Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
S4 Episode 15: Noam Chomsky
37 Plays3 months ago
Today John and Dejan are discussing the renowned American Philosopher Noam Chomsky.
Please follow the podcast and give us a 5 star rating wherever you listen. Also, do follow us on social media.
Recommended
Transcript
Introduction to 'Debatable Discussions' Podcast
00:00:01
debatablediscussions
Hello and welcome back to another episode of the Debatable Discussions podcast.
Noam Chomsky's Contributions to Linguistics and Activism
00:00:07
debatablediscussions
Today you join us for a very exciting episode as we delve into the many ideas and articulations of Noam Chomsky.
00:00:17
Dejan
Now I'm Chomsky, former professor at MIT, now retired, who is incredibly well known for a couple of things. One is his work in linguistics as part of the founding of his universal grammar theory, as well as his political work, being a political activist associated with the New Left movement and especially his opposition to the Vietnam War.
Creativity in Human Nature: Chomsky's Perspective
00:00:42
Dejan
Also, Chomsky has played a a huge part in defending free speech, which has brought him some controversy and also has been vast, vast, vast critic of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.
00:01:02
Dejan
So, John,
00:01:04
Dejan
my first question to you is,
00:01:04
debatablediscussions
Oh, yes.
00:01:07
Dejan
What does Chomsky believe is sort of our nature? What does Chomsky think makes us us almost?
00:01:17
debatablediscussions
So that is creativity. As you described there, Dan, Chomsky is the most prominent US philosophers, especially of the most prominent US modern philosophers. And Chomsky's core idea around humanity is creativity.
00:01:34
debatablediscussions
This is something I think he believes that animals don't have, or obviously plants, another form of life. They don't have this innate ability to be creative.
00:01:45
debatablediscussions
And almost a higher level of consciousness one can deduce from that. He believes that that is what separates us as being superior beings.
00:01:56
debatablediscussions
Yeah. What do you believe about Chomsky and his sort of definition of human nature there?
00:01:59
Dejan
Yeah.
00:02:02
Dejan
I agree with you, but i i think we first need to define creativity in his sense of the word. Creativity for Chomsky is not sort of being Isaac Newton and discovering gravity and, you know, for Chomsky, creativity is as simple as the fact of reacting differently when you hear something.
00:02:16
debatablediscussions
Yeah.
00:02:23
Dejan
for example, when you're very young, reacting to language is an example Chomsky always gives, is is creative. you We are creative in our responses when we talk to one another.
00:02:34
Dejan
Most of the time, we're not aware of what the other person is going to say and we have to reply on the spot using that improvisation. But I agree with Chomsky because of a number of reasons.
Chomsky vs. Foucault: Creativity and Power-Relations
00:02:47
Dejan
Number one, I think it's very difficult to pinpoint how animals, plants, bacteria, etc. would be able to have that creativity due to the fact that it's sort of more instinctually based.
00:03:03
Dejan
For us, it's quite easy, on the other hand, to point out, as I've said, you know, us talking right now, we are creative because we don't have a script that just says every single word we need to say.
00:03:15
debatablediscussions
Yeah.
00:03:15
Dejan
However, there are some problems with his theory as well, which is, can we be sure that, for example, dogs aren't creative? How can we test that? I don't think we can.
00:03:26
Dejan
Also, there are other opposing views to what human nature actually is about. And another prominent philosopher, Michel Foucault, says that what human nature actually is, is this sort of amalgamation of power relations.
00:03:42
Dejan
What do you think about that? Who do you agree with more?
Advanced Consciousness and Language Acquisition
00:03:45
debatablediscussions
Yeah,
00:03:46
debatablediscussions
I see where Foucault is coming from in that sense of the amalgamation of power relations, was it you said there?
00:03:54
Dejan
Yes.
00:03:55
debatablediscussions
So I definitely see that argument. And actually, humans have a unique... If is what Foucault knows, I'm not too... research in this area to inform in this area but I'd imagine Foucault means that in just sort of power relations between humans in the sense of how we interact with one another I think in the natural kingdom especially animals interact with each other in a very unique sometimes sophisticated manner but I the idea of Chomsky is one that I go back to in the sense of
00:04:16
Dejan
Indeed. Indeed.
00:04:30
debatablediscussions
It appeals to this idea in me that what differentiates humans to animals is a more advanced level of consciousness and a more advanced, complex cognitive ability that we have.
00:04:52
debatablediscussions
What do you think, Darren?
00:04:54
Dejan
Yeah, I agree you there.
00:04:55
Dejan
think you've actually made a very good point that the natural world, know, tribes exist, sort of packs of wolves do have power relations among them as well.
00:05:06
Dejan
It's not uniquely human, human things. Cognitive animals are able to display frankly, some of the same behaviours that humans would in a tribe. So I think Foucault does have a point, though, that power relations, the way power relations are formed in humans is probably different.
00:05:29
Dejan
And he makes point through schooling and medicine and other other other things that make these power relations. But
00:05:38
Dejan
I don't think it's a uniquely human thing. I think some parts may be unique, but as you've said, a pack of wolves does have that power imbalance and does operate in a way analogous to humans. Whilst we can't really be sure that wolves are really creative because...
00:05:56
Dejan
They sort of go on and do a repetitive set of tasks every day. That's mostly instinctually based. Now, my second question to you is another point of Chomsky's, which is that also language, this capacity for language and the difference of language also makes us different to animals because we're one species with different languages. So what do you think about that? Do you think that's also part of what makes humans distinct?
00:06:25
debatablediscussions
So, yes, I mean, as you mentioned Dan Chomsky, i when when I think of Chomsky, I almost think of his greatest contribution academia to this field of linguistics.
00:06:36
debatablediscussions
ah Linguistics is what he was a professor of at MIT, and it sort of rested on him on this universal grammar theory. And basically, he believed that humans have this innate capability for language.
00:06:48
Dejan
Yeah. Yeah.
00:06:50
debatablediscussions
His assumptions rested on how, for example, babies can have, in his opinion, can just learn a language through pure immersion into it, like I'm sure we both did.
00:07:03
debatablediscussions
And how he also made the point of how, isn't it bizarre how we have this innate capability for grammar, whether that is forming new languages?
00:07:13
debatablediscussions
So all the languages in the world, even though they come from such different roots, they have this same sort of base structure of grammar. And he believes that is because of this innate human capability.
00:07:25
debatablediscussions
Now, I think it's hard to say, are we unique because of language? Because I think the example people like to give is dolphins. I think dolphins, they can whistle and communicate through that.
00:07:38
Dejan
Yeah.
00:07:38
debatablediscussions
And obviously that is highly sophisticated. However, I do think there is an argument to be made that, and this is evidential and the sort of many means that human language can be communicated through, that we have a higher level of sophistication when it comes to language.
Innate Abilities: Chomsky vs. Locke
00:07:58
debatablediscussions
Can you test it? Not really, because we can't understand what dolphins are saying. But it is fairly obvious that humans have this universal, basically, yeah, universally...
00:08:11
debatablediscussions
have this sophisticated ability for language. What do you think, Diane?
00:08:17
Dejan
Yeah, I fully agree with you there. I think what's really interesting about this language theory of Chomsky's is not just necessarily the fact that we can speak languages. It's more that we are one species, Homo sapiens, that speak a variety of languages, which is unheard of, really, in the natural world.
00:08:38
Dejan
Because...
00:08:41
Dejan
You you have people and also speaking multiple languages as well. It's quite distinct, quite distinctly a human thing, people being able to speak two, three or four languages.
00:08:52
Dejan
You're never going to find the wolf being able to speak the same as a dolphin or a dolphin the same as a lion or a lion the same as an owl, for example. But you will find people being able to speak all of these multiple languages
00:09:02
debatablediscussions
Yeah.
00:09:08
Dejan
Which is something that definitely, that definitely makes us
Legality: State vs. Moral and Chomsky's Views
00:09:11
Dejan
think. And here I want to introduce another idea, which is the fact that Chomsky believes that we're not a blank slate when we are born.
00:09:20
Dejan
Unlike one of your favorite philosophers, John Locke.
00:09:26
Dejan
How, how do you think Chomsky and Locke compare when it comes to sort this blank slate approach?
00:09:32
debatablediscussions
So I say I can't really speak for Chomsky. don't know what he says. obviously Locke's idea is the tabula rasa. And there's something I always find quite comforting with Locke when it comes to the tabula rasa, because this idea of tabula rasa is a blank slate.
00:09:49
debatablediscussions
We are born and let's say are a blank slate. And then all of life's experiences sort of add to this canvas and form and lead us to be the person which we are when we're older.
00:09:55
Dejan
Okay.
00:10:02
debatablediscussions
So it's a very empiricist sort of way thinking about life. Growing up, one could say, because through experience, we form the person that we're going to become when we're older.
00:10:13
debatablediscussions
And this is the fundamental idea of Locke. It implies, you know, it's a sort of overarching thing in many of his theories. How does Chomsky differ, Diana?
00:10:24
Dejan
Well, Chomsky says that we're not a blank slate when we're born. We don't have this tabula rasa. We, on the other hand, have this sort of built-in mechanism for grammar.
00:10:35
Dejan
We have this built-in mechanism for grammar that allows us then to learn language quite simply, as you said, by immersion, as most babies You're very young and your house and your parents talking to you and somehow you speak the language without much.
00:10:50
Dejan
sort of practice without a dictionary without without anything really it just happens and that's why i i sort lot people say oh I'm going to go to Italy for year to learn Italian because it's so much quicker and Chomsky takes that
00:10:54
debatablediscussions
Yeah.
00:11:08
Dejan
approach and says, you know what, in order for that to happen, we must have a built-in mechanism already that allows us to learn a language and grasp its grammar without spending needless hours going through it.
00:11:21
Dejan
I do agree with him there. I think Locke's argument might be more from a moral perspective, if I might think. It's more of a moral thing and Chomsky's is more a practical, practical one.
00:11:35
debatablediscussions
Yeah, no, I agree that because as humans, we do have this capability to, let's say, if I wanted to, to could learn Chinese. I'd start learning Chinese tomorrow. And we have this innate capability to potentially do that with within a year. Yeah.
00:11:51
Dejan
Yes.
00:11:51
debatablediscussions
And something so opposed to a language we know, we just able to learn it. Why? It requires something more sophisticated than knowledge, I think, and pure knowledge.
00:12:02
debatablediscussions
And that is what Chomsky appeals to. And so, Dan, another landmark idea of Chomsky, as you mentioned at the start of the episode, is that Chomsky has been opposed to many wars, ah particularly wars and invasions led by the US, and has become a prominent left wing political figure for these views.
00:12:22
debatablediscussions
So what makes something illegal? Chomsky sort of flirted with this idea throughout his time in academia.
00:12:29
Dejan
Yeah. Well, for Chomsky, there are a couple of different notions of legality. Number one, he doesn't agree with the fact that if the US government says jaywalking is illegal, he doesn't really subscribe to that. Not necessarily jaywalking, but...
00:12:48
Dejan
An example of that would be if you were to stop a train that was going to bring supplies that were then going to be sent to Vietnam for the war, that would be illegal in the eyes of the US government. But Chomsky doesn't agree that. Chomsky says it's the same principle as if you were a traffic light and there was a guy with a machine gun planning to shoot a bunch of people, you would run him over...
00:13:14
Dejan
And that would not be illegal. So Chomsky makes this distinction between legality in the eyes of the state and legality in the eyes of the individual.
00:13:17
debatablediscussions
Yeah.
00:13:22
Dejan
He claims that in order for something to be illegal, it must be morally wrong. It must be unjust and it must have a sort of worse outcome. He doesn't just simply subscribe to the idea that jaywalking is illegal, therefore it is illegal. He says no.
00:13:39
Dejan
Jaywalking can be legal, in my opinion, for example, because there is no negative outcome. The only outcome, for example, is me being able to cross sooner, which is a morally right thing, for example.
00:13:55
debatablediscussions
Yes, I see. He's got a different idea of illegality, as you said there to Dan. And I think part of this is how you view...
00:14:05
debatablediscussions
obviously major analogy of Chomsky was that he did not believe it was illegal to block um trains going to Vietnam, didn't he? Obviously because he was so opposed to this war.
00:14:13
Dejan
Yeah.
00:14:15
debatablediscussions
And I think you have to consider with him, he has a very absolutist sense, or no, relativist sense in a way, actually, sorry, when it comes to what is illegal.
00:14:26
debatablediscussions
And that relies almost upon his morals.
00:14:30
debatablediscussions
He was morally opposed to the war in Vietnam. So he said, well, using this relativist judgment, I'm going to say, it's not illegal to block this because for me, it's pursuing a higher moral goal.
00:14:44
debatablediscussions
So yes, it's obviously a slightly different definition to whether the law considers whether what he's doing as being illegal or not. And you also have to consider, as previously mentioned, this idea of The action itself can be illegal, but does doing an illegal action mean there will be better consequences?
00:15:06
debatablediscussions
For example,
00:15:07
Dejan
Well, for Chomsky, no.
00:15:10
debatablediscussions
is it No Fachomsky? Okay.
00:15:12
Dejan
Well, no, because if there are bad consequences, that would be illegal action in Chomsky's mind.
00:15:13
debatablediscussions
Yeah.
00:15:17
Dejan
So for Chomsky, illegal actions only result in poorer consequences.
00:15:18
debatablediscussions
Yes, yes, yes.
00:15:22
debatablediscussions
Poor consequences, yes. But I mean, the action itself, the absolute, if you look from a sort of duty-based idea, it could be illegal, but it wouldn't be illegal, as was saying, if the consequences were better.
00:15:36
debatablediscussions
You can forgive an action in his eyes.
00:15:38
Dejan
Yes.
00:15:39
debatablediscussions
And and that history has shown that, you know, for example, think back to 1960s, USA, or yes, sit-ins or the bus boycotts. These were illegal actions.
00:15:53
debatablediscussions
However, should they be illegal? No, because when you look at the consequences of it, they achieved the right to vote. They achieved the end of discrimination and segregation in the United States.
00:16:05
debatablediscussions
Therefore, yes, it's how you view this. And I think he has it from a very consequentialist perspective, which I do like, actually. And I think there is, as he said there, I mean, Chomsky is a far smarter man than both of us. I'm not surprised he came up with this. But it's very convincing when you think of something as being consequentialist in the sense that, is it illegal if it's achieved something so great?
00:16:30
debatablediscussions
Well, no.
Chomsky's Anarchism and Episode Recap
00:16:32
Dejan
Yes, and before we end, I think we need a caveat as well that Chomsky is an anarchist.
00:16:35
debatablediscussions
We
00:16:40
Dejan
For those who don't know anarchists, as anarchism isn't the sort of thing that's mostly portrayed to be, which is this of generalized chaos where everyone is going around killing people, looting shops, rioting.
00:16:53
Dejan
Anarchism simply, in most intellectuals' minds, is this concept of having no state, having no powerful authority that can dictate what is right, what is wrong, what is acceptable what is not acceptable. So Chomsky, with being an anarchist, will definitely challenge this concept of power from the state a lot more.
00:17:16
Dejan
I think that's just an important thing for our listeners and viewers as well, because without understanding this concept of anarchism, it's really strange to look at Chomsky's beliefs.
00:17:29
debatablediscussions
And yes, if you do want to delve into the idea of anarchism, when you finish listening to the episode, about only a few months ago, Diane, me and Lachlan had a discussion on anarchism.
00:17:42
debatablediscussions
It's in our probably our past season, but go check that out if want to further delve into this idea. Anyway, just to recap the episode, today me and Diane, oh yes, see you then.
00:17:51
Dejan
Thank you and see you next week.
00:17:56
debatablediscussions
Oh, uh.