4 ms·

I've listened to some of his lectures over the years but the most I've ever gotten from him, was from a single book that compiled and edited his lectures into a

I've listened to some of his lectures over the years but the most I've ever gotten from him, was from a single book that compiled and edited his lectures into a QnA format, sorted by topic. The book's called 'understanding power'. I got my copy from a used book store for a few bucks. Great stuff full of interesting historical bits I had no idea about. It also helped clarify his philosophical stance, which is simply that people need to organize in order to affect change. He's decided that his part is providing research and it is up to others to use it to do their part. Chomsky to me, would've been a giant historical figure, if he had found a Steve Jobs to represent his work, the same way Steve Wozniak did. Instead, Chomsky went at it alone, making some of the most juicy and interesting material feel stale, simply because he has no ability to present it in a compelling manner.

dgellow 6y ago
In case you’re not aware, Chomsky IS a giant historical figure. He’s a founder of modern linguistics and cognitive science, a renowned analytical philosopher, and a major political activist of the 20th American landscape. His academic and political work is massive.
- leephillips 6y ago
  This is the first time I've heard him described as a renowned (or any kind of) analytic philosopher. And I’m not sure he’s contributed anything that’s taken seriously by mainstream cognitive science. Also: “It’s”?
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    > And I’m not sure he’s contributed anything that’s taken seriously by mainstream cognitive science. If nothing else, he single-handedly tore down behaviorism as a serious theory of the mind, which at one point was status quo and gaining traction. Chomsky used his observations from the study of language to show that behaviorism simply can't explain most of how we acquire language. So even if his own theories of mind had not gained traction (I don't know enough about this to comment), he definitely had a major contribution to cognitive science.
  - dgellow 6y ago
    Then you might want to look deeper into his work. Regarding cognitive science, check the first entry from this list: http://web.mnstate.edu/schwartz/cogsci100.htm http://web.mnstate.edu/schwartz/cogsci100.htm. (If the link to his book is dead, you can check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntactic_Structures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntactic_Structures directly if you prefer). > Also: “It’s”? Autocorrect typo, I fixed it.
  - yesenadam 6y ago
    Maybe they read his wikipedia page, the third sentence of which is: "Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science." But that's just wikipedia, you say, so I looked at the (very "analytic philosophy") article on Philosophy of Linguistics in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Chomsky is mentioned by name 78 times. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/linguistics/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/linguistics/ A quick glance at just the titles of the 94 other articles on there mentioning Chomsky gives an idea of the range of his ideas/writing/influence: https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=noam+chomsky https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=noam+cho...

dgellow 6y ago

In case you’re not aware, Chomsky IS a giant historical figure. He’s a founder of modern linguistics and cognitive science, a renowned analytical philosopher, and a major political activist of the 20th American landscape. His academic and political work is massive.

leephillips 6y ago
This is the first time I've heard him described as a renowned (or any kind of) analytic philosopher. And I’m not sure he’s contributed anything that’s taken seriously by mainstream cognitive science. Also: “It’s”?
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  > And I’m not sure he’s contributed anything that’s taken seriously by mainstream cognitive science. If nothing else, he single-handedly tore down behaviorism as a serious theory of the mind, which at one point was status quo and gaining traction. Chomsky used his observations from the study of language to show that behaviorism simply can't explain most of how we acquire language. So even if his own theories of mind had not gained traction (I don't know enough about this to comment), he definitely had a major contribution to cognitive science.
- dgellow 6y ago
  Then you might want to look deeper into his work. Regarding cognitive science, check the first entry from this list: http://web.mnstate.edu/schwartz/cogsci100.htm http://web.mnstate.edu/schwartz/cogsci100.htm. (If the link to his book is dead, you can check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntactic_Structures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntactic_Structures directly if you prefer). > Also: “It’s”? Autocorrect typo, I fixed it.
- yesenadam 6y ago
  Maybe they read his wikipedia page, the third sentence of which is: "Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science." But that's just wikipedia, you say, so I looked at the (very "analytic philosophy") article on Philosophy of Linguistics in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Chomsky is mentioned by name 78 times. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/linguistics/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/linguistics/ A quick glance at just the titles of the 94 other articles on there mentioning Chomsky gives an idea of the range of his ideas/writing/influence: https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=noam+chomsky https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=noam+cho...