What's this guys problem?

> linguistics has no real world implications

love reading this on a literature board

He's not 'highly Kantian', their ideas are only alike in a vague sense. Kant illuminated nothing about the mind, before Chomsky there was no way to discuss the mind analytically. Not only that but Chomsky also showed how we can actually study the mind empirically. Critique of Pure Reason is a joke compared to Syntactic Structures and Chomsky's criticism of behaviorism in terms of clarity of thought, and the insight it can provide on the mind.

Its totally dishonest to compare Chomsky's universal grammar to Kant's description of a priori knowledge... Kant provided no understanding, this is clear since to this day people are trying to make sense of what he wrote.

>Being utterly clueless

I can't even take you people seriously. You can't even say "I'm a stem autist" in your defense since linguistics were absolutely essential for programming languages

>Jewish socialist
Found his problem

hahahahaha fucking actual retard

first time i've ever been mad at how fucking stupid someone is, i'd literally beat you up in real life for being this wrong, jesus christ i'm making like a sour disgust face and my brain is struggling to mobilize D-Day level logistics just to think of how deep inside your wrongness i would have to reach to get at its core handful of super wrong points and not spend all my time chopping off the flailing hydra heads of how fucking wrong you are

fuck off, i woke up to play video games and you ruined my whole fucking night

>Kant illuminated nothing about the mind, before Chomsky there was no way to discuss the mind analytically.
> discuss the mind analytically.
>Chomsky also showed how we can actually study the mind empirically.
>Critique of Pure Reason is a joke compared to Syntactic Structures
> terms of clarity of thought, and the insight it can provide on the mind.

bpblpsblpblplplplplp im just sputtering and spitting all over my screen

you mushmouthed wrong fuck i fucking hate your post

Actually, Chomsky is a Hegelian

Lmfao, here we can see the mind which has been illuminated by the light of Kant, the only coherent thing he can share is that he spit on his monitor and got out of bed primarily to play video games.

Kant's contribution was to give academic philosophers the language they needed to keep their jobs even if they had nothing to say. No one turns to Kant for serious insight, its just an academic exercise.

There's no reason to respect Harris though.

Letting politics influence your world-view to such a degree that your pre-existing biases completely trump rationality.

>no one turns to Kant for serious insight
you should be euthanized

>before Chomsky there was no way to discuss the mind analytically.

Hume created an entire system to categorize the processes and elements of the mind about a century before Kant. Chomsky’s theories are no more empirical than Freud’s.

Sorry but thats my honest assessment, I'm not even trying to be provocative. The only reason to study Kant is if you want to understand the books people wrote saying how he was wrong.

It's not even that he was wrong about so much either, I don't even think he had any novel ideas.

You thought Syntactic Structures was better than Critique of Pure Reason? Man, Syntactic Structures is the most unreadable bullshit I've ever read, which is surprising considering how clear his foreign policy stuff is. And I think I'm one of the few people on this site who actually likes Kant. I'm not hating I'm just surprised at this conclusion. How does someone enjoy Syntactic Structures?

The analytic tools Chomsky provided us with go much further than mere 'categorization'. I like Hume and I think you aren't doing him any favors by describing his ideas as a 'system of categories', to be frank. Hume was a great writer and thinker but his ideas about the mind are not at all in the same category as Chomsky in terms of precision, depth of insight, and clarity. Mathematical logic just wasn't far enough along in Hume's time, its not like Chomsky is a special genius compared to Hume or something. I mean Chomsky had the benefit of being to build off of fucking Bertrand Russell and all the other geniuses of that era. Its nothing against Hume to say that he probably could not even dream of something like Principia Mathematica. Chomsky had the benefit of coming AFTER that.

No idea why you're talking about Freud, he's a clown. Its not clear why you think linguistics can't be studied empirically, I have no idea why you would say something that outrageous without explanation.

>who actually likes Kant.
whoa whoa whoa. Kant is a God around here

He revolutionized linguistice and got depressed when he realized no one cares

This, Kant is basically the only thinker since the Greeks everyone agrees is legit

That surprises me to hear that you thought it was unreadable. Its just a simple formal system that he ties back to the subject he is talking about (language) in the most clear terms possible.

My background was in mathematics, formal logic and metalogic when I read it but I think even someone who only knows arithmetic would have no trouble understanding generative grammars... they aren't that complicated in my mind. Am I wrong for assuming you disliked the formal system?

I liked syntactic structures because of the clarity and depth of insight. Chomsky gives a concrete analytic program for modelling and discussing the structure of thought and the mind. Also he illuminated the fact that empirical studies of language are an extremely promising avenue for leveraging science to gain insight about the mind. All of this for a few very modest and reasonable assumptions, barely worth mentioning.

I have no idea how someone could like Critique of Pure Reason. Like what questions did you have about the mind that Kant answered in that work?

Syntactic Structures was tough for me partially because I knew nothing about previous linguistic studies, so I couldn't grasp what mistakes he was correcting, also the diagrams had a way of turning my brain off. I still think I came away with a general understanding but it was a struggle.

Kant seemed to answer a lot of questions and I think he's bored mostly for correcting am oversight of previous philosophers, if you could call it that. Basically, because the mind evolves to only see things that it needs, it can't recognize objective reality, and all reason is biased to lead towards certain predetermined conclusions. Call it a priori or thinking with your dick, but it's really important to consider that bias when looking at something complex. Also the fact that it proves all our most metaphysics are really just results of human psychology is really important.

fpbp I say this all the fucking time

Kant believed that it was impossible for us to get the form of our perception from our sense data. What I mean by that is the rules or laws governing how we piece together a total picture is not something we could learn from the picture's elements, but something that must have come from us. These rules are called concepts and they are basically generative processes.

Chomsky believes that it is impossible for us to get the form of our language from our sense data. He believes that there is simply too much data, and much too complicated of data, to ever LEARN from our experience how to process and generate linguistic structures. Hence he believes we must have been born with innate generative processes for linguistic structures.

Like the other poster here I'm astonished by how retarded you are. But it's illuminating that you think people are trying to understand what Kant wrote or that Kant was some kind of obscurian - were those your conclusions after attempting to read CoPR? I suggest finding a different hobby than philosophy, honestly.

Saying they're similar (in philosophy) could imply they have the exact same idea, and that you could get all the ideas from reading only one of them and not the other. Chomskys books are too scattered across subjects while Kant is arguably too focused. I think that's why people don't like the rhetoric that they're similar, not cause it's untrue, but just cause it implies one of them is unnecessary

Chomsky is being a "Kantian linguist". The Kantian idea is here applied to the field of linguistics, and it is applied nearly perfectly, in that if you asked someone to make a Kantian theory of linguistics they would end up with Chomsky's general idea.

Obviously they are differnet in that one is an application to metaphysics and the other an application to linguistic structures, but they share the same epistemology.
But Chomsky's merit lies not in UG per se but in all of his technical work. Even syntax trees are from Chomsky. Chomsky founded and set the standard for every single linguistics field, even modern phonology. He single handedly created an entire field of study.

Kant answered nothing... regarding the huge flaws Hume was finding with western thought, Kant's big insight about a priori knowledge is a total embarrassment. I have no idea how someone could mistake Kant's labyrinthine description of space for insight. As for time, he didn't even try to invent a language that could masquerade as insight. The Critique of Pure Reason was a masterpiece of sophistry, Kant's monument to his inability to confront the obvious disaster Hume had revealed. Hate to say it, but I don't even think its right to call him a philosopher.

Does priori not exist? Do we instead learn everything rationally or through experience?

Is there anything actually wrong with his politics? Only respond if you would actually say it to his face.

Just because Chomsky's universal grammar is something Kant would describe as 'a priori' doesn't mean that universal grammar belongs in the same category as kant's wisdom. Kant had no insight about his a priori knowledge, besides his wasted words describing the form of space to his audience.

He had nothing to say about time, of course, but his critics gave him a pass since they didn't know how to confront it either. Even if we agree that space and time are necessary for cognition, it opens no doors to continue the study the mind. There's nothing more to say about them.

Chomsky provides us with a formal system that is a complete mathematical description of what he calls 'grammar', describes how different types of grammars are capable of having different levels of descriptive power, an then describes how these structures form what we know as the mind. There's nothing magical about him saying that universal grammar necessarily comes from our physiology -- thats a necessary deduction we can make based off the observation that humans naturally adopt languages when exposed to otherwise limited sense data. Universal grammar is just the grammar with sufficient descriptive power and the structure which enables the mind to learn the grammatical structure of our actual languages. We can actually learn about and model this grammar via empirical investigation of the human capacity for language learning.

Kant's a priori forms are worthless compared to this notion -- they offer no insight and reveal no possiblities for further understanding. Saying Chomsky's universal grammar and Kant's a priori knowledge are on the same level is simply wrong. It requires complete ignorance about the actual content of Chomsky's work on linguistics and the mind.

> Chomsky believes that it is impossible for us to get the form of our language from our sense data. He believes that there is simply too much data, and much too complicated of data, to ever LEARN from our experience how to process and generate linguistic structures.

Here is an example of your ignorance: The exact OPPOSITE of this is true. One of Chomsky's famous insights is what is known as the "poverty of stimulus". He says that our languages are too complex for the amount of empirical information we take in when learning them. Thats why he speculates that there must be some kind of innate grammar that facilitates language learning.

Chomsky is not a "Kantian linguist". Zero familiarity with Kant is required to understand Chomsky's theory of language and his theory of mind. If you want to understand Chomsky, read Syntactic Structures, and Chomsky's criticism of behaviorism. Chomsky's work is a work of analytic philosophy and logical positivism. The Kant scholars who try and say that Chomsky is reformulating Kant's ideas (has anyone actually tried to seriously argue that outside of this board?) are adapting Kant's empty words so they can feel like they understand something. Chomsky couldn't care less about Kant.

I doubt you will accept this:

Kant's idea of a priori knowledge does not exist -- he was wrong about time. Its common knowledge. There are cultures which do not share the western concept of time and do not seem to condition phenomena temporally. Children actually need to be taught about time before they can reason about things in terms of western notions of time / causality / etc. Without being taught, children have no understanding of time or causality. Its a matter of empirical fact that Kant was wrong about time -- it is not a priori knowledge.

Thats what happens when you assume things, but I don't Kant's followers even in this thread will confront facts.

I never made the claim you needed to understand Kant to understand Chomsky, I only showed that they share a like minded copernicus revolution. I'm not sure what your issue is.

this is a painful reminder how young and bad this board is. I'm guessing this poster is around 20 years old. I get that it's an anonymous discussion and you don't have to have actually read either Kant or Chomsky to write your fanfic about what Kant did or didn't contribute, but it's a struggle to read and try to participate with this. I'm not going to type out a summary of Kant's contributions or theories - someone interested should take a look at the Stanfard wiki article if they want a summary. If you are interested in philosophy I highly recommend actually reading CoPR, it's a fun book.

again I highly recommend actually reading CoPR. The idea you have of the a priori forms of space and time are wrong, and you seem to have no idea whatever of the a priori concepts, the cateogories, and their roles. You should step back and engage with philosophy more deeply than skimming wikipedia articles, it would be good for not just the quality of your own mind but the quality of this board aswell.

The problem is he's a solid respectable thinker who gets overshadowed by an obnoxious readerbase of normie redditors which encourages him to be lazy and throw them breadcrumbs while he rambles on whatever the fuck he wants. And this in turn puts him in undeserved standing with more serious people who overlook his genuine insight. He's not in the top tier of 20th century thinkers but he's made contributions enough to have at least a footnote left on the century. His linguistic work, his Buckley demolition, and Manufacturing Consent are all great.

Nah, this is what you said:

> Chomsky is being a "Kantian linguist". The Kantian idea is here applied to the field of linguistics, and it is applied nearly perfectly, in that if you asked someone to make a Kantian theory of linguistics they would end up with Chomsky's general idea.

My issue is that this is wrong. I already explained how Chomsky's ideas do not follow from Kant, have far more merit than Kant's, and are of a fundamentally different character. If you are abandoning that okay. Sure whatever, "copernicus revolution", you weren't wrong.

> this is a painful reminder how young and bad this board is. I'm guessing this poster is around 20 years old. I get that it's an anonymous discussion and you don't have to have actually read either Kant or Chomsky to write your fanfic about what Kant did or didn't contribute, but it's a struggle to read and try to participate with this.

Honestly if you mean that its a struggle to read because of grammar issues / shit writing, my sincere apologies I didnt proofread it once I saw how long it was lmfao.

If you mean its a struggle to read because you think I am ignorant, not sure what to tell you. I am way more familiar with CoPR than I want to be, I had to read it when I was studying Kant, when I was studying Hegel, when I was studying Schopenhauer, then again when I was studying Kant's insipid ideas about aesthetics.

You called Chomsky a Kantian Linguist and said "if you asked someone to make a Kantian theory of linguistics they would end up with Chomsky's general idea". You already showed to me you don't know what you are talking about. Sorry man but you and I both know the real reason you aren't going to argue with me about this. No one is reading this, and CoPR isn't fun.

>i know

Like I said I studied Kant in depth 4 or 5 times over the course of a few years, and wrote at length about his ideas and where I think he failed. Sorry but I actually have read Kant and this isn't going to work on me. Maybe I completely misunderstand him, and if thats the case, only substantial discussion will enlighten me. Don't waste your time with these worthless posts.

They are not at all a fundamentally different character, lol. Chomsky himself calls his shit Cartesian linguistics but they have way more in common with Kant than Descartes.
Yes I meant it because of ignorance. I have no idea what you learned from Kant if this is what you walked away with. Did you just eyeball over pages without knowing what any of it meant? insane

> They are not at all a fundamentally different character

They are man. I even explained why to you.

> Chomsky himself calls his shit Cartesian linguistics but they have way more in common with Kant than Descartes.

Damn, you should let Chomsky know he wrote about the wrong philosopher in "cartersian linguistics" I guess. You must really have a firm grasp of chomsky and kant to manage such an oblique reference here.

> I have no idea what you learned from Kant if this is what you walked away with. Did you just eyeball over pages without knowing what any of it meant?

I already shared my views on Kant and what I've read of him. Do you have anything substantial to say about Kant or Chomsky?

I didn't mean that he was wrong in calling it Cartesian linguistics, I meant that you were wrong in your implication that therefore you must know Descartes in order to read Chomsky, and that Chomsky's ideas then follow from Descartes', and the rest of the fallacious arguments you put forward.

In both Kant and Chomsky there are a priori faculties which are generative. You haven't explained that they are different. You just put forward the "arguments" above and said that Chomsky "doesn't care about Kant". He isn't "reformulating Kant's ideas" any more than he is "reformulating Descartes ideas" by calling it Cartesian Linguistics.

too intelligent and too pure for this world

> In both Kant and Chomsky there are a priori faculties which are generative.

lmfao Come on man, why are you doing this. They are both "generative"? Wow, say no more.

Thats enough now man, no hard feelings, join me and lets just laugh about your bullshittery here. Jesus lmfao "generative"

> You haven't explained that they are different.

Yeah I did I wrote a long post about it that described the exact differences between the contents of the two ideas.

> He isn't "reformulating Kant's ideas" any more than he is "reformulating Descartes ideas" by calling it Cartesian Linguistics.

Lmao alright you got me, I actually re-read this sentence to try and understand it.

yeah, as in, the concept of a circle is itself generative - it is a rule which has no applicability except for in intuition. For an indepth analysis of the generative role of a priori functions Maimon does a good job after Kant. There is no bullshittery from my side, I know you are just bullshitting your way along (obviously) but you aren't in good company of someone also pretending to know about this.

>socialist
He's a liberal.

Yeah I know man, I heard you the first time... "Generative". Thats all you had to say. I know that these terms all had special meaning to Kant so please don't tell me that.

Generative, as in, the concept of a circle is itself generative - it is a rule which has no applicability except for in intuition. Like how chomsky's grammars are "generative" grammars. Its right there in the name.

Nevermind about when I explained the concrete differences between the two. I can see now that they are both 'generative'

with us you mean
us \ {you}

Where can I read about other cultures views on time? That is a unique argument

Check out anthropologists who study the indigenous peoples in papua new guiea, those cultures have some novel ideas about time.

Most cultures that don't have the mechanical clock are going to be interesting, so you can't really go wrong there. Look back in history and at contemporary cultures

Also look into historical anthropologists who talk about the days before agriculture, you will find a lot there as well.