Subject: Re: PKF: Would Feyerabend have defended Wittgenstein and Whorfagainst Chomsk...
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:36:00 +0200



>      As for Chomsky's critiques of Wittgenstein, it seems that the two
> thinkers have
> separate domains of expertise.

Not possible. At the very least, these areas of expertise are extremely
closely related. On a more radical view, taking expertise as a generic
content of evolved ability toward a certain practice, and looking at
Feyerabends
extremely interesting arguments that as we are able to change our ways
of life (John Prestons article), and that therefore every culture is
potentially all cultures, and
cultures involve practices by definition, then every expertise is
potentially
all expertise. If you can pick out the syllogism in this convoluted
sentence,
your are on to what I am saying.

> Wittgenstein was an analytic philosopher,
> while
> Chomsky was a linguist, who participated in political and media critiques
in
> his spare time. Is Chomsky, as a linguist, qualified to critique
> Wittgenstein's philosophical work?

Ask him, he seems to think so. And of course he is qualified to do this, he
is just not fair. And I do not accept this view which Chomsky so publicly
over the years and with such amazing consistency that he does his political
writing
as "spare time." He has carefully carved out a place for himself as the
central figure for leftist and many liberal intellectuals, and I believe it
suits him (i.e. he quite enjoys the attention, not that he suits the
position). His arguments
are often specious and dogmatic in the linguistics field where he does
rule with an iron hand if he can possibly help it, i.e. he does manufacture
consent in his field, and their are plenty of rebels at the university
linguistics
departments who resent this. He would not tolerate a Whorf or a Wittgenstein
in any possible stretch of the imagination, and since they threaten his
autonomous
syntax  approach of linguistic universals (David: "If it was that they
contravene a (universalised)
rule-bounded conception of language" - yes, they do at least on Chomskys
eyes)
will marshall all of his rhetorical skills to flatten them in
the eyes of the linguistic community. That is simple avarice, not science. I
believe
Feyerabend would have blasted him for this as well as other reasons, not
least of which is intentional disinformation and fabrication. Chomsky once
criticised Searle as the proponent of a mass of hypotheses, Searle could
only smile and respond that that is exactly what Chomsky does best: Language
Faculty, Moral Faculty, L = DS, PS,... (Language = Deep Structure, Phonetic
Strucutre, ......etc etc), NP-traces, etc. It is a fantastic castle he has
built, but as Wittgenstein
noted early on, hiearchies are not logical.

If Chomsky criticizes Wittgenstein as a
> relativist, thus a quietist,  does this critique have any legitimacy? In
my
> view, these cross-discipline analyses have no academic significance and
> should be disregarded.

They cant be disregarded. If they are that would be self induced ignorance
which
on one view would be your problem, but not so: you would
be trying to put it off on other people as well.

>
>                            T Vannoy
>                            Seattle, Washington
> **********************************************************************
> Contributions: mailto:feyerabend-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Commands: mailto:majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Requests: mailto:feyerabend-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu



**********************************************************************
Contributions: mailto:feyerabend-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Commands: mailto:majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Requests: mailto:feyerabend-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu