Why is Chomsky always attacked for being objective about our finite capabilities and the limits to our introspection he is only making the signs clear by making sure that we say what we know to be empirically true and clarifying whether it'd just be subjective information accumulated through limited introspection. Limited in the sense that all we are given is our finite brain which is which is incredibly complex but it has Scopes and limits.
Both you and tye comment below have missed every point lmao. Chomsky isn't an advocate of empiricism, especially what you're describing. Infact it is empiricists, contemporary American empiricists, who now belive there is no limits to human ability. How you, and the guy below you, got what you got from chomsky is beyond me. CZcams videos aren't an education
@@paddleed6176 as nothing to do with empiricism, or "empirical truth" which is Both a contradition and a funny oxymoron. How you got this from chomsky is stupid and astonishing at the same time. As I said to the parent comment: CZcams videos aren't an education.
wouldnt this be at odds with humes law? (just because we have those particular structures in our brain doesnt mean that they are "moraly good" or anything) (on an objective/ descriptive level i totally agree with his points) please correct me if im wrong!
I think he addresses this in the last minute or two of the video. We may have specific identifiable innate moral principles but their innateness is not proof of their correctness. If that's the case, we may be "stuck."
@@nickdolan3741 Innateness doesn't necessarily correspond to correctness, maybe because bias is baked into our system/limitation. "The human brain is a powerful anomaly. It can process 11 million bits of information every second. Our conscious minds, however, can only keep up with 40 to 50 pieces of information each second. Though significantly less than 11 million, that’s still an impressive amount of information to juggle at any given moment." The University of Texas.
To Arturo Cervantes: In reply to your question, "Why is Chomsky always attacked for being objective about our finite capabilities and the limits to our introspection". In reply, I note that Edwin Chur said, "Deviance is a property inherent in the individual and conferred upon by the social audience. The variables to determine such deviance is the social audience! I view any criticism as not only healthy but also as a measure of how close to the correct answer one is. Human beings are by nature and existence fallible and subjective. There is constructive criticism and that which is meant to berate and demean. You use the subjective verb attack' that is in my view is a somewhat aggressive military term, that is meant to reinforce and mitigate your narrative. In contrast the noun criticism refers to analysis and judgement of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work. You are however correct that Chomsky does make it clear that we say what we know to be empirically true. Those apposing a view or stand point will by default be vitriolic and wantonly aggressive. As an Advocate of some 30 years, I boldly stick it to man every day, tenacious and assured in my knowledge, yet always mindful that at any time arrogance can overtake the imbedded liberal, if I'm not paying attention! Chomsky's view is bilaterally received, some agree and some do not, what we know about us as a species is that if we cannot even agree on the notion that we were created either by a divine being or the result of chaotic forces. The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model explaining the existence of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. In contrast theologians assert via Genesis 1, that God is the creator of all things of the world, night, and day, warm and cold, creatures and finally humankind, essentially Male and female created and blessed by him, not her them or it. Who is right? I was raised in a Presbyterian household in the East End of Glasgow in the 1960s, where tribal bigotry and violence prevailed, each reinforced by theological teachings. I am by default of the view that something or someone put us on this planet and to that end remain firmly agnostic. Mindful of all religions and views, I will never dismiss, berate or abuse, for each of our views are worthy of a baseline respect. Like the philosopher David Hume a fellow Scotsman, I know what I know and hold the view, believing no one, trust nothing and always check for myself as far is humanly possible.The French philosopher Paul Ricoeur in his book, ‘Fallible Man - The Philosophy of the Will’, assert that man is ‘ens volens’, a willing being and focuses on three principal areas (The Freedom of Nature - the voluntary and involuntary / Finitude and Capability - fallible man and the symbolism of evil and Poetics of the will), Ricoeur in recognising the principal importance of fallibility, recognises the transient nature of man that determines his pathetic inconsistent behaviour, fundamentally arguing that when you strip the language away, the pathetic inconsistent vessel is driven principally by his own awareness of right or wrong, choosing inconsistently to mitigate and justify his behaviour, by criticising others.
See Prisoner's Dilemma, what is good on a superficial, self-interest, level (what would get the best outcome for oneself) is not always the choice people make. Mainly because we both, 1) have a tendency to avoid risk and 2) are a social species. The second best choice (cooperation) in the PD, is the one that combines both of these. Thus among these lines, one can say that natural selection preferred those who cooperated as the outcome of this cooperation would be mutually beneficial (and thus benefit more members of the species, and increase it's chance for survival). This should, of course, always be seen in a context (cooperation will not always the preferred choice). Further, linking it to innate morality, our 'moral compass', which has evolved among these complex PDs has a natural tendency, in a fair amount of cases, to choose cooperation over self-interest' (to nuance here, tribalism and other biases can come into play here, as a proof that our 'moral compasses are not perfect, and we should try to improve them by rational discourse)
Thanks for the link, Max Binks-Collier. You might like the lectures of Robert Sapolsky, who studies animal behaviour and has a lecture series on CZcams.
It might be like birds who have bright feathers to attract females, MrRhomas913. These become brighter or darker over time depending on how safe it is to have them in the current ecosystem.
Thanks, Max Binks-Collier. I am glad I read your link. I was wondering as I listened to Noam Chomsky what these innate moral components might be. From the Jonathan Haidt page, "care/harm, fairness (equality)/cheating, liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation." Makes sense.
Darwin didn’t like the phrase “survival of the fittest” and only used it at the urging of colleagues who thought it made natural selection more understandable to lay people. Cooperation is very prevalent in the natural world, both inter and intra species. See Trivers work on reciprocal altruism, Hamilton’s principles of Kin selection and inclusive fitness, and Christopher Boehm’s work on altruism and hunter gatherer tribes, just to name a few. Which isn’t to say that there aren’t unresolved issues on the question of evolution and morality/altruism, I think it’s a fascinating topic that could shed significant light on our sense of morality.
Chomsky’s limitation is that he starts with knowledge, consciousness, and language. He should instead start with objective reality and existence itself. He falls prey to the Cartesian fallacy of placing consciousness ahead of existence (I think, therefore I am). He reverses the fundamental axioms of reality.
Kenneth Katona The idea that it is self-taught and innate IS the argument I outlined. It is at the heart of consciousness, as you said. The other side of the coin is the superficial wants and desires that can overtake that morality if one does not live a balanced life in which moral values are integrated into their day-to-day. Greed and lust find us day-to-day, therefore we must find our morality day-to-day. It is religious belief that serves this purpose, and ascribes divine origin to this innate 'self-taught' morality; it is embedded in us by a higher power.
What he describes as morality, I would prefer to think of what Carl Jung called the unconscious -- an illiterate animal psyche that refuses to be ignored. If we mistreat it, it gets us back. So we have a sort of inner drama going on that models our relations with other people.
what is with the insults? what the fuck is wrong with people? you strike me as the types you never take the time to read and think things through for yourselves and when someone voices his view that goes against whom you happen to worship you quickly attack. I do admire Chomsky but I think his views on morality are shallow. And what is pretentious or stupid about voicing my opinion? So I had to bend down and tone down my 'voice'. Well fuck you. I stand by what I said.
illmatc Nietszche its very good cultural critic/philosopher but a terrible anthropologist :) . I recommend you a guy called Marshall Sallins, specially his book Economy on the Stone Age, it describes the principle of how we ontologically define the "other", and the morality towards the alien. It was quite illuminating for me.
Why is Chomsky always attacked for being objective about our finite capabilities and the limits to our introspection he is only making the signs clear by making sure that we say what we know to be empirically true and clarifying whether it'd just be subjective information accumulated through limited introspection. Limited in the sense that all we are given is our finite brain which is which is incredibly complex but it has Scopes and limits.
Because people who claim to be philosophical often ignore empirical truth and can't handle the objective reality of evil and good.
Both you and tye comment below have missed every point lmao. Chomsky isn't an advocate of empiricism, especially what you're describing. Infact it is empiricists, contemporary American empiricists, who now belive there is no limits to human ability.
How you, and the guy below you, got what you got from chomsky is beyond me.
CZcams videos aren't an education
@@paddleed6176 as nothing to do with empiricism, or "empirical truth" which is Both a contradition and a funny oxymoron. How you got this from chomsky is stupid and astonishing at the same time.
As I said to the parent comment: CZcams videos aren't an education.
wouldnt this be at odds with humes law?
(just because we have those particular structures in our brain doesnt mean that they are "moraly good" or anything)
(on an objective/ descriptive level i totally agree with his points)
please correct me if im wrong!
I think he addresses this in the last minute or two of the video. We may have specific identifiable innate moral principles but their innateness is not proof of their correctness. If that's the case, we may be "stuck."
@@nickdolan3741
Innateness doesn't necessarily correspond to correctness, maybe because bias is baked into our system/limitation.
"The human brain is a powerful anomaly. It can process 11 million bits of information every second. Our conscious minds, however, can only keep up with 40 to 50 pieces of information each second. Though significantly less than 11 million, that’s still an impressive amount of information to juggle at any given moment." The University of Texas.
To Arturo Cervantes: In reply to your question, "Why is Chomsky always attacked for being objective about our finite capabilities and the limits to our introspection". In reply, I note that Edwin Chur said, "Deviance is a property inherent in the individual and conferred upon by the social audience. The variables to determine such deviance is the social audience! I view any criticism as not only healthy but also as a measure of how close to the correct answer one is. Human beings are by nature and existence fallible and subjective. There is constructive criticism and that which is meant to berate and demean. You use the subjective verb attack' that is in my view is a somewhat aggressive military term, that is meant to reinforce and mitigate your narrative. In contrast the noun criticism refers to analysis and judgement of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work. You are however correct that Chomsky does make it clear that we say what we know to be empirically true. Those apposing a view or stand point will by default be vitriolic and wantonly aggressive. As an Advocate of some 30 years, I boldly stick it to man every day, tenacious and assured in my knowledge, yet always mindful that at any time arrogance can overtake the imbedded liberal, if I'm not paying attention! Chomsky's view is bilaterally received, some agree and some do not, what we know about us as a species is that if we cannot even agree on the notion that we were created either by a divine being or the result of chaotic forces. The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model explaining the existence of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. In contrast theologians assert via Genesis 1, that God is the creator of all things of the world, night, and day, warm and cold, creatures and finally humankind, essentially Male and female created and blessed by him, not her them or it. Who is right? I was raised in a Presbyterian household in the East End of Glasgow in the 1960s, where tribal bigotry and violence prevailed, each reinforced by theological teachings. I am by default of the view that something or someone put us on this planet and to that end remain firmly agnostic. Mindful of all religions and views, I will never dismiss, berate or abuse, for each of our views are worthy of a baseline respect. Like the philosopher David Hume a fellow Scotsman, I know what I know and hold the view, believing no one, trust nothing and always check for myself as far is humanly possible.The French philosopher Paul Ricoeur in his book, ‘Fallible Man - The Philosophy of the Will’, assert that man is ‘ens volens’, a willing being and focuses on three principal areas (The Freedom of Nature - the voluntary and involuntary / Finitude and Capability - fallible man and the symbolism of evil and Poetics of the will), Ricoeur in recognising the principal importance of fallibility, recognises the transient nature of man that determines his pathetic inconsistent behaviour, fundamentally arguing that when you strip the language away, the pathetic inconsistent vessel is driven principally by his own awareness of right or wrong, choosing inconsistently to mitigate and justify his behaviour, by criticising others.
To foggymedia:
I was somewhat perplexed at your statement, "wasn't
I wonder how to mesh innate morality (which is not always logical or beneficial) against natural selection (survival of the fittest).
See Prisoner's Dilemma, what is good on a superficial, self-interest, level (what would get the best outcome for oneself) is not always the choice people make. Mainly because we both, 1) have a tendency to avoid risk and 2) are a social species. The second best choice (cooperation) in the PD, is the one that combines both of these. Thus among these lines, one can say that natural selection preferred those who cooperated as the outcome of this cooperation would be mutually beneficial (and thus benefit more members of the species, and increase it's chance for survival). This should, of course, always be seen in a context (cooperation will not always the preferred choice). Further, linking it to innate morality, our 'moral compass', which has evolved among these complex PDs has a natural tendency, in a fair amount of cases, to choose cooperation over self-interest' (to nuance here, tribalism and other biases can come into play here, as a proof that our 'moral compasses are not perfect, and we should try to improve them by rational discourse)
Thanks for the link, Max Binks-Collier. You might like the lectures of Robert Sapolsky, who studies animal behaviour and has a lecture series on CZcams.
It might be like birds who have bright feathers to attract females, MrRhomas913. These become brighter or darker over time depending on how safe it is to have them in the current ecosystem.
Thanks, Max Binks-Collier. I am glad I read your link. I was wondering as I listened to Noam Chomsky what these innate moral components might be. From the Jonathan Haidt page, "care/harm, fairness (equality)/cheating, liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation." Makes sense.
Darwin didn’t like the phrase “survival of the fittest” and only used it at the urging of colleagues who thought it made natural selection more understandable to lay people. Cooperation is very prevalent in the natural world, both inter and intra species. See Trivers work on reciprocal altruism, Hamilton’s principles of Kin selection and inclusive fitness, and Christopher Boehm’s work on altruism and hunter gatherer tribes, just to name a few. Which isn’t to say that there aren’t unresolved issues on the question of evolution and morality/altruism, I think it’s a fascinating topic that could shed significant light on our sense of morality.
Somebody please suggest the book of Prof. Chomsky that I should begin with.
Who is the German he mentioned? Sounds like Matthias Momom.
I think he is referring to Matthias Mahlmann.
John Mikhail
Chomsky’s limitation is that he starts with knowledge, consciousness, and language. He should instead start with objective reality and existence itself. He falls prey to the Cartesian fallacy of placing consciousness ahead of existence (I think, therefore I am). He reverses the fundamental axioms of reality.
#classwar s. #chemicalwar
Innate morality derived from God is what many religious people believe in.
Who got triggered by my listing a fact?
nah .
Kenneth Katona The idea that it is self-taught and innate IS the argument I outlined. It is at the heart of consciousness, as you said. The other side of the coin is the superficial wants and desires that can overtake that morality if one does not live a balanced life in which moral values are integrated into their day-to-day. Greed and lust find us day-to-day, therefore we must find our morality day-to-day.
It is religious belief that serves this purpose, and ascribes divine origin to this innate 'self-taught' morality; it is embedded in us by a higher power.
What he describes as morality, I would prefer to think of what Carl Jung called the unconscious -- an illiterate animal psyche that refuses to be ignored. If we mistreat it, it gets us back. So we have a sort of inner drama going on that models our relations with other people.
Lol
Occam's razor - the additional assumption of 'derived from God' results in a less simple hypothesis.
After reading Nietzsche's 'Daybreak' every other talk on morality sounds shallow and crippled.
illmatc Yeesh don't be so pretentious.
what is with the insults? what the fuck is wrong with people? you strike me as the types you never take the time to read and think things through for yourselves and when someone voices his view that goes against whom you happen to worship you quickly attack. I do admire Chomsky but I think his views on morality are shallow.
And what is pretentious or stupid about voicing my opinion? So I had to bend down and tone down my 'voice'. Well fuck you. I stand by what I said.
illmatc Nietszche its very good cultural critic/philosopher but a terrible anthropologist :) . I recommend you a guy called Marshall Sallins, specially his book Economy on the Stone Age, it describes the principle of how we ontologically define the "other", and the morality towards the alien. It was quite illuminating for me.
@OhYeah? Good one
Chomsky - "There have been studies done on this. Very young children exemplify moral principles"
illmatc - "how shallow and pretentious."
Uh, k.
Chomsky talks like a sloth.
Let's see what you sound like when you're in your late 80s.
He still conveys more information in 3 minutos than most students in their whole tesis.