Noam Chomsky - Introspection and Intelligibility

Показать описание

Рекомендации по теме

Комментарии

This is really profound. Far more profound than what they're teaching me in my philosophy major. It's sort of depressing that most philosophers misunderstand these concepts because in order to make heads or tails of these problems I have to go off and do the research all on my own. I will seize these problems by the throat all the same--they will not bend and crush me completely!

seedyoda

My attempt to summarize:

The main idea is that we do need additional systems of analysis and this is in keeping with our science forming capacity. We cannot only operate under our system of common sense experience, since many realities are counter-intuitive (perhaps the majority). As an example he points out that we tend to think there must be mechanical universe when Newton clearly showed there is not. He then acknowledges that 'Mysterianism' (recognition that there are things we cannot comprehend) is in fact not a capitulation just an obvious axiom, but we still need to develop systems, primarily from our scientific capacities to make sense of the world. But that does not mean the world is intelligible - just that we can develop intelligible theories.

In regards to semantics, we do need different words and terms to develop an organized system of reference, even though they seem alien to our common language. Chomsky is rationalizing their necessity need and showing that mixing them can be futile. He uses the example of water and H20 to show that the futility of trying to develop one common reference. We don't tell a waiter to give us a cup of H2O but neither will a chemist substitute 'water' in her formulas for H2O.

Essentially he is saying that as democratic as it may seem to bridge the gap between scientific systems and common experience as the questioner suggests, it may be denying the scientific capacity in us to develop theories that have a shared system of reference.

nblumer

I love the grin of the woman in the middle. She's just fascinated by Chomsky's answer towards the end.

jimmaobnd

A beautiful mind. Thank you, Professor.

WeaponizedPanda

He must be happy man because he inquire, make sense of the world.... People who have quest for & acquire knowledge, wisdom and understanding are one of the happiest people on earth.

munafghori

Professor Noam Chomsky.... Wise and kidness... wonderful 👍😊

leonsantamaria

noam - blessings -your poetry gives me strength

twoshea

The expression on the woman on the middle... I wouldn't blame her. If I were on her place I would be just like this **o**

rumplstiltztinkerstein

"What is it like to be a bat?"

Why, it's batty, of course!

boohoo

I am left to wonder how Chomsky would respond to the real fruits of meditation provided by Buddhist Samatha, Vipassana, and Sati techniques/disciplines.

masonainsworth

What about the "waves", like electromagnetic waves etc, that is not part of the mechanical conception ? If not, where do waves fit ? Isn't 'action at a distance' problem is intelligible through 'mechanism' of waves ?

harryd

I agree that there is a significant limit to introspection when trying to learn about the mind, but some things can only be learned introspectively, not from the outside.

You cannot make a lifelong blind person know what colors really look like without them experiencing it themselves internally, no matter how good of an external science and vocabulary you have.

5:30 As Chomsky says here

7:15 "I think, therefore I am"

paifu.

I recently had an online conversation with my mother about a quote from Wittgenstein: "Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of our language." I posed the following question to her: "Is the bewitchment of which Wittgenstein speaks perhaps related to that which Socrates "knows that he doesn't know?" After a lengthy discussion (mainly my attempt to connect Wittgenstein's quote to Socrates through Chomsky's movie "Is The Man Who Is Tall Happy?") She reposted the quote in German: "Die Philosophie ist ein Kampf gegen
die Verhexung unsres Verstandes durch die Mittel unserer Sprache.“ I read, speak, and understand German well enough to respond to the meaning of the quote. My immediate response to my mother, however, (she tries to act like she understands German better than she actually does so I was admittedly being a bit of a smart ass) was "Bless you!" To which she immediately responded with a laughing emoticon. Did you the reader immediately see humor in my response to my mother? If so, how, specifically, did you come to find it funny? And how did language relate to this particular humorous interaction?

dolanpatj