "legal persons" and analogous cases but chomsky is still very hasty in rejecting the market aspect.

[roryphelan]

"It seems likely that our faculty for language corresponds to some structure in the brain, but I don't think you can say it must."

What could be an alternative, do you think?

[juanpolar]

amazing interview... he's anarchist even in biologhy and filosophy

[mdoob11]

I had a thousand intellectual orgasms during this cognitive parade of stimulation.

[pca4444]

mdoob11 was leaving racist comments on other videos. Shame on you mdoob11!

[lmartyanov]

amazing, thank you!

[Conchubar456]

That was truly amazing - thank you !

[paulen8]

This is the kind of stuff we should have watched in school.

[RakshasaCat]

@paulen8 The stuff he talks about really is university-level material...

[FA8T]

Probably the best and most rational explanation for anarchism there is. After hearing this one thinks it is those who think anarchism a lunacy who are the real lunatics.

[CianEyeTube]

Viva Chomsky!

Viva Anarchy!

[Krelianx]

I find the idea of 'the faculties of the mind' as quite suspicious. It seems quite obvious to say our faculty for language must have genetic/physical correlate, which could be explained through an elucidation of the physical processes which correspond to our kind. How do we account for the gap between the strict biologyand our generative linguistics? Can we ontologically reduce the latter to the former? And if not what epistemological privilege may we assign to g.grammar beyond biology.

[mjwmjwmjwmjw]

It seems likely that our faculty for language corresponds to some structure in the brain, but I don't think you can say it must. The important point is that our linguistic faculty is analogous to an organ.

[mjwmjwmjwmjw]

Also I don't think we know nearly enough about the brain to say there is any gap between biology and linguistics. Maybe it's possible to locate our linguistic organ physically but maybe it isn't. If we can locate it physically it still doesn't explain the will - the source of free decisions Chomsky was talking about - and without something making decisions, language can't happen. This is why I believe there's no way, at least yet, to produce an AI that can mean anything by what it says.

[klaibigula]

The interviewer sets up a dichotomy, on the one side is:

britain, empiricism, liberalism. good.

On the other side he puts

german, kantianism, socialism/communism, bad.

The concept of a universal, genetically inherited grammar of language is basically kantianism in a new disguise. Therefore, it is bad. Unfortunately, Chomsky fails to point out that the interviewer's definition of liberalism corresponds to Kant's definition of "enlightenment". How bewildering and sad.

[100057361]

The interviewer considers himself to be a follower of Schopenhauer, who in turn thought of his theory as a continuation of Kant's. If he understands at all the writings of Schopenhauer, he can't agree with what the empiricist tradition usually stands for. His main objection to Chomsky's philosophical assertions could rather be on the line of his interpretation of Descartes and so on. I think you're also wrong when you talk about Britain and Germany: in fact Magee pursues "continental philosophy"

[klaibigula]

Thanks for your comment. Let me quote Mr Magee: "You are ... radically subversive of a lot of the very well established theories in our tradition. ... what you put forward in their place ... does parallel the rationalist tradition."

So Chomsky is radically subversive of our tradition, i.e. british empiricism vs. rationalism. The words radical and subversive both have a very negative connotation. Therefore, Chomsky points to british neoplatonism as an alternative british tradition...

[100057361]

I can't see what negative connotations can those words have, given that Mr. Magee, as I said, is very much opposed to those theories, and would certainly advocate "subversive" attitudes towards them, like his own. Furthermore, the fact that Chomsky is radically subversive of them is mere truism. & besides, I really think Magee's talking about the Western tradition, not about the British tradition in particular. On the other hand, he wouldn't, given his affinities, accept Chomsky's theory either

[klaibigula]

Please note that Magee is talking about "our" tradition. Our tradition is replaced by rationalism: empiricism versus rationalism, the old divide. Then he confuses Kantianism with rationalism. Magee may have changed his mind, but when he conducted the interview, he was clearly biased against chomsky.

Negative connotation:

Subversion: to overturn or overthrow from the foundation : ruin 2 : to pervert or corrupt by an undermining of morals, allegiance, or faith -

[100057361]

Lets finish: you're behaving irrationally. Magee limits himself to characterise Chomsky's views as accurately as possible.

I was referring to the specific context of the interview when I said there's no negative connotations to "subvert". The word literally means "overthrow". I don't think it difficult to imagine circumstances in which subversion is regarded not only as correct but also as necessary. Eg, when facing empiricism. I remit you to my previous comments: I can't explain myself better

[klaibigula]

Unfortunately, you are diverting to ad hominem attacks. The words radical (as in radicalism) and subversion have a very negative connotation in English. That's uncontroversial. Just ask any native english speaker. Do not mistake the literal meaning (overthrow) of a word with it's connotation. I remit you to my previous comments.

[100057361]

The adverb "radically" has no relation whatsoever with "radicalism" in the context it was used. The whole expression "radically subversive" HAS NO RELATION WHATSOEVER with violence or undesirable conduct in that context. The fact that the word "subversive" CAN acquire certain connotations in certain contexts DOESN'T IMPLY IT ALWAYS has them. That's precisely one of the characteristics of connotations (in the sense we're using the word "connotation"): they're never attached necessarily to words.

[klaibigula]

Oh, so now you agree that subversive in general does have a negative connotation. This also true for radical. If I call you radical, it's clearly an insult. And if I call you radically subversive of my tradition, then there is no doubt about the intended connotation. That's uncontroversial. Why does Noam talk about british neoplatonism? It doesn't really matter, whether Kant or Neoplatonism is his source of inspiration. It doesn't change his ideas. He wants to soothe the questioner. Get it?

[klaibigula]

Noam ist basically communicating: Even if you have to trash british empiricism, because it's basicaly bull, don't be said: British Neoplatonists shall replace them and be your source of pride. Kant was merely a copycat... That's his soothing message! Learn to read between the lines!

[100057361]

Ja, das ist richtig!

[johnnycorvo]

WE ARE ALL ROBOTS

[lexiustia]

The BBC once upon a time had meaningful programs.

[comanchio1976]

@lexiustia Yep! "And now on BBC3..Two Pints Of Lager, And...I'm losing the will to live.."

[ginganz13]

Utterly brilliant - thanks for posting - The BBC in its glory years, before it became a giant fart machine.

[eneliatarknenah]

As much as I have considered myself liberal in the past, Noam's ideas have made me realize that libertarian is the true definition of liberty in action. Thanks for posting.

[ducatidesmo1098]

yet another great chomsky video. I wish i was well read enough to make so many connections between diffrent schools of thought and tying it into diffrent subjects. it would especially come in handy when im being gang debated by some of my neo-con friends.

[Neondub]

This was a great watch, thanks for uploading. It was a great introduction into Noam's linguistic theory's.

[HugoNewman]

e.g. for morality, ethics, mind-body debates etc.

[tnsdg5]

Yes.

For the Mind-Body problem, try: New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind

for more on the tradition he follows, try Cartesian Linguistics.

Both are absolutely fantastic. :)

As for morality and ethics....there's not much.

[HugoNewman]

Many thanks.

[HugoNewman]

Actually, does anyone know of any books either on or by Chomsky which compile or draw out his more philosophical considerations, or which tease out the implications that his work in linguistics (and to a lesser extent in political activism) has for various subjects of philosophical inquiry?

[HugoNewman]

Absolutely brilliant. What an uncommonly incisive, learned and articulate man. Thanks for posting this.

[FA8T]

But technology has moved on and think that experience is as likely right here on the internet and in many respects even more likely. I found this by pure chance just wanting to know about his politics which is only small part and was intoxicated by his linquistic theories. That is probably why he is such a good political theoriest in many ways, because he has this other very divergent area of his life.

[joyrexus]

Government in the Future. Poetry Center, New York. February 16, 1970.

See w w w . zmag . org / altradio / 0212nc1970 . mp3

[joyrexus]

One also has to consider the profound (negative) influence of Behaviorism on Chomsky, and the socio-political implications of the Behaviorists' view of man. (Note that Chomsky's career was essentially launched with his devastating review of B. F. Skinner's influential book "Verbal Behavior".) In my opinion, FWIW, each side of Chomsky's work could be considered a vehement reaction against such an understanding of humankind.

[ginganz13]

If you could illustrate what they are with any clairty it *might* be worthwhile. Are you sure his career was launched with a book review? I could have sworn he had done at least a little notable science....

[joyrexus]

Some pointers for anyone interested ... For the basic details see the early chapters of Roy Harris' "Linguistic Wars" or either of Robert Barsky's books on the man. John Goldsmith's review of Barsky's earlier book, "A Life of Dissent" also discusses some of the connections between Chomsky's intellectual work and his political convictions. (Just google the keywords "Barsky, Chomsky, Goldsmith" to pull up the review.)

[joyrexus]

Anyone who is interested in understanding the essential connection (albeit one now largely denied by the man himself) between Chomsky's theoretical work and his socio-political faith should seek out his early lecture entitled "Government in the Future", where he is quite explicit about the connection. (It can be traced back to Humboldt and his ideas on human creativity and freedom.)

[joyrexus]

Stephen Pinker also discusses the connection between Chomsky's intellectual work and his political convictions in his MIT farewell address, toward the end. One can find both audio and video recordings of Pinker's comments at the MITWorld site. (Just search for "Pinker's farewell".)

[genghisshmenghis]

Too bad we don't see television programs like this anymore.

[FA8T]

Most of this stuff has been relocated to obscurist cable channels and digital channals which have to be specifically payed for. The great thing about tv in the past was that people would have caught a programme like this who may have had no awareness of linquistics or science and been totally enthralled by it, bu accident.