Re:A Defense of Philosophy (against Paul Graham)
by qqq on Sunday December 21, 2008 @12:37AM
(#405229)
But he writes nonsense. What did he ever get right? Besides the obvious point that "we learn language by copying sentences" can't explain where new sentences come from.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:A Defense of Philosophy (against Paul Graham)
by qqq on Sunday December 21, 2008 @02:47AM
(#405304)
Can't think of anything that sounds impressive and fits in 2 sentences?
Re:A Defense of Philosophy (against Paul Graham)
by rms on Sunday December 21, 2008 @04:43AM
(#405347)
Absolutely not. But linguistics seems like a legitimate enough field, and Chomsky is considered rather influential there.
His work seems to follow logically from Wittgenstein's point that a lot of philosophy comes down to the precise meanings of words.
Re:A Defense of Philosophy (against Paul Graham)
by qqq on Sunday December 21, 2008 @04:49AM
(#405349)
So you're just going by his reputation? I have read about some of his ideas and formed the opinion that they are bad (apart from the one i mentioned).
Re:A Defense of Philosophy (against Paul Graham)
by rms on Sunday December 21, 2008 @04:59AM
(#405355)
Ignore his politics, though I personally have a great deal of respect for people with extreme politics.
The Chomsky hierarchy -- a method of classifying formal grammars. Seems computer science-y enough that you'll consider it as something real. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy