Noam Chomsky understands language acquisition so much and more than anyone else that I know. It is through his understanding of linguistics that he is able to comprehend (acquire) so much knowledge (human knowledge) ... very inspiring.
That's a metaphysical question. Things are a set of boundary conditions in a mind. Those boundaries let us distinguish it from other things according to various purposes.
This is an important concept Chomsky is laying out here. The notion of essence attempts to make the word consistently the thing. I have used "tables" for firewood. And that was not nailed down to the floor. Essentialism has a lot to do with the errors of patriotic thinking.
Ray . . . I agree, up to a point. "Freedom" is not a synonym for "liberty" (nor vice versa), as it's frequently taken. So, a slave who has sufficient inner freedom may actually be given his liberty in due course . . . and someone of wealth and position may be so tormented that they take their own life. The things we are trying to measure are not tables and suns, but the objects of our inner world. When that relationship is brought into harmony, the essence of outward things also emerges. We see that something is not "this" and nothing else, but "this" and everything else.
Chomsky simply rehashed Kant's entire philosophical project in taking metaphysical considerations and turning them into epistemological categories. The Categories of the Understanding in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is simply Aristotle's Categories of Being but applied to the structure of the mind.
@SerWhiskeyfeet So Plato's Theory of Forms is one variation of Essentialism because Plato is providing a structure of reality that is according to the Form that gives existence to all other Forms and that is the Form of the Good. This view of essentialism has a univocal understanding of the Good because throughout Plato's works, he is constantly finding a definition of the "good" in terms of what it is. Aristotle, on the other hand, critiques Plato and rearticulates the Platonic aspirations of the discovering the Good by providing an analogical understanding of Being and relating the Good not so much with what it is but with the end by which a being acts towards to. In other words, for Aristotle, the Good is an act and this makes Being, not Goodness, the fundamental metaphysical principle. The Forms for Plato are apart of the substances that exists in the physical world and exists as intermediaries between the Form of the Good and the physical substances while, the substantial form for Aristotle is immanent to the substance and has no need for an intermediary. Plato's search for the defintion of the Form of Good was univocal while Aristotle's discovery was that Being was to be understood analogically. These were the two main kinds of essentialism that emerged from Ancient Greece and has been debated throughout the history of philosophy ever since with some philosophers denying the reality of essences (Nominalists, Empiricists, Kantians) and others affirming the existence of essences (Aristotlenians, Platonists, Thomists). I hope this helps!
@bagofrandom Sorry for responding nearly a year later but you can always start by reading the Aristotle's Physics and Metaphysics and understanding the Ten Categories of Being that he puts out and then read the Critique of Pure Reason and see how Kant used the same categories but instead of being the Categories of Being they became the Categories of the Understanding for Kant. What I heard from Chomsky in this video was along the same, if not the similar, lines to what modern philosophers having arguing for in terms of giving epistemology the primacy over and against the study of metaphysics, and Kant's implementation of the Categories of Being into the structure of the mind is the prime example of that.
The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao, The name that can be named is not the eternal Name. The unnamable is the eternally real. Naming is the origin of all particular things. Free from desire, you realize the mystery. Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations. Yet mystery and manifestations arise from the same source. This source is called darkness. Darkness within darkness, The gateway to all understanding. - Tao Te Ching
This is just another way of stating verse one of the Tao Teh Ching. The notion there is that the "essence" of things cannot be known. It is not a denial of such a thing as essence. It is however a denial of the definitive power of language, and that is really the issue. It matters not if there is an unknowable actual essence or not. We just cannot use our words to define essence.
I made my research ane thesis on in the master degree. At that moment, I understood Tao is sth not by talking but feeling by the limits of the language. If ask me today, I would like to say it is bullshit. The person wrote about Tao couldnt figure out what it is. They probably didnt expect others to really understan them. My these was writing how to be ideal person under Taoism and go beyond the practical world. Today, I would like to say there is limits in cognition, there are many beauties in the practical world. We cant go beyond the practical world, but we could improve our cognition to understand the truth better.
@@raykirkham5357 Words are the Only thing we can use to describe essence. That's not the problem, it's that essence is a perfect thing, and like all words that reference the transcendent ( perfect representation of thing-ness in this case ) it is only a placeholder for the ineffable. We can only indicate an essence by weight of surrounding definitions, we cannot describe it directly. That's not a limitation of language, is the nature of essence. There is literally no such thing as essence in a particular sense, only in a fuzzy central sense depending on how the word is used. All "what is the nature of x?" questions are semantic.
Kant, thing in it-self. The thing, and the idea of the thing. Being hit on the head, and the idea of being hit on the head. If two mountains are created besides each other, is the valley between also created ?
the idea of the thing： Depends on the existance formats of the "thing", then comes to the "idea". You cant expect so much about stone has some thinkings.
That's incorrect. Mountains exist without regard to whether there is water. If you add water around it, it might become an island or an underwater mountain but it's no less a mountain.
My Father’s please explain what’s happening with parallels? What’s about paradoxically on world society with no keepers right just for the profit? It’s ours for the next generations living betting in illusions 🙏🏻.
I can't agree on that with Chomsky. If you negate any acces at all to ontological objects, to their essence, then you can't affirm in virtue of nothing their existence. The logical consequence from his arguments should be that the own essence coincides with the phenomenon. By the way, quantum physics is a good example of this, since its the relation with the object which determines what the object is.
it's so awesome to see a pissed off critic get totally owned as NC not only understands the dusty obsolete perspective the critic is coming from, but argues against that view using recent articles he's actually read on the subject (which you know the idiot trying to poke holes in NC's opinion probably doesn't keep track of 1/10th of what NC keeps abreast of)
2:25 is when it stops sounding like a word salad, and you get the useful conclusion. Seriously, wouldn't you walk past a door that had a sign that said "Lecture on the Essence of Things." This sounds straight out of Aristophanes' Thinkery.
There are properties but no essence, essence is an absolutist fundamentalist mode of thinking that arises from at least one of the following 4 (there may be others): 1) low IQ 2) a form of autistic condition 3) Religious brainwashing 4) Naked capitalist opportunism Essentialism can be a person's attempt at understanding to stave off existentialist dread, or they can literally be incapable of understanding or they can understand but choose to use it as a means to gain power and wealth.
@the holographic multiverse You have to be trolling, right? Chomsky's an essentialist, he believes in human nature. As a matter of fact, he believes all living things have essences that make them the thing they are. It's pretty obvious that that is true. This has nothing to do with IQ, autism, religion or capitalism - even though religion and capitalism use certain human properties and behavior to construct and defend their worldview, as all of us do. Whether or not those views are justified has to be examined. And besides, existentialism went against the notion of human nature (essence).
xw213x lastname, a troll calls me a troll? haha I'm glad I hit the mark, you actually think you can just go ahead and deny Chomsky is an anarchist? lol. Maybe you're incapable of understanding what that intellectual position is or maybe you're just immature? Talking about Chomsky when you don't even know who he is. By your cliched immature psychotic reply I'd say you're 5) immature, but also 6) mainstream conformist (thinking you can pretend to be moderate while reaping the rewards of the ruling ideology (capitalism). You're almost painful to watch your cliched reply, you're a rabid defender of capitalism as you gain from it, and would be openly so if you were in the ruling elite, but you're not in that elite because you aren't snide intelligent enough or born into a very wealthy family.
Starting at about 6:55 "Every property is as accidental as every other property" "there not in the world they're in our mind, there in our ways of conceiving the world..." So once again, chomsky paraphrases basic Postmodernist theory...which he also condemns...way to go Noam...
No, he doesn’t. Noam Chomsky started off way before there was any “basic Postmodernist theory.”-Possibly the postmodernists were, in one or another sense, paraphrasing the conceptualist and nominalist line of thought, present all the way from Pre-Socratic philosophy, through the Stoics, through medieval scholastics like Peter Abelard and William of Occam, further through Martin Luther, Thomas Hobbes, to analytic philosophers like Rudolph Carnap and Noam Chomsky. What is the opposite of “basic Postmodernist theory”? Let’s say it’s indeed the analytic philosophy. Chomsky criticises the postmodernism for either writing gibberish or sheer truisms, adding nothing new, trying to hide the emptiness in a swarm of difficult words. Just take a look at this: bactra.org/chomsky-on-postmodernism.html
@@mikesmith-pj7xz 👌🏻 then Buddhism is Upanishads in Māgadhī Prakrit, but Chomsky is STILL NOT “paraphrasing postmodernism!” Everything is footnotes to Plato, except postmodernism, which might be a drunken-parrot-reading of it altogether. P.S. I Heard a rumor for many years ago, though, that Derrida in fact says something about something-but it takes lots of effort to figure out what about what, and one has to wade through Heidegger to get there. You wouldn’t go astray?
Always stop what I'm doing to listen to Chomsky.
so pretty much you don't do anything
@@USCIntLLC Some days it gets out of hand, but I think of it as educational.
Noam Chomsky understands language acquisition so much and more than anyone else that I know. It is through his understanding of linguistics that he is able to comprehend (acquire) so much knowledge (human knowledge) ... very inspiring.
Woah we have the same last name! Our last name is pretty rare lol.
That's a metaphysical question. Things are a set of boundary conditions in a mind. Those boundaries let us distinguish it from other things according to various purposes.
Pure gold!
Thanks for this. Is the full video available anywhere?
Ah, never mind, I found it! :-)
MrAdamkimbo What is the link? :)
?
This is an important concept Chomsky is laying out here. The notion of essence attempts to make the word consistently the thing. I have used "tables" for firewood. And that was not nailed down to the floor. Essentialism has a lot to do with the errors of patriotic thinking.
Ray . . . I agree, up to a point. "Freedom" is not a synonym for "liberty" (nor vice versa), as it's frequently taken. So, a slave who has sufficient inner freedom may actually be given his liberty in due course . . . and someone of wealth and position may be so tormented that they take their own life. The things we are trying to measure are not tables and suns, but the objects of our inner world. When that relationship is brought into harmony, the essence of outward things also emerges. We see that something is not "this" and nothing else, but "this" and everything else.
Chomsky simply rehashed Kant's entire philosophical project in taking metaphysical considerations and turning them into epistemological categories. The Categories of the Understanding in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is simply Aristotle's Categories of Being but applied to the structure of the mind.
Where can I read more about this? Thanks
@@bagofrandom also curious
It also seems to me the Essentialists here aren’t much different from Plato’s Realm/Theory of Forms.
@SerWhiskeyfeet So Plato's Theory of Forms is one variation of Essentialism because Plato is providing a structure of reality that is according to the Form that gives existence to all other Forms and that is the Form of the Good. This view of essentialism has a univocal understanding of the Good because throughout Plato's works, he is constantly finding a definition of the "good" in terms of what it is. Aristotle, on the other hand, critiques Plato and rearticulates the Platonic aspirations of the discovering the Good by providing an analogical understanding of Being and relating the Good not so much with what it is but with the end by which a being acts towards to. In other words, for Aristotle, the Good is an act and this makes Being, not Goodness, the fundamental metaphysical principle. The Forms for Plato are apart of the substances that exists in the physical world and exists as intermediaries between the Form of the Good and the physical substances while, the substantial form for Aristotle is immanent to the substance and has no need for an intermediary. Plato's search for the defintion of the Form of Good was univocal while Aristotle's discovery was that Being was to be understood analogically. These were the two main kinds of essentialism that emerged from Ancient Greece and has been debated throughout the history of philosophy ever since with some philosophers denying the reality of essences (Nominalists, Empiricists, Kantians) and others affirming the existence of essences (Aristotlenians, Platonists, Thomists). I hope this helps!
@bagofrandom Sorry for responding nearly a year later but you can always start by reading the Aristotle's Physics and Metaphysics and understanding the Ten Categories of Being that he puts out and then read the Critique of Pure Reason and see how Kant used the same categories but instead of being the Categories of Being they became the Categories of the Understanding for Kant. What I heard from Chomsky in this video was along the same, if not the similar, lines to what modern philosophers having arguing for in terms of giving epistemology the primacy over and against the study of metaphysics, and Kant's implementation of the Categories of Being into the structure of the mind is the prime example of that.
'I climbed a mountain because it is there." Now Prof.Chomsky has climbed the issue of the mountaIn as being there!
Is there any book or paper in which makes this point at length, more elaborately?
Beautiful
Actually pretty obvious stuff, and that is, that you shouldn't expect metaphysical concepts to have any representations in observable reality.
There's no point to metaphysical concepts Except to represent actually experienced reality.
The Tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao,
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.
The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.
Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.
Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness. Darkness within darkness,
The gateway to all understanding.
- Tao Te Ching
Michael Wu
But Tao is beyond this discussion.
This is just another way of stating verse one of the Tao Teh Ching. The notion there is that the "essence" of things cannot be known. It is not a denial of such a thing as essence. It is however a denial of the definitive power of language, and that is really the issue. It matters not if there is an unknowable actual essence or not. We just cannot use our words to define essence.
@@InvestStrategyWire the Tao is this discussion
I made my research ane thesis on in the master degree. At that moment, I understood Tao is sth not by talking but feeling by the limits of the language. If ask me today, I would like to say it is bullshit. The person wrote about Tao couldnt figure out what it is. They probably didnt expect others to really understan them.
My these was writing how to be ideal person under Taoism and go beyond the practical world. Today, I would like to say there is limits in cognition, there are many beauties in the practical world. We cant go beyond the practical world, but we could improve our cognition to understand the truth better.
@@raykirkham5357 Words are the Only thing we can use to describe essence. That's not the problem, it's that essence is a perfect thing, and like all words that reference the transcendent ( perfect representation of thing-ness in this case ) it is only a placeholder for the ineffable. We can only indicate an essence by weight of surrounding definitions, we cannot describe it directly. That's not a limitation of language, is the nature of essence. There is literally no such thing as essence in a particular sense, only in a fuzzy central sense depending on how the word is used. All "what is the nature of x?" questions are semantic.
Kant, thing in it-self. The thing, and the idea of the thing. Being hit on the head, and the idea of being hit on the head. If two mountains are created besides each other, is the valley between also created ?
I've noticed, since I started reading upon Kant lately, that Chomsky seem to share a bit of his Kant's ideas! Interesting!
the idea of the thing： Depends on the existance formats of the "thing", then comes to the "idea". You cant expect so much about stone has some thinkings.
@@spacefertilizer Recommend you to read - Hannah Arendt. She started to think about cognition much earlier than Pro. Chomsky.
Over my head a bit.
He must read a LOT!
and he still finds time to be an avid gamer, Call of Duty, The Witcher, Diablo II, WOW, you name it
@@vicinoorsini5163 no way
@@vicinoorsini5163 are u serious? does he actually game? i respect him even more now...
@@vicinoorsini5163 I did not know that.
@@vicinoorsini5163 he doesn't play games..
Ouch, my brain...
Beautiful intuition - mountains are islands minus water ^^
People without beards are just people with beards, without beards.
Yeah? And sea is islands minus mountains? Islands are sea plus mountains?
That says absolutley nothing, right?
That's incorrect. Mountains exist without regard to whether there is water. If you add water around it, it might become an island or an underwater mountain but it's no less a mountain.
@@havenbastion
Underwater mountain ? - can't find that anywhere.
@@hotstixx The highest mountain in the world is underwater. Check out Monte Pico in the Azores Islands of Portugal.
Phenomenol
Who are these people asking the questions? I would like to know.
Does anyone know what the last question regarding Wittgenstein was?
Subconscious Qualms
A modest compliment to your choice of name.
it was probably something like: "Isn't your treatment of Aristotel Wittgensteinish?"
WHERE IS THE REST OF THIS???
NEVER MIND, I READ THE DISCRIPTION
Istoriq po geografia : tazi aritmetika e geometri4na :)
Everything depends on context for identity including, unfortunately, people.
Or as Korzybski pointed out - the map is not the territory.
and Magritte: ceci n'est pas une pipe
Noam sounds a little sick here
Makes him sound more masculine.
My Father’s please explain what’s happening with parallels? What’s about paradoxically on world society with no keepers right just for the profit? It’s ours for the next generations living betting in illusions 🙏🏻.
ridiculous to think that the relationship between sea level and the surface isn`t objective and just an artefact of thinking
Is that Slavoj Žižek asking the questions?
Shit, only the title makes you think.
I feel like Noam chomsky is what William burroughs might have been like, had he laid off the heroin.
Makes sense.
Everything is made of something which is no-thing, so everything is truly no-thing
I can't agree on that with Chomsky. If you negate any acces at all to ontological objects, to their essence, then you can't affirm in virtue of nothing their existence. The logical consequence from his arguments should be that the own essence coincides with the phenomenon. By the way, quantum physics is a good example of this, since its the relation with the object which determines what the object is.
Kant anyone?
it's so awesome to see a pissed off critic get totally owned as NC not only understands the dusty obsolete perspective the critic is coming from, but argues against that view using recent articles he's actually read on the subject (which you know the idiot trying to poke holes in NC's opinion probably doesn't keep track of 1/10th of what NC keeps abreast of)
You need to get outside more
2:25 is when it stops sounding like a word salad, and you get the useful conclusion.
Seriously, wouldn't you walk past a door that had a sign that said "Lecture on the Essence of Things." This sounds straight out of Aristophanes' Thinkery.
There is no "essence of things". The fact that philosophy is still grappling with this reflects the paltry state of philosophy.
Besides your slander, what you are saying is incoherent. Do you mean to say that there is no essence?
No essence.
There are properties but no essence, essence is an absolutist fundamentalist mode of thinking that arises from at least one of the following 4 (there may be others):
1) low IQ
2) a form of autistic condition
3) Religious brainwashing
4) Naked capitalist opportunism
Essentialism can be a person's attempt at understanding to stave off existentialist dread, or they can literally be incapable of understanding or they can understand but choose to use it as a means to gain power and wealth.
@the holographic multiverse
You have to be trolling, right?
Chomsky's an essentialist, he believes in human nature. As a matter of fact, he believes all living things have essences that make them the thing they are. It's pretty obvious that that is true.
This has nothing to do with IQ, autism, religion or capitalism - even though religion and capitalism use certain human properties and behavior to construct and defend their worldview, as all of us do. Whether or not those views are justified has to be examined.
And besides, existentialism went against the notion of human nature (essence).
xw213x lastname, a troll calls me a troll? haha I'm glad I hit the mark, you actually think you can just go ahead and deny Chomsky is an anarchist? lol. Maybe you're incapable of understanding what that intellectual position is or maybe you're just immature? Talking about Chomsky when you don't even know who he is. By your cliched immature psychotic reply I'd say you're 5) immature, but also 6) mainstream conformist (thinking you can pretend to be moderate while reaping the rewards of the ruling ideology (capitalism). You're almost painful to watch your cliched reply, you're a rabid defender of capitalism as you gain from it, and would be openly so if you were in the ruling elite, but you're not in that elite because you aren't snide intelligent enough or born into a very wealthy family.
He speaks so fast and softly pronouncing, thet he does not give time to understand
Starting at about 6:55 "Every property is as accidental as every other property" "there not in the world they're in our mind, there in our ways of conceiving the world..." So once again, chomsky paraphrases basic Postmodernist theory...which he also condemns...way to go Noam...
"they're" not "there"
No, he doesn’t. Noam Chomsky started off way before there was any “basic Postmodernist theory.”-Possibly the postmodernists were, in one or another sense, paraphrasing the conceptualist and nominalist line of thought, present all the way from Pre-Socratic philosophy, through the Stoics, through medieval scholastics like Peter Abelard and William of Occam, further through Martin Luther, Thomas Hobbes, to analytic philosophers like Rudolph Carnap and Noam Chomsky. What is the opposite of “basic Postmodernist theory”? Let’s say it’s indeed the analytic philosophy.
Chomsky criticises the postmodernism for either writing gibberish or sheer truisms, adding nothing new, trying to hide the emptiness in a swarm of difficult words.
Just take a look at this:
bactra.org/chomsky-on-postmodernism.html
@@mikesmith-pj7xz 👌🏻 then Buddhism is Upanishads in Māgadhī Prakrit, but Chomsky is STILL NOT “paraphrasing postmodernism!” Everything is footnotes to Plato, except postmodernism, which might be a drunken-parrot-reading of it altogether. P.S. I Heard a rumor for many years ago, though, that Derrida in fact says something about something-but it takes lots of effort to figure out what about what, and one has to wade through Heidegger to get there. You wouldn’t go astray?
Accidental is inaccurate. Contingent is accurate.