Smart people take forever to get to the juice…Jesus if I can stay awake I may learn something . They need to give us the whole life history and name drop. If it’s good information, I don’t care if it comes from Oscar the Grouch…. Good channel good interviewer
Anil Gomes is remarkable,the interviewer drinks too often,maybe out of nervousness and insecurity,but one should consider that one is in front of an audience,not just having tea by oneself.
17:00 - can’t this argument be applied to science too? For example, science in the past that is now disregarded is not actually science? How does scientific realism tie into the argument of natural law?
Terrible. Inventing terms, then arguing about what they mean, and splitting up into camps -- typical academic rigamarole. she is completely sunk in this bog.
what about War and Peace? or the totality of western painting and sculpture? are we to take it that all this was done without intentionality? LOL or that there are no mental images
Thank you for the conversation! I've glad to hear some thought on Kant's attitude to "think for yourself". The paraphrase "think responsibly" is clarify a lot.
I love this conversation! You should do a whole series on regenerative ag!, and how there's nothing sustainable about degrading a living resource (Dirt to Soil by Gabe Brown).
Thanks Fabian and Andrea for this brilliant discussion...!: from The idea of a pizza machine in Rome-- to inspiring me to brainstorm a new idea for a 3rd place-like institution, for a local public to understand how subjective backgrounds shape our perceptions and interpretations for better or worse.
Can you have Robert Hanna on again? I would like to ask a few questions. About intentionally interacting with the world where Robert Hanna claims Kants view is better than Chomskys I have to disagree. Ask yourself this question can you intentionally jump to the top of a cupboard of 10 ft height? No. Point being your interaction with the world dependant and constricted by nature and human nature. Much like a human cannot run 20m/s he also cannot have thoughts over concepts which he does not possess. Also intension or representations which Chomsky focuses on is not semantics relation, ie mind world relation. But these representations basically light up and through innate unconcious rules of inference create the phenomena of meaning which we can observe through our inner eye.
Words can be used (and are used) as tools to refer to objective external things, but they don’t have an inherent reference in themselves. You can use the noun “house” to refer to a specific house, but the word itself does not have an inherent reference. It has an inherent meaning, but that’s a different matter. That is Chomsky’s point. Reference is an action that people do, not an inherent property of words.
“London” could refer to an imaginary fictional version of London for example. Or take Phillip Pullman’s fantasy trilogy “His Dark Materials” in which the main character Lyra lives in a fictional fantasy version of Oxford. It’s the same word “Oxford” but here it refers to something that doesn’t even exist in physical reality. So the word Oxford has a meaning complex enough for it to be able to refer even to imaginary objects. And the same goes for all words in the language.
Okay, on the whole mind-body problem and the question of materialism, Chomsky’s point is that the world modern science describes is fundamentally incomprehensible to our common-sense understanding. Okay, so Einstein got rid of the infinite speed aspect of gravity, but he replaced it with curved space-time. Try to imagine a three dimensional space that is curved, or curved time for that matter. These concepts are not common-sense at all. There’s no version of modern physics that is comprehensible in the traditional Galilean sense ever since Newton. Action at a distance is just one thing among others of what makes modern physics occult. Since Newton science has searched for understandable THEORIES of the world, but the world they describe is no longer understandable.
Primates have had morals for much longer than any written Bible or a book of history now that we’ve been able to write it all down and try and discuss what morals are and what they aren’t and where do you get them evolution biology science chemistry and the Scientific approach in studying the subjects we can tell the superstitious people that they don’t have origin dibs on the idea of morality it was morals before the character Jesus of Nazareth there were morals before Moses came down with the 10 Commandments and if you wanna talk morals how about the commandment that says thou shall not kill explain that one to me and tell me that I need to be saved by Jesus I am not lost and I am not drowning and I don’t need some Casper the friendly ghost or superman to come down and save me so long as I agree with the practices in the New Testament they’re all political it’s all controlled by religion and tribal practices for 15 to 30,000 years or much more we don’t need religion to try to explain why humans show empathy kindness and have feelings for one another this is simply normal homeo Sapien homo erectus to how dumb we really seem to be these days with politics and no morals at all in any make America great again believerYes I’m very familiar with Dawkins and very familiar with Christopher Hitchens and I agree there is no God but when your religion dictates your behavior your injuries are self-inflicted no sympathy here
There’s a fascinating interview with Chomsky, a quite old interview, where this man is the interviewer. Chomsky goes pretty hard on him; it’s very interesting!
I think if you read Kant's work, know his historical situation, and have a good interpretive schema, you can read him as a kind of apologist; he's a kind of philosophical apologist for religion in his time. Really though, I read him as an atheist because that is what he really is! Great video!
The reason anthropology is so important is because it is really just the study of oneself, as a lived experience and as an idea or thing. "The study of humans" can be refined and distilled into the study of beings. All beings capable of sapience and deeper introspection would then necessarily already have them themselves as a part or subject of their studies due to the complexity and depth that is required to possess these qualities. Thats why epistomology, metaphysics, ethics & morality, aesthetics and logic are all explained through "anthropology". It's because all these concepts exists and are thought of inside human minds, experienced and felt through human consciousness and sensation, and are all limited and intimately interconnected to us. The humans. Our race. We create the world we perceive. To understand the world is to understand ourselves. We are all one. This bulldog be hittin different.
These interviews came at the right time for my dissertation, thank you so much for this whole project, it has helped me understand much better the authors I have been reading for so long :)
Bob is great. I was fortunate enough to study in his classes dealing with Kant's CPR and how that ties into contemporary analytic philosophy. Get his books, for sure, and maybe acquire a quick background in the analytic/synthetic, a priori/a posteriori, and necessary/contingent distinctions. Kripke's and other causal theories of reference challenge that. But Bob fires back against scientific essentialism. Never forget that Kant and Bob are empirical *realists* and transcendental idealists. But this isn't Berkeley all over again, either.
This conversation just seems to be about general decision making heuristics-tools that evolution has given us in order to make social decisions. First off, who knows whether the useful tools lead to truth or not (it doesn't matter for evolution). Second, I don't see the specific moral aspect. Third, I really dislike the 'objective' and 'universal' language. There is a lot of intersubjective agreement, but there's no way to empirically or theoretically verify objectivity. We would need access to a non-human perspective which is impossible. Plus even just looking at objective claims on their own, there are far too many caveats, even for the cases that seem clear like murder, lying, and racial discrimination. Sure we can say that our society now has a better moral system, but other cultures or ours in the past would not agree with that reasoning, in many cases because they start from different first principles.
To the rather generic formulation of the moral imperative I'd like to point out that Professor Hanna could have reffed to two central figure in the ancient Geeks' take on morality as those of Oedipus and Antigone .
So now that we know the virus was created in a lab and there is video evidence of the FBI orchestrating the "insurrection" is the esteemed Professor of Propaganda going to retract his specious claims that only right wing conspiracy theorists would imagine such things? I don't think this guest even accurately represented Manufacturing Consent effectively but he definitely lost me when he started parroting mainstream talking points about Jan 6 and covid. Mark Crispin Miller would be a better interview on this topic. But, even ole Chomsky himself went off the rails with his contention that vaccine hesitant citizens should be left to their own devices to acquire food and that Jan 6 approximated anything like a coup attempt. (Holy jumping good Jesus - Chomsky, of all people, should know what a real coup attempt looks like.) I will give him a pass because he is Noam Chomsky, after all, and he has a 60 year public record of revealing unpleasant truth about how our society functions and he is weary. DiMaggio has zero excuse.
Great interview, thank you Fabian for the guest. Very structured thoughts on Fuller, who seems outdated for the philosophy of law, but a lot usefull in the rule of law area. for example "Rule of Law Checklist" by the Council of Europe seems to me couldn't exist without the Fuller as an unofficial comment to it.
You are talking nonsence about President Bolsonaro, selling the rainforest to line his own pockets? could you give grounds and proof to such statements?
