Chomsky? He is something of a bellwether for specious reasoning, which is a contribution of sorts. The obviously inconsistent logic of the various beliefs he holds makes his philosophy, such as it is, seem disjointed and arbitrary.
As a philosopher, he plays a “crazy uncle” character.
I’ve often wondered whether he was worth my time to investigate further, since on one hand I regularly hear him cited as a remarkable and inspiring figure, and on the other, I’ve never read an argument of his that I found enlightening or unusually well formulated.
Yes, I too once wondered this so I read Chomsky on Anarchism (I think just because it sounded like an interesting topic), and came away with the conclusion that Chomsky’s intuition was that people were primarily motivated by something like ‘solidarity’ than was consistent with my intuitions (and generally along worker/non-worker lines). He does also have a habit of being intellectually rude by switching topics frequently and saying things which he should know are false.
Chomsky’s beliefs include the following: that empirical research has no place in linguistics, that linguistic problems should be solved by expert intuition, that biology is inapplicable to linguistics and psychology, and that language did not evolve. All this and more can be found in his collection of papers “New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind.” I don’t think people realise how far his work is from the cognitive revolution he is credited with having founded.
Chomsky’s beliefs include the following: that empirical research has no place in linguistics, that linguistic problems should be solved by expert intuition, that biology is inapplicable to linguistics and psychology, and that language did not evolve.
Not knowing the actual context, I see plausible and true interpretations (that can be characterized by a pragmatic character) of all of these. You’d need to do better.
Chomsky? He is something of a bellwether for specious reasoning, which is a contribution of sorts. The obviously inconsistent logic of the various beliefs he holds makes his philosophy, such as it is, seem disjointed and arbitrary.
As a philosopher, he plays a “crazy uncle” character.
I’ve often wondered whether he was worth my time to investigate further, since on one hand I regularly hear him cited as a remarkable and inspiring figure, and on the other, I’ve never read an argument of his that I found enlightening or unusually well formulated.
Yes, I too once wondered this so I read Chomsky on Anarchism (I think just because it sounded like an interesting topic), and came away with the conclusion that Chomsky’s intuition was that people were primarily motivated by something like ‘solidarity’ than was consistent with my intuitions (and generally along worker/non-worker lines). He does also have a habit of being intellectually rude by switching topics frequently and saying things which he should know are false.
Chomsky’s beliefs include the following: that empirical research has no place in linguistics, that linguistic problems should be solved by expert intuition, that biology is inapplicable to linguistics and psychology, and that language did not evolve. All this and more can be found in his collection of papers “New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind.” I don’t think people realise how far his work is from the cognitive revolution he is credited with having founded.
Not knowing the actual context, I see plausible and true interpretations (that can be characterized by a pragmatic character) of all of these. You’d need to do better.