Que peut le bon sens comparé à ce que peut peut-être la connaissance scientifique ? Noam Chomsky a rappelé que le progrès des sciences a amené à se rendre compte que le bon sens, ou sens commun, pouvait se tromper de façon spectaculaire. La même chose n’est-elle pas susceptible de se passer en matière morale et politique ? Après tout, le sens commun un peu éduqué ne peut-il suffire pour nous procurer les lumières dont nous avons besoin pour l’action (...) ? Pierre Bourdieu était évidemment convaincu que la connaissance procurée par les sciences sociales est finalement la seule qui soit susceptible de nous permettre de comprendre réellement les mécanismes qui engendrent l’inégalité, l’injustice, l’oppression, etc. [Jacques Bouveresse se souvient] d’avoir pris la défense de Noam Chomsky, au moins une fois, devant Bourdieu, parce que Chomsky avait écrit que comprendre comment opèrent ces mécanismes d’assujettissement et d’oppression qui engendrent l’inégalité et l’injustice n’est pas très difficile ; il suffit d’un peu de bon sens, de psychologie – et de cynisme, ajoutait-il. (shrink)

The business leaders' particular concern was the U.N. General Assembly session this September, where the Palestinian Authority is planning to call for recognition of a Palestinian state.

One such term is “the international community.†The literal sense is reasonably clear; the U.N. General Assembly, or a substantial majority of it, is a fair first approximation. But the term is regularly used in a technical sense to describe the United States joined by some allies and clients. (Henceforth, I will use the term “Intcom,†in this technical sense.) Accordingly, it is a logical impossibility for the United States to defy the international community. These conventions are illustrated well enough (...) by cases of current concern. (shrink)

The goals ofthis paper are to identify (in Section II) some general features of problem solving strategies in science, to discuss (in Section III) how Chomsky has employed two particularly popular discovery strategies in science, and to show (in Section IV) how these strategies inform Chomskyan linguistics. In Section IV I will discuss (1) how their employment in linguistics manifests features of scientific problem solving outlined in Section Il and (2) how an analysis in terms of those features suggests (...) a natural account for many controversial aspects 0fChomsky’s methods. I will specifically examine how this analysis bears on Chomsky’s claims concerning competence theories’ centrality in psychology and their psychological reality. Although no methodological considerations bar Chomsky from tinkering with our notion ofpsychology, competence theories mus! eventually offer some fruitful empirical connections with psycholinguistics and that part of mainstream cognitive psychology concerned with language study tojustify that tinkering. After twenty years of research such connections have proven rare enough to raise important doubts about thejustification ofChomsl·:y’s claims for the place of competence theory in cognitive psychology {and for the psychological reality of the mechanism it describes). Although I will argue (contra man) tf C}iom.rk_y’s critics) that his methods are unexceptionable, still [contra Chomsky) his theories have not proven sufficiently robust empirically to justify his strong claims concerning their position in cognitive psychology. (shrink)

According to Chomsky and his followers, language as a biological phenomenon is a property of individual minds and brains; its status as a social phenomenon is merely epiphenomenal and not a proper object of scientific study. On a rival view, the individual's biological capacity for language cannot be properly understood in isolation from the linguistic environment, which it both depends on for its operation and—in collaboration with other speakers—builds and shapes for future generations. I argue here for the rival (...) view by demonstrating firstly its greater consonance with several themes in current biological theory, and secondly its ability to answer two well‐known philosophical challenges to generative linguistics due to Quine and Kripke. (shrink)

Thomas Reid in the eighteenth century and Ludwig Wittgenstein in the twentieth made strong cases for the existence of "communication systems" that must be in place if there is to be the acquisition of any language; language in the full sense of a system of words, displaying distinctions into word classes and ordered by a grammar that is sensitive to those word classes. Although their pre-languages have something of the character of language proper, Reid and Wittgenstein offer a very different (...) conception of the necessary conditions for the existence of language from that proposed by Chomsky, much criticized for its implausible cognitivism. In this paper we compare and contrast Reidian and Wittgensteinian conceptions of what there must be for language to be possible, and draw some morals for the vexed, but in our view, empty question of the demarcation of language from all other intentional and normative systems in use amongst people and animals. (shrink)

In this revolutionary study of the philosophical problems of language, J.N. Hattiangadi offers a new approach which simultaneously solves several venerable conundrums in the origin and development of language and thought. His argument includes acute criticisms of the later Wittgenstein's theory of language use, Quine's approach to subjunctive conditionals, Kripke's analysis of proper names, and Chomsky's conjecture of an innate universal grammar.

Peter Abelard (1079–1142 ce) was the most wide‐ranging philosopher of the twelfth century. He quickly established himself as a leading teacher of logic in and near Paris shortly after 1100. After his affair with Heloise, and his subsequent castration, Abelard became a monk, but he returned to teaching in the Paris schools until 1140, when his work was condemned by a Church Council at Sens. His logical writings were based around discussion of the “Old Logic”: Porphyry's Isagoge, aristotle'S Categories and (...) On Interpretation and boethius'S textbook on topical inference. They comprise a freestanding Dialectica (“Logic”; probably c.1116), a set of commentaries (known as the Logica [Ingredientibus], c. 1119) and a later (c. 1125) commentary on the Isagoge (Logica Nostrorum Petititoni Sociorum or Glossulae). In a work Abelard called his Theologia, issued in three main versions (between 1120 and c.1134), he attempted a logical analysis of trinitarian relations and explored the philosophical problems surrounding God's claims to omnipotence and omniscience. The Collationes (“Debates,” also known as “Dialogue between a Christian, a Philosopher and a Jew”; probably c.1130) present a rational investigation into the nature of the highest good, in which the Christian and the Philosopher (who seems to be modeled on a philosopher of pagan antiquity) are remarkably in agreement. The unfinished Scito teipsum (“Know thyself,” also known as the “Ethics”; c.1138) analyses moral action. (shrink)

Em intervalos frequentes ao longo dos anos, o professor Chomsky vituperou tanto contra noções do senso comum quanto contra noções técnicas de linguagem pública ou “linguagem externalizada”, afirmando que elas são confusas, mal definidas ou desprovidas de qualquer interesse científico. Como cientista, ele somente estaria interessado na linguagem pública se ela fosse um “objeto real do mundo real” (Chomsky, 1993, p. 39), e não uma noção “artificial” e “arbitrária” (Chomsky, 1985, p. 26). Proponho articular tal noção de (...) linguagem pública para ele. Chomsky também condena a noção que de o propósito da linguagem é a comunicação. Sustentarei, ao contrário, que uma função primária da faculdade humana da linguagem é apoiar convenções linguísticas, e que estas têm uma função essencialmente comunicativa. (shrink)

The article looks into the issues, outlined in M. Baker's The Atoms of Language: The Mind's Hidden Rules of Grammar. This work is notable for the parametric theory of the languages, set out in it, according to which languages are different, nevertheless retaining the ability to be compared. That can be further supported by the assertion that the differences among languages are determined by "a smallish number of discreet elements, called parameters."What is more, the diversity of language reveals a certain (...) regularity, very much resembling that of Mendeleev's periodic table of chemical elements. Our research team of professional linguists and philosophers put this claim to a critical analysis, the results of which are featured in this article. One of the major ones among them is the supposition that Baker, in accordance with the traditions of Chomsky generative linguistics, turns temporal continuums into special relations. He did that without discussing the consequences of such move, which made it impossible to develop the psychological and linguistic aspect of the subject raised by him. (shrink)

In tis paper I examine the notion of innate knowledge maintained by N. Chomsky.

Den Zusammenhang der Arbeit stellt die Dreigliedrigkeit Realität- Sprache-Denken dar; das Fehlen dieses Zusammenhangs bei Chomsky und Skinner wird aufgedeckt und damit der Mythos einer fetischisierten Sprache. Das geschieht primär durch die Analyse theoretischer Prämis- sen, die die Richtung der Arbeitsresultate festschreiben und relevante Fragestellungen aussparen. Die Arbeit zeigt, wie das konstruiert wurde und welche Konsequenzen das theoretisch und z.T. auch praktisch hat. Damit stehen nicht nur die theoretischen Interessen der beiden Autoren, sondern die der Linguistik zur Debatte, zumal (...) als einer Disziplin, die nicht autark ist, sondern Wissen über Welt voraussetzt und selbst ideologisch produziert. (shrink)

Noam Chomsky, “evrensel dil” düşüncesini içeren önemli dil kuramıyla zihin felsefesi ve bilişsel bilim alanında yeni bir yaklaşımın doğmasını sağlamıştır. Chomsky, Kartezyen felsefeyi temel alan dilbilim kuramı çerçevesinde, dil yetisini insana özgü olan zihinsel bir başarı olarak görmektedir. Bu bakımdan Chomsky, dil-zihin ilişkisi konusunda kendisinden önceki filozoflardan oldukça farklı bir yaklaşıma sahiptir. Dolayısıyla bu çalışma, Chomsky’nin dilbilim kuramı çerçevesinde dil ile zihin arasında nasıl bir bağ kurduğunu ve bu bağın yeryüzünde farklı diller konuşan farklı kültürden insanların (...) bir arada yaşamalarını mümkün kılması bakımından önemini sorgulamayı konu edinmektedir. Bu bağlamda çalışmada Chomsky’nin düşüncelerinden hareketle, dilin insanın zihinsel süreçlerine ne türden katkılar sağladığını açıklığa kavuşturmak amaçlanmaktadır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda felsefe tarihinde tartışılagelmiş dil-zihin sorunlarına ilişkin Chomsky’nin düşünceleri deneyci görüşler ve düalist yaklaşımlarla karşılaştırılarak irdelenecektir. (shrink)

L’article se propose d’explorer l’usage que Chomsky fait de la référence à la philosophie de Descartes. À partir des années 1950, le linguiste et philosophe Noam Chomsky remet l’innéisme sur le devant de la scène en défendant l’existence d’une faculté innée de langage. Comme l’indique sans équivoque le titre de son ouvrage paru en 1966, La linguistique cartésienne, Chomsky inscrit sa pensée dans la tradition cartésienne. Mais ce que Chomsky entend par « faculté innée » est-il (...) vraiment similaire à ce que Descartes nomme « idée innée »? L’usage que fait Chomsky de Descartes relève-t-il simplement d’un procédé rhétorique, comme le soutiennent certains commentateurs, ou est-il le signe d’une authentique proximité conceptuelle? Selon certains commentateurs, cet usage est purement rhétorique. D’une part, le tournant naturaliste opéré au XXe siècle a déplacé la réflexion sur l’esprit d’un plan métaphysique purement a priori à un plan scientifique purement empirique. D’autre part, le domaine où s’exerce prioritairement la pensée de Chomsky – le domaine linguistique – est un domaine largement ignoré par Descartes. Enfin, concevoir l'esprit comme contenant des facultés spécifiques innées paraît incompatible avec le caractère indifférencié et uniforme de l’esprit cartésien. L’article entend montrer au contraire que l’usage que fait Chomsky de Descartes révèle un véritable air de famille entre innéisme chomskyen et innéisme cartésien. D’une part, c’est bien le caractère a priori des principes que Chomsky postule qui fait écho aux idées innées cartésiennes. D’autre part, Chomsky dessine une tradition linguistique de type rationaliste qui pose l’universalité des structures grammaticales au nom de l’universalité même des caractères distinctifs fondamentaux de l’esprit que l’on trouve chez Descartes. Enfin, Descartes et Chomsky défendent tous deux un innéisme dispositionnel. En somme, l’article conclut que ce qui relie Chomsky à Descartes n’est pas la définition de la grammaire universelle innée, que ce dernier n’aurait, sans doute, pas acceptée ; c’est une manière similaire de poser le problème de l’acquisition de la connaissance, et partant de le résoudre. (shrink)

This chapter contains section titled: The Metaphysics of Reduction The Ordo Cognoscendi Computer Models Eliminative Materialism (and Connectionism) Mysteries.