3 ms·
I think what Chomsky is saying here "rhymes" with his theory of Universal Grammar (UG). The UG belief is that there are a finite set of "primitives" of languag
by mushufasa 3y ago
I think what Chomsky is saying here "rhymes" with his theory of Universal Grammar (UG).
The UG belief is that there are a finite set of "primitives" of language, and all human languages have grammar syntax that are the permutations of those primitives. This is actually pretty clearly the case for programming languages -- primitives like addition/subtraction, methods, objects, etc. -- are chosen by language developers in different doses, and we group languages together based on these grammatical syntax choices (e.g. functional family of languages, declarative/imperative languages).
It sounds like Chomsky is claiming morals work the same way; there are a finite set of things that humans find reprehensible or good. Per that, certain cultures at certain times may have different permutations of what they group into the 'reprehensible bucket,' but the set of choices is constrained.
- voxl 3y agoEven if you admit the hypothesis, that there is a finite set of _expressible_ moral statements. That does not impose a universality to a particular selection. Just like there is not one-true-programming language, regardless of there being a finite number of them, there is not one-true-moral truth. You could say "well just combine _all_ the programming languages!" and you will have almost everyone hating it (except perhaps you yourself), just like with moral codes.
- pixl97 3y agoEh, this sounds like they are trying to say that the halting problem is reducible. Simple finite components can generate infinite, non-halting answers.