This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
How about some critism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.236.189.72 ( talk) 18:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Agreed, the quote: "a hero of Homeric proportions, belonging solidly in the pantheon of our country's finest minds, with all the powers and qualities thereof. First, foremost, and initially he is staggeringly smart. The speed, scope, and synthetic abilities of his intellect are legendary. He is, too, a born leader, able to marshal support, fierce and uncompromising support, for positions he develops or adopts. Often, it seems, he shapes linguistics by sheer force of will." is simply embarassing to read, lacks objectivity and has absolutely no place in the article. The fact that it is a citation of someone else's opinion does not change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.195.128.112 ( talk) 13:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The article claims that "Children are hypothesized to have an innate knowledge of the basic grammatical structure common to all human languages …This innate knowledge is often referred to as universal grammar." Chomsky's innate universal grammar has never been seen or measured. It may be a mere fiction. Is this the profound contribution that resulted in the staggering judgment that "his contributions to science are difficult to overestimate. He not only revolutionized linguistics, but he also profoundly affected biology, cognitive science, psychology, computer science, and philosophy. Few figures loom as large over 20th century science as Chomsky … one of the greatest 20th century biologists, actually called him one of the half-dozen greatest intellects of the century"? Lestrade ( talk) 02:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
Tedium is subjective. What is tedious for one person is interesting and stimulating for another person. When you say "I could give a whit," you should have said "I couldn't give a whit." By asking a simple question, I am smearing hard science? Is innate universal grammar a concept of "hard" science? What is "creationist" about my prattle? "Cranks" once disputed Ptolemy's geocentric universe. Calling people "cranks" is not a logical way to discuss these topics. If innate universal grammar is truly supported by "massive genetic evidence," then my question has been answered and Chomsky may be right. If not, then it is permissable to question Chomsky's hypothesis, at the risk, of course, of being called a "crank." Lestrade ( talk) 03:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
~UG was not a hypothesis, it was a theory. It's now an established fact within biology. The creationist aspect of your prattle was your denial of scientific facts that are not "seen or measured". Typically, I only hear such rubbish from the young-earth creationists. Regardless, it shows a fundamental lack of understanding about science. CABlankenship ( talk) 03:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The pages on UG in WIKI are terrible and woefully out of date. Even before recent evidence, no serious biologist questioned that there is an innate component to language. If you understand evolution, then you understand that some aspect of language is innate, or it's simply a miracle. There is no possible way to explain language if we are to believe that it must be learned in total. There is no possible way to explain the way a child acquires language without an innate component. This should just be obvious, but some people (untrained in biology) just don't seem to get it. Chomsky has made many enemies in his time, and this leads to layman attempts to discredit his scientific work. In the end, we'll probably just need a new term, since UG has been so universally attacked by people who oppose his politics. It's sad, really. Chomsky's work on this matter has been profoundly important to biology.
Just consider the obvious: everyone knows that children have a remarkable ability to quickly learn language, even without being taught to do so. All they need to do is hear the language being spoken, and within no time at all they have mastered it. This does not hold true with other subjects--young children do not learn mathematics or other activities with the same astonishing speed. So it's either a pre-programmed and hardwired response (somewhat like puberty, menopause, &c,), or it's a full-blown miracle. CABlankenship ( talk) 04:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I almost bust up laughing reading that. Look, in science we cannot stop to theorize untestable epistemological exceptions. For instance, the statement: "God did it" is of no use to science, even if it's technically possible, and even if it has explanatory power. There may be some mysterious law of language (quantum mechanics?) of which we are unaware, but we have no need of such a hypothesis when we already have an explanation that is falsifiable and testable. All evidence to this point supports the notion that humans have an innate language faculty. You seem to insist that we remain open to unnamed and fantastical solutions to this problem, yet you present no alternatives--nor has anyone else. In the meantime, I challenge you to find one respectable biologist who disputes that the ability to learn a language is innate. On my side, just of the higher end scientists, I can list Richard Dawkins, J.Maynard Smith, Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, Stephen J. Gould, Richard Lewontin, Hauser, Orr, J.Diamond, G.C. Williams, E.O. Wilson. I know of no scientists who agree with you that this theory is inadequate and we need to look for mysterious skyhooks. There is no reason at all to accept your position. Of course language evolved. Of course it is innate. You don't understand the argument. CABlankenship ( talk) 23:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The following long sentence: "I think it's safe to say that only a minority of linguists concede that hairy apes, parrots, poodles, chinchillas and others have an ability in language as a whole (as opposed to vocabulary or phonetic perception in isolation) that's anything like that (whether spoken or signed) of a human" equates the language abilities of certain apes with that of other species. Apes and birds have different abilities. Lestrade ( talk) 22:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
I had sedulously avoided this conversation, but reading over it again I have noticed an error of mine. Hoary, I failed to notice that your original post was a new author, and not simply an extension of Lestrade's previous post. I was in a rush and skimmed over it very quickly. I apologize for any confusion. CABlankenship ( talk) 04:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I put together the article on Evolution of Language Controversy in the Criticisms of Noam Chomsky page. There is more information on this subject there, including a discussion of the sexual selection argument that HCF put forth. That subject is highly controversial. In all honesty, it's rather difficult to see where exactly Chomsky is coming from on that issue. It's a respectable argument, but it seems clear that he's probably wrong. Pinker/Jackendoff seem to have gotten the better of this dispute. CABlankenship ( talk) 04:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
CABlankenship seems to think that we should separate Chomsky's "silly opinions on politics" from his scientific contributions. But linguist John Lyons thinks that they are inseparable. Chomsky claims that human language is totally different from animal communication. Lyons asserted that Chomsky's "theory of language and his political philosophy are by no means unconnected …. It is Chomsky's conviction that human beings are different from animals or machines and that this difference should be respected both in science and in government; and it is this conviction that underlies and unifies his politics, his linguistics, and his philosophy." (Chomsky, 1970, p. 6 f.) If Chomsky's opinions on politics are silly, does that mean that his opinions on linguistics and philosophy are also silly, since they are inseparable, according to Lyons? Lestrade ( talk) 20:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
Likeminas ( talk) 19:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
If what you say is true, then the point is not moot because "moot" means debatable or doubtful. If what you say is true, then the linguist
John Lyons is totally wrong.
Lestrade (
talk) 22:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
Sorry, I didn't realize that we were supposed to ignore everything that Chomsky wrote before his 42nd birthday. Meanwhile, how can you be so sure about Pinkville's mind, which is something about which you have no direct knowledge and can only judge by his written words? Lestrade ( talk) 04:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
In response to a request by Lestrade to delete all of his/her contributions to this talk page, I've deleted one part of one contribution and my response to that.
Let's continue discussion -- of the article, not of Chomsky -- in a collegial spirit. And if I've been partly responsible for the acrimony, I apologize for that. -- Hoary ( talk) 23:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The Bibliography section consists of 1177 words and is 9kB in size. How about we split it to Bibliography of Noam Chomsky? ← Spidern → 17:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
This spurious and misspelt title has appeared on the bibliography since it was first inserted by an anonymous editor in July 2007. The same editor also added the non-existent Scandalous Hegemony, which was removed in August 2007. But somehow, this one seems to have slipped the net until removed earlier this week.
The origin of these false titles appears to be this joke in a Danish linguistics blog (which misspelt "impetious" as "impetous"). But now, an editor is attempting to replace the title, claiming that it is "shown on many other sites". Indeed it is; but these all seem to be mirrors of Wikipedia, or quoting it. And they all seem to repeat the same spelling mistake first made by the anon editor here. It really is a good idea to check the provenance of content and the reliability -- and seriousness -- of sources, before adding any stray allusion to articles! RolandR ( talk) 14:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
From the first paragraph of this article: Chomsky is well known in the academic and scientific community as the father of modern linguistics. From the first paragraph of Structural linguistics: Saussure stressed examining language as a static system of interconnected units. He is thus known as the father of modern linguistics... (And indeed from Ferdinand de Saussure: Saussure is widely considered the 'father' of 20th-century linguistics).
Perhaps there are yet more articles that state others as the father of modern linguistics. Is there a good argument for leaving it all alone, or can we change them to say one of the fathers of modern linguistics or something along those lines? Not being a regular contributor to these pages, I thought it best to check out the situation here first. Thanks, romarin talk ] 14:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the input; I went ahead and changed the sentence in question. I also changed the analogous sentence over at Ferdinand de Saussure. I agree too that the list of fathers/mothers of something should probably list both of these guys, but it looks like sources are needed over there, and the sentence saying that de Saussure is a father of modern linguistics isn't referenced. I don't know enough about him myself to know of a good source... if anyone else does can you make the change? Thanks! romarin talk ] 22:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
as we are giving his erdos-number, i thought, just for those who are interested, i'd give his bacon-number here on the talk page. depending on whether you count "Stupidity" as a movie, he either has a number of 2 or 3.
Stupidity - Noam Chomsky + John Cleese
The Big Picture - John Cleese + Kevin Bacon
Apollo 13 - Kevin Bacon + David Andrews
Kerouac, the Movie - Jack Coulter + Tom Wolfe
Manufacturing Consent - Tom Wolfe + Noam Chomsky
sorry for this totally non-encyclopedic information. :))-- ExpImp talk con 09:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Chomsky stirred up the world of developmental psychology by proposing that there is a "language module" in the mind of man, which for all intents and purposes contains the "template" for human communication, and which merely needs activation by exposure to spoken language. Language in general is therefore "pre-programmed" in to the brain, only a few basic rules, such as the ones that make one language distinct from another, needs to be acquired by the child. This was quite a controversial proposition in its day, and if this theory was unpopular then, it is practically extinct by now. I have yet to come across any developmental psychologist, cognitive neuropsychologist, or educational researcher who supports this extreme variant of a nativist theory. Constructivism is a much more dominant force, sociocultural theories are all the rage, and even behaviorism lives on in its "behavioral analysis" disguise. But strong linguistic nativism is dead (if it ever was alive). I do not think this article reflects this fact properly. This theory is a blot on an otherwise brilliant career - but I think we owe the reader to also point out som failures, not only his successes. If references are needed, Patricia Miller's "Theories of Developmental Psychology" (2001), or any other good introductory book on developmental psychology will make this abundantly clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.90.48.233 ( talk) 01:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Read behorehand: Anti-Semitism is impossible to equate with anti-Zionism/anti-Israel. Since Palestinians, Arabs, Egyptians, etc. all fall under the category of "Semites," given a particular speech conducive of the sentiments of say the group Hezbollah may qualify rather as pro-Semitic in some ways rather than anti-Semitic. This important fact is unfortunately often misrepresented by unknowing observers especially in the United States. 76.181.43.101 ( talk) 01:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this summary, critics base their beliefs on more than one or two issues, not just the Faurisson affair and a speech to a Palestinian group. Their reasons include Chomsky's support for Hezbollah retaining its weapons, support for Finkelstein, positions taken and things said in his debates with Dershowitz, etc. We shouldn't detail each of these in the article, of course, but an incomplete summary is easily misleading. That the accusations have been made is not, in any way, controversial. The accusations and debates are matters of established fact. The truth of those accusations is what are controversial and should be dealt with in a NPOV manner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by -- Ryan Wise 06:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore if, according to the way you present your criticism - a description of overwhelming privilege and power enjoyed by American Jews constitutes "proof" of anti-semitism shall we then conclude from the following similar remarks that historian Raul Hilberg (The Destruction of the European Jews) is anti-semite too?
-- Ryan Wise 22:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Due to comments I made under a YouTube video (in which I claimed Chomsky was *not* a philosopher), people saw fit to add the claim that he is a philosopher to this Wikipedia article. However, reading through this article, and pretty much anything else about him I can find, I don't see how there is sufficient support for the claim that he is a philosopher. Not one single article amongst the numerous shown here is directed primarily at philosophy. One might claim that the things he does has implications to philosophy, but then the same could be said of Einstein, Newton or anyone else who has changed our understanding of reality. There is no such thing as "The Chomskyian philosophy", he doesn't write books on philosophy. His "eyes glaze over" comment about post-structuralism etc makes it clear that he doesn't just disagree with a particular philosophy, he considers it nonsense because it *IS* philosophy. For these reasons, I think the claim that he is a philosophy either needs to be substantiated, or simply deleted. Qed ( talk) 23:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I added the fact that Chomsky was a philosopher months ago. Had nothing to do with your YouTube comments. What's the connection? It's easily proven that he is a philosopher. Look him up in any dictionary of philosophy (Cambridge, Routledge, any others), and he's always listed as a philosopher. Cambridge lists him as "a preeminent American linguist, philosopher, and political activist," and that "Chomsky's best-known scientific achievement is the establishment of a rigorous and philosophically compelling foundation for the scientific study of the grammar of natural language" (138). Later on, the text notes his "most significant contributions to philosophy" like his "influential rejection of behaviorism" and his "adherence to methodological naturalism." Furthermore, I suggest you read the following paper which draws numerous connections of his to philosophy ("Chomsky Amid the Philosophers"). A great many of his texts on language can and in fact are considered philosophy. He is not a postmodernist for concrete reasons, not because it is philosophical. His work is pretty firmly within the Analytic tradition. His status as a philosopher is unimpeachable. Grunge6910 ( talk)
If the fact that all dictionaries of philosophy characterize him as a philosopher, that he has written about and teaches philosophy of language, that his work has been scrutinized and discussed by philosophers within the context of the field, and that he subscribes to certain philosophical ideas and traditions, isn't enough evidence for you, I don't know what else could satisfy you.
Given all that, especially the characterization of him as a "philosopher" by professional philosophers and reference texts, I think it's more than justified in listing him as a "philosopher" on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grunge6910 ( talk • contribs) 14:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone else like to weigh in here? Grunge6910 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC).
He majored in philosophy you asshat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.112 ( talk) 22:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I suppose as a point aimed at your rather silly remark about a philosophical publication refusing to publish him, as well as at your stubbornness in general is this. He has at least one paper published in Mind, which is notoriously difficult to be published in, as it is one of the best philosophy journals in the UK, as well as worldwide. It is also purely a philosophy journal, the article was published in 1995, which may or may not count as recent to you. Nonetheless, it is still one of the several (not that there need to be several) papers that he has published in philosophy, in philosophy journals. Being published in Mind pretty much guarantees that you count as a philosopher. BTW, the paper in question is 'Language and Nature', Mind, New Series, Vol. 104, No. 413 (Jan., 1995), pp. 1-61. 81.23.56.53 ( talk) 18:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Given that Chomsky has actively engaged in philosophy for his entire career, as substantiated by the references I provided in the lead, it is completely absurd to assert that he has made "negative comments about philosophy." He has made negative comments about certain branches of philosophy -- basically the Continental school, specifically postmodernism and its cousins. This is a far cry from making "negative comments about philosophy" as a whole. 66.30.220.135 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC).
I have a brain and I'm pretty opinionated too. I even write in a blog. Does that make me a philosopher? If Noam Chomsky is a 'philosopher' then so is Rush Limbaugh (for all you lefties who assume Chomsky is a philosopher because he's an academic). And hell, what about Howard Stern, he has opinions maybe he's a philosopher too? I think if we're gonna throw the term 'philosopher' around so liberally, we need to assign it to a larger number of people, like say, Taylor Swift or Ozzy Osbourne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.253.200 ( talk) 19:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
If you all can provide me with some references to counter the claims my references make (footnotes 2, 3, and 4, for the "American...philosopher" claim), then we can discuss striking it from the article. Until then, it's a thoroughly unproven claim. :) Grunge6910 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC).
My copy of The Canadian Oxford Dictionary (1998) [to my knowledge, untainted by undue contact with philosophers] provides this entry : Chomsky (Avram) Noam (b. 1928) US linguist, philosopher, and political activist... That ought to put this question to rest. Pinkville ( talk) 00:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Oxford probably got that from Wikipedia. The great circle of misinformation.-- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Chomsky wouldn't claim to be a philosopher of any kind, first and foremost because his "philosophy" is simply repeated from somewhere else, he has no original ideas - he's an anarchist "fellow traveller". He has done very little work that even comes close to philosophy, except for some pamphlets about human freedom. Read "manufacturing consent" - that's his masterpiece - it's not a philosophy, it's an attempt at social science.
He does talk a lot about moral justifications and morality. That's probably why his fans want to label him as a philosopher. But I don't know if that constitutes philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.43.236 ( talk) 00:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
We're not talking about political and/or social philosophy. We're talking about cognitive philosophy, philosophy of language, and philosophy of mind, fields in which Chomsky is a prominent thinker. 136.244.50.118 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC).
Qed, what is "ordinary philosophy"? Grunge6910 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC).
This whole debate is ridiculous. Of course Chomsky is a philosopher, amongst other things. Clearly, Qed, you don't have any knowledge of modern philosophy whatsoever. I'm a graduate in philosophy at Cambridge Uni, and let me tell you, philosophy of language is a branch of philosophy, with relations to linguistics, but certainly not a sub-field of linguistics. It is taught in the philosophy department, not the linguistics department. In fact, philosophy of language was the core of 20th-century philosophy, the fathers of which are usually considered to be Frege and Russell. Moreover, his work is not confined to the philosophy of language; he also writes on the philosophy of mind, in collections of philosophical articles and his own books.
In fact, Chomsky explicitly says that his writings are on philosophy (as well as science). To give just one, unambiguous example amongst many, many others, when discussing the topic of his book 'Language and Problems of Knowledge', he says the context of his (and other people's) study of language is "the tradition of Western philosophy and psychology, which have been concerned with understanding the nature of human beings; and the attempt within contemporary science to approach traditional questions in the light of we now know...about organisms and about the brain." (p.1). 131.111.194.10 ( talk)J.A. —Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC).
Chomsky may be Jesus to his admirers, a philosopher he is not. Where did Chomsky do any "Philosophy of language"? Of all philosophers only Searle ever took more than passing philosophical notice of him (in the NYRoB, not in mind or logos). Chomsky' s views on Descartes and esp on the history of linguistics have been laughed out of court by linguists and philosopers in Europe when he first hit the scene. Coseriu asked what kind of linguist does not know any languages-- Radh ( talk) 05:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
He is listed as a philosopher in Blackburn's Dictionary of Philosophy which is highly reputable, as well as other similar publications. In wikipedia terms that is a reliable third party source, end of argument -- Snowded ( talk) 18:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a section of Chomsky in American pop culture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bear300 ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
What about when Bart Simpson mentioned his name? And wasn't he referenced in the film "The Matrix"? I thought that I heard him discussed by Charlie Brown in a Peanuts episode. Lestrade ( talk) 18:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
In Gilmore Girls, Paris hangs a poster of Noam Chomsky in her appartment, and they reference it at least once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.225.110 ( talk) 23:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't he influenced by Paul Mattick, who was a Räte-communist, but certainly marxist, not anarchist to the core. Also this anarchist tag does not square with Chomsky singing the praises of arch-Stalinist North vietnam in Hanoi.-- Radh ( talk) 10:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the article somewhat errs in preferring the term libertarian socialist - which Chomsky has only occasionally used to describe his leanings - over either anarchist or anarco-syndicalist - which terms he has used more frequently. Again, the above speculations are inconsequential. Pinkville ( talk) 02:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay maybe it's just me but the grammar/linguistical section is very hard to understand without prior knowledge of the subject. Perhaps it should be made simpler for the average encyclopedia browser. 130.88.186.26 ( talk) 17:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm more asking for this to be looked into. Not thinking it should be one way or another.
"He also established the Chomsky hierarchy, a classification of formal languages in terms of their generative power."
It might be said that generative power is not a property of formal languages, but of classes of rule systems (generative grammars). So, I think maybe something in that sentence might get changed eventually.
72.255.48.121 (
talk) 10:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
There were already discussions ( 1, 2 on Chomsky being labeled as an American atheist or Jewish atheist). I believe these categories are inaccurate about him. At most he can be categorized as an agnostic. Here is the full quote of his POV about a spiritual existence [2]:
When people ask me, as they sometimes do, 'Are you an atheist?' I can only respond that I can't answer because I don't know what it is they're asking me. When people say, 'Do you believe in God?' what do they mean by it? Do I believe in some spiritual force in the world? In a way, yes. People have thoughts, emotions. If you want to call that a spiritual force, okay. But unless there's some clarification of what we're supposed to believe in or disbelieve in, I can't answer. Does one believe in a single god? Not if you believe in the Old Testament. A lot of it's polytheistic; it becomes monotheistic later on. Take the First Commandment, which presupposes that there are in fact other gods. It says, 'You shall have no other gods before me: Well if there aren't any other gods you can't say that. And, yes, it's coming from a polytheistic period, a period when the god of the Jews was the war god and they were supposed to worship him above all other gods. And he was genocidal, as you'd expect a war god to be.
-- Mohsen ( talk) 20:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
It is illogical to assert: "if there aren't any other gods you can't say that." The commandment "You shall have no other gods before me" can very well refer to possible gods, not merely existent gods. Also, there is no evidence that the Jews were polytheistic. Unlike many other religions, they did not have war gods and food gods and weather gods and fertility gods, ad infinitum. Lestrade ( talk) 17:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
The paragraph Mohsen has cited as evidence that Chomsky should be categorized as an agnostic seems to better describe him as an ignostic does it not? Ignosticism, of course, is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of god and many other theological concepts. This seems like a more appropriate description. Jemoore31688 ( talk) 17:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Characterizing him as an atheist works for practical means; he only contends being considered one because he feels that the concept of spirituality that atheism denies is so vaguely defined. If you read many of the interviews that he has participated in, you quickly notice that Professor Chomsky approaches religion from the pragmatic approach one would expect: considering the devout adherence to spiritual belief as a psychological phenomenon, and, ultimately, delusionsal. -- Florida Is Hell ( talk) 02:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Chomsky is still alive and shouldn't be 'claimed' by the atheist religion unless he is willing to accept that label. His being still alive pretty much says that for such a personal thing, only HE should edit it. Besides, there's all that problem with atheism being a belief system (simple non-belief has its own badge: nonbelief). I'm pretty sure he doesn't want to be classified along with Stalin.
What's his religious belief? Has he said something like "I am a...", something like "I'm a child of enlightenment" isn't a clear reference. Faro0485 ( talk) 13:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
No, it doesn't matter, because this is merely an encyclopedia that contains information about noted persons. Why would we want to know anything about those persons? Surely, it is of no interest to mention a person's religious belief. It is enough to know that he is a child of the enlightenment and not a child of romanticism or the progressive era. 71.245.114.30 ( talk) 17:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
Faro0485, if you look slightly above, under the header "Atheism", a discussion of his religion is already underway. -- Florida Is Hell ( talk) 02:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Chomsky is identified as a Libertarian Socialist. This is an oxymoron - can't happen. A Libertarian is one who shaves government down to a bare minimum. A socialist seeks to exert control over all the citizens' lives. TaoLee ( talk) 02:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC) May 27, 2009
Describing a right wing leaning person as a Libertarian is the real oxymoron that many American Libertarians dont seem to realise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.29.240 ( talk) 21:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
This requires defining libertarian as Objectivist or Classic Liberal, and defining Socialist as Leninist. Chomsky, as well as most outside the United States, refute this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apconig ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
People are still responding to this trolling I see. LamontCranston ( talk) 03:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
'A socialist seeks to exert control over all the citizens' lives.' Lul wut. Someone needs to take politics 101. -- 79.64.234.155 ( talk) 02:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
How about some critism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.236.189.72 ( talk) 18:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Agreed, the quote: "a hero of Homeric proportions, belonging solidly in the pantheon of our country's finest minds, with all the powers and qualities thereof. First, foremost, and initially he is staggeringly smart. The speed, scope, and synthetic abilities of his intellect are legendary. He is, too, a born leader, able to marshal support, fierce and uncompromising support, for positions he develops or adopts. Often, it seems, he shapes linguistics by sheer force of will." is simply embarassing to read, lacks objectivity and has absolutely no place in the article. The fact that it is a citation of someone else's opinion does not change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.195.128.112 ( talk) 13:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The article claims that "Children are hypothesized to have an innate knowledge of the basic grammatical structure common to all human languages …This innate knowledge is often referred to as universal grammar." Chomsky's innate universal grammar has never been seen or measured. It may be a mere fiction. Is this the profound contribution that resulted in the staggering judgment that "his contributions to science are difficult to overestimate. He not only revolutionized linguistics, but he also profoundly affected biology, cognitive science, psychology, computer science, and philosophy. Few figures loom as large over 20th century science as Chomsky … one of the greatest 20th century biologists, actually called him one of the half-dozen greatest intellects of the century"? Lestrade ( talk) 02:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
Tedium is subjective. What is tedious for one person is interesting and stimulating for another person. When you say "I could give a whit," you should have said "I couldn't give a whit." By asking a simple question, I am smearing hard science? Is innate universal grammar a concept of "hard" science? What is "creationist" about my prattle? "Cranks" once disputed Ptolemy's geocentric universe. Calling people "cranks" is not a logical way to discuss these topics. If innate universal grammar is truly supported by "massive genetic evidence," then my question has been answered and Chomsky may be right. If not, then it is permissable to question Chomsky's hypothesis, at the risk, of course, of being called a "crank." Lestrade ( talk) 03:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
~UG was not a hypothesis, it was a theory. It's now an established fact within biology. The creationist aspect of your prattle was your denial of scientific facts that are not "seen or measured". Typically, I only hear such rubbish from the young-earth creationists. Regardless, it shows a fundamental lack of understanding about science. CABlankenship ( talk) 03:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The pages on UG in WIKI are terrible and woefully out of date. Even before recent evidence, no serious biologist questioned that there is an innate component to language. If you understand evolution, then you understand that some aspect of language is innate, or it's simply a miracle. There is no possible way to explain language if we are to believe that it must be learned in total. There is no possible way to explain the way a child acquires language without an innate component. This should just be obvious, but some people (untrained in biology) just don't seem to get it. Chomsky has made many enemies in his time, and this leads to layman attempts to discredit his scientific work. In the end, we'll probably just need a new term, since UG has been so universally attacked by people who oppose his politics. It's sad, really. Chomsky's work on this matter has been profoundly important to biology.
Just consider the obvious: everyone knows that children have a remarkable ability to quickly learn language, even without being taught to do so. All they need to do is hear the language being spoken, and within no time at all they have mastered it. This does not hold true with other subjects--young children do not learn mathematics or other activities with the same astonishing speed. So it's either a pre-programmed and hardwired response (somewhat like puberty, menopause, &c,), or it's a full-blown miracle. CABlankenship ( talk) 04:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I almost bust up laughing reading that. Look, in science we cannot stop to theorize untestable epistemological exceptions. For instance, the statement: "God did it" is of no use to science, even if it's technically possible, and even if it has explanatory power. There may be some mysterious law of language (quantum mechanics?) of which we are unaware, but we have no need of such a hypothesis when we already have an explanation that is falsifiable and testable. All evidence to this point supports the notion that humans have an innate language faculty. You seem to insist that we remain open to unnamed and fantastical solutions to this problem, yet you present no alternatives--nor has anyone else. In the meantime, I challenge you to find one respectable biologist who disputes that the ability to learn a language is innate. On my side, just of the higher end scientists, I can list Richard Dawkins, J.Maynard Smith, Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, Stephen J. Gould, Richard Lewontin, Hauser, Orr, J.Diamond, G.C. Williams, E.O. Wilson. I know of no scientists who agree with you that this theory is inadequate and we need to look for mysterious skyhooks. There is no reason at all to accept your position. Of course language evolved. Of course it is innate. You don't understand the argument. CABlankenship ( talk) 23:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The following long sentence: "I think it's safe to say that only a minority of linguists concede that hairy apes, parrots, poodles, chinchillas and others have an ability in language as a whole (as opposed to vocabulary or phonetic perception in isolation) that's anything like that (whether spoken or signed) of a human" equates the language abilities of certain apes with that of other species. Apes and birds have different abilities. Lestrade ( talk) 22:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
I had sedulously avoided this conversation, but reading over it again I have noticed an error of mine. Hoary, I failed to notice that your original post was a new author, and not simply an extension of Lestrade's previous post. I was in a rush and skimmed over it very quickly. I apologize for any confusion. CABlankenship ( talk) 04:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I put together the article on Evolution of Language Controversy in the Criticisms of Noam Chomsky page. There is more information on this subject there, including a discussion of the sexual selection argument that HCF put forth. That subject is highly controversial. In all honesty, it's rather difficult to see where exactly Chomsky is coming from on that issue. It's a respectable argument, but it seems clear that he's probably wrong. Pinker/Jackendoff seem to have gotten the better of this dispute. CABlankenship ( talk) 04:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
CABlankenship seems to think that we should separate Chomsky's "silly opinions on politics" from his scientific contributions. But linguist John Lyons thinks that they are inseparable. Chomsky claims that human language is totally different from animal communication. Lyons asserted that Chomsky's "theory of language and his political philosophy are by no means unconnected …. It is Chomsky's conviction that human beings are different from animals or machines and that this difference should be respected both in science and in government; and it is this conviction that underlies and unifies his politics, his linguistics, and his philosophy." (Chomsky, 1970, p. 6 f.) If Chomsky's opinions on politics are silly, does that mean that his opinions on linguistics and philosophy are also silly, since they are inseparable, according to Lyons? Lestrade ( talk) 20:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
Likeminas ( talk) 19:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
If what you say is true, then the point is not moot because "moot" means debatable or doubtful. If what you say is true, then the linguist
John Lyons is totally wrong.
Lestrade (
talk) 22:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
Sorry, I didn't realize that we were supposed to ignore everything that Chomsky wrote before his 42nd birthday. Meanwhile, how can you be so sure about Pinkville's mind, which is something about which you have no direct knowledge and can only judge by his written words? Lestrade ( talk) 04:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
In response to a request by Lestrade to delete all of his/her contributions to this talk page, I've deleted one part of one contribution and my response to that.
Let's continue discussion -- of the article, not of Chomsky -- in a collegial spirit. And if I've been partly responsible for the acrimony, I apologize for that. -- Hoary ( talk) 23:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The Bibliography section consists of 1177 words and is 9kB in size. How about we split it to Bibliography of Noam Chomsky? ← Spidern → 17:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
This spurious and misspelt title has appeared on the bibliography since it was first inserted by an anonymous editor in July 2007. The same editor also added the non-existent Scandalous Hegemony, which was removed in August 2007. But somehow, this one seems to have slipped the net until removed earlier this week.
The origin of these false titles appears to be this joke in a Danish linguistics blog (which misspelt "impetious" as "impetous"). But now, an editor is attempting to replace the title, claiming that it is "shown on many other sites". Indeed it is; but these all seem to be mirrors of Wikipedia, or quoting it. And they all seem to repeat the same spelling mistake first made by the anon editor here. It really is a good idea to check the provenance of content and the reliability -- and seriousness -- of sources, before adding any stray allusion to articles! RolandR ( talk) 14:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
From the first paragraph of this article: Chomsky is well known in the academic and scientific community as the father of modern linguistics. From the first paragraph of Structural linguistics: Saussure stressed examining language as a static system of interconnected units. He is thus known as the father of modern linguistics... (And indeed from Ferdinand de Saussure: Saussure is widely considered the 'father' of 20th-century linguistics).
Perhaps there are yet more articles that state others as the father of modern linguistics. Is there a good argument for leaving it all alone, or can we change them to say one of the fathers of modern linguistics or something along those lines? Not being a regular contributor to these pages, I thought it best to check out the situation here first. Thanks, romarin talk ] 14:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the input; I went ahead and changed the sentence in question. I also changed the analogous sentence over at Ferdinand de Saussure. I agree too that the list of fathers/mothers of something should probably list both of these guys, but it looks like sources are needed over there, and the sentence saying that de Saussure is a father of modern linguistics isn't referenced. I don't know enough about him myself to know of a good source... if anyone else does can you make the change? Thanks! romarin talk ] 22:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
as we are giving his erdos-number, i thought, just for those who are interested, i'd give his bacon-number here on the talk page. depending on whether you count "Stupidity" as a movie, he either has a number of 2 or 3.
Stupidity - Noam Chomsky + John Cleese
The Big Picture - John Cleese + Kevin Bacon
Apollo 13 - Kevin Bacon + David Andrews
Kerouac, the Movie - Jack Coulter + Tom Wolfe
Manufacturing Consent - Tom Wolfe + Noam Chomsky
sorry for this totally non-encyclopedic information. :))-- ExpImp talk con 09:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Chomsky stirred up the world of developmental psychology by proposing that there is a "language module" in the mind of man, which for all intents and purposes contains the "template" for human communication, and which merely needs activation by exposure to spoken language. Language in general is therefore "pre-programmed" in to the brain, only a few basic rules, such as the ones that make one language distinct from another, needs to be acquired by the child. This was quite a controversial proposition in its day, and if this theory was unpopular then, it is practically extinct by now. I have yet to come across any developmental psychologist, cognitive neuropsychologist, or educational researcher who supports this extreme variant of a nativist theory. Constructivism is a much more dominant force, sociocultural theories are all the rage, and even behaviorism lives on in its "behavioral analysis" disguise. But strong linguistic nativism is dead (if it ever was alive). I do not think this article reflects this fact properly. This theory is a blot on an otherwise brilliant career - but I think we owe the reader to also point out som failures, not only his successes. If references are needed, Patricia Miller's "Theories of Developmental Psychology" (2001), or any other good introductory book on developmental psychology will make this abundantly clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.90.48.233 ( talk) 01:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Read behorehand: Anti-Semitism is impossible to equate with anti-Zionism/anti-Israel. Since Palestinians, Arabs, Egyptians, etc. all fall under the category of "Semites," given a particular speech conducive of the sentiments of say the group Hezbollah may qualify rather as pro-Semitic in some ways rather than anti-Semitic. This important fact is unfortunately often misrepresented by unknowing observers especially in the United States. 76.181.43.101 ( talk) 01:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this summary, critics base their beliefs on more than one or two issues, not just the Faurisson affair and a speech to a Palestinian group. Their reasons include Chomsky's support for Hezbollah retaining its weapons, support for Finkelstein, positions taken and things said in his debates with Dershowitz, etc. We shouldn't detail each of these in the article, of course, but an incomplete summary is easily misleading. That the accusations have been made is not, in any way, controversial. The accusations and debates are matters of established fact. The truth of those accusations is what are controversial and should be dealt with in a NPOV manner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by -- Ryan Wise 06:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore if, according to the way you present your criticism - a description of overwhelming privilege and power enjoyed by American Jews constitutes "proof" of anti-semitism shall we then conclude from the following similar remarks that historian Raul Hilberg (The Destruction of the European Jews) is anti-semite too?
-- Ryan Wise 22:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Due to comments I made under a YouTube video (in which I claimed Chomsky was *not* a philosopher), people saw fit to add the claim that he is a philosopher to this Wikipedia article. However, reading through this article, and pretty much anything else about him I can find, I don't see how there is sufficient support for the claim that he is a philosopher. Not one single article amongst the numerous shown here is directed primarily at philosophy. One might claim that the things he does has implications to philosophy, but then the same could be said of Einstein, Newton or anyone else who has changed our understanding of reality. There is no such thing as "The Chomskyian philosophy", he doesn't write books on philosophy. His "eyes glaze over" comment about post-structuralism etc makes it clear that he doesn't just disagree with a particular philosophy, he considers it nonsense because it *IS* philosophy. For these reasons, I think the claim that he is a philosophy either needs to be substantiated, or simply deleted. Qed ( talk) 23:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I added the fact that Chomsky was a philosopher months ago. Had nothing to do with your YouTube comments. What's the connection? It's easily proven that he is a philosopher. Look him up in any dictionary of philosophy (Cambridge, Routledge, any others), and he's always listed as a philosopher. Cambridge lists him as "a preeminent American linguist, philosopher, and political activist," and that "Chomsky's best-known scientific achievement is the establishment of a rigorous and philosophically compelling foundation for the scientific study of the grammar of natural language" (138). Later on, the text notes his "most significant contributions to philosophy" like his "influential rejection of behaviorism" and his "adherence to methodological naturalism." Furthermore, I suggest you read the following paper which draws numerous connections of his to philosophy ("Chomsky Amid the Philosophers"). A great many of his texts on language can and in fact are considered philosophy. He is not a postmodernist for concrete reasons, not because it is philosophical. His work is pretty firmly within the Analytic tradition. His status as a philosopher is unimpeachable. Grunge6910 ( talk)
If the fact that all dictionaries of philosophy characterize him as a philosopher, that he has written about and teaches philosophy of language, that his work has been scrutinized and discussed by philosophers within the context of the field, and that he subscribes to certain philosophical ideas and traditions, isn't enough evidence for you, I don't know what else could satisfy you.
Given all that, especially the characterization of him as a "philosopher" by professional philosophers and reference texts, I think it's more than justified in listing him as a "philosopher" on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grunge6910 ( talk • contribs) 14:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone else like to weigh in here? Grunge6910 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC).
He majored in philosophy you asshat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.112 ( talk) 22:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I suppose as a point aimed at your rather silly remark about a philosophical publication refusing to publish him, as well as at your stubbornness in general is this. He has at least one paper published in Mind, which is notoriously difficult to be published in, as it is one of the best philosophy journals in the UK, as well as worldwide. It is also purely a philosophy journal, the article was published in 1995, which may or may not count as recent to you. Nonetheless, it is still one of the several (not that there need to be several) papers that he has published in philosophy, in philosophy journals. Being published in Mind pretty much guarantees that you count as a philosopher. BTW, the paper in question is 'Language and Nature', Mind, New Series, Vol. 104, No. 413 (Jan., 1995), pp. 1-61. 81.23.56.53 ( talk) 18:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Given that Chomsky has actively engaged in philosophy for his entire career, as substantiated by the references I provided in the lead, it is completely absurd to assert that he has made "negative comments about philosophy." He has made negative comments about certain branches of philosophy -- basically the Continental school, specifically postmodernism and its cousins. This is a far cry from making "negative comments about philosophy" as a whole. 66.30.220.135 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC).
I have a brain and I'm pretty opinionated too. I even write in a blog. Does that make me a philosopher? If Noam Chomsky is a 'philosopher' then so is Rush Limbaugh (for all you lefties who assume Chomsky is a philosopher because he's an academic). And hell, what about Howard Stern, he has opinions maybe he's a philosopher too? I think if we're gonna throw the term 'philosopher' around so liberally, we need to assign it to a larger number of people, like say, Taylor Swift or Ozzy Osbourne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.253.200 ( talk) 19:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
If you all can provide me with some references to counter the claims my references make (footnotes 2, 3, and 4, for the "American...philosopher" claim), then we can discuss striking it from the article. Until then, it's a thoroughly unproven claim. :) Grunge6910 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC).
My copy of The Canadian Oxford Dictionary (1998) [to my knowledge, untainted by undue contact with philosophers] provides this entry : Chomsky (Avram) Noam (b. 1928) US linguist, philosopher, and political activist... That ought to put this question to rest. Pinkville ( talk) 00:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Oxford probably got that from Wikipedia. The great circle of misinformation.-- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Chomsky wouldn't claim to be a philosopher of any kind, first and foremost because his "philosophy" is simply repeated from somewhere else, he has no original ideas - he's an anarchist "fellow traveller". He has done very little work that even comes close to philosophy, except for some pamphlets about human freedom. Read "manufacturing consent" - that's his masterpiece - it's not a philosophy, it's an attempt at social science.
He does talk a lot about moral justifications and morality. That's probably why his fans want to label him as a philosopher. But I don't know if that constitutes philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.43.236 ( talk) 00:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
We're not talking about political and/or social philosophy. We're talking about cognitive philosophy, philosophy of language, and philosophy of mind, fields in which Chomsky is a prominent thinker. 136.244.50.118 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC).
Qed, what is "ordinary philosophy"? Grunge6910 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC).
This whole debate is ridiculous. Of course Chomsky is a philosopher, amongst other things. Clearly, Qed, you don't have any knowledge of modern philosophy whatsoever. I'm a graduate in philosophy at Cambridge Uni, and let me tell you, philosophy of language is a branch of philosophy, with relations to linguistics, but certainly not a sub-field of linguistics. It is taught in the philosophy department, not the linguistics department. In fact, philosophy of language was the core of 20th-century philosophy, the fathers of which are usually considered to be Frege and Russell. Moreover, his work is not confined to the philosophy of language; he also writes on the philosophy of mind, in collections of philosophical articles and his own books.
In fact, Chomsky explicitly says that his writings are on philosophy (as well as science). To give just one, unambiguous example amongst many, many others, when discussing the topic of his book 'Language and Problems of Knowledge', he says the context of his (and other people's) study of language is "the tradition of Western philosophy and psychology, which have been concerned with understanding the nature of human beings; and the attempt within contemporary science to approach traditional questions in the light of we now know...about organisms and about the brain." (p.1). 131.111.194.10 ( talk)J.A. —Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC).
Chomsky may be Jesus to his admirers, a philosopher he is not. Where did Chomsky do any "Philosophy of language"? Of all philosophers only Searle ever took more than passing philosophical notice of him (in the NYRoB, not in mind or logos). Chomsky' s views on Descartes and esp on the history of linguistics have been laughed out of court by linguists and philosopers in Europe when he first hit the scene. Coseriu asked what kind of linguist does not know any languages-- Radh ( talk) 05:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
He is listed as a philosopher in Blackburn's Dictionary of Philosophy which is highly reputable, as well as other similar publications. In wikipedia terms that is a reliable third party source, end of argument -- Snowded ( talk) 18:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a section of Chomsky in American pop culture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bear300 ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
What about when Bart Simpson mentioned his name? And wasn't he referenced in the film "The Matrix"? I thought that I heard him discussed by Charlie Brown in a Peanuts episode. Lestrade ( talk) 18:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
In Gilmore Girls, Paris hangs a poster of Noam Chomsky in her appartment, and they reference it at least once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.225.110 ( talk) 23:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't he influenced by Paul Mattick, who was a Räte-communist, but certainly marxist, not anarchist to the core. Also this anarchist tag does not square with Chomsky singing the praises of arch-Stalinist North vietnam in Hanoi.-- Radh ( talk) 10:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the article somewhat errs in preferring the term libertarian socialist - which Chomsky has only occasionally used to describe his leanings - over either anarchist or anarco-syndicalist - which terms he has used more frequently. Again, the above speculations are inconsequential. Pinkville ( talk) 02:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay maybe it's just me but the grammar/linguistical section is very hard to understand without prior knowledge of the subject. Perhaps it should be made simpler for the average encyclopedia browser. 130.88.186.26 ( talk) 17:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm more asking for this to be looked into. Not thinking it should be one way or another.
"He also established the Chomsky hierarchy, a classification of formal languages in terms of their generative power."
It might be said that generative power is not a property of formal languages, but of classes of rule systems (generative grammars). So, I think maybe something in that sentence might get changed eventually.
72.255.48.121 (
talk) 10:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
There were already discussions ( 1, 2 on Chomsky being labeled as an American atheist or Jewish atheist). I believe these categories are inaccurate about him. At most he can be categorized as an agnostic. Here is the full quote of his POV about a spiritual existence [2]:
When people ask me, as they sometimes do, 'Are you an atheist?' I can only respond that I can't answer because I don't know what it is they're asking me. When people say, 'Do you believe in God?' what do they mean by it? Do I believe in some spiritual force in the world? In a way, yes. People have thoughts, emotions. If you want to call that a spiritual force, okay. But unless there's some clarification of what we're supposed to believe in or disbelieve in, I can't answer. Does one believe in a single god? Not if you believe in the Old Testament. A lot of it's polytheistic; it becomes monotheistic later on. Take the First Commandment, which presupposes that there are in fact other gods. It says, 'You shall have no other gods before me: Well if there aren't any other gods you can't say that. And, yes, it's coming from a polytheistic period, a period when the god of the Jews was the war god and they were supposed to worship him above all other gods. And he was genocidal, as you'd expect a war god to be.
-- Mohsen ( talk) 20:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
It is illogical to assert: "if there aren't any other gods you can't say that." The commandment "You shall have no other gods before me" can very well refer to possible gods, not merely existent gods. Also, there is no evidence that the Jews were polytheistic. Unlike many other religions, they did not have war gods and food gods and weather gods and fertility gods, ad infinitum. Lestrade ( talk) 17:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
The paragraph Mohsen has cited as evidence that Chomsky should be categorized as an agnostic seems to better describe him as an ignostic does it not? Ignosticism, of course, is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of god and many other theological concepts. This seems like a more appropriate description. Jemoore31688 ( talk) 17:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Characterizing him as an atheist works for practical means; he only contends being considered one because he feels that the concept of spirituality that atheism denies is so vaguely defined. If you read many of the interviews that he has participated in, you quickly notice that Professor Chomsky approaches religion from the pragmatic approach one would expect: considering the devout adherence to spiritual belief as a psychological phenomenon, and, ultimately, delusionsal. -- Florida Is Hell ( talk) 02:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Chomsky is still alive and shouldn't be 'claimed' by the atheist religion unless he is willing to accept that label. His being still alive pretty much says that for such a personal thing, only HE should edit it. Besides, there's all that problem with atheism being a belief system (simple non-belief has its own badge: nonbelief). I'm pretty sure he doesn't want to be classified along with Stalin.
What's his religious belief? Has he said something like "I am a...", something like "I'm a child of enlightenment" isn't a clear reference. Faro0485 ( talk) 13:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
No, it doesn't matter, because this is merely an encyclopedia that contains information about noted persons. Why would we want to know anything about those persons? Surely, it is of no interest to mention a person's religious belief. It is enough to know that he is a child of the enlightenment and not a child of romanticism or the progressive era. 71.245.114.30 ( talk) 17:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
Faro0485, if you look slightly above, under the header "Atheism", a discussion of his religion is already underway. -- Florida Is Hell ( talk) 02:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Chomsky is identified as a Libertarian Socialist. This is an oxymoron - can't happen. A Libertarian is one who shaves government down to a bare minimum. A socialist seeks to exert control over all the citizens' lives. TaoLee ( talk) 02:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC) May 27, 2009
Describing a right wing leaning person as a Libertarian is the real oxymoron that many American Libertarians dont seem to realise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.29.240 ( talk) 21:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
This requires defining libertarian as Objectivist or Classic Liberal, and defining Socialist as Leninist. Chomsky, as well as most outside the United States, refute this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apconig ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
People are still responding to this trolling I see. LamontCranston ( talk) 03:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
'A socialist seeks to exert control over all the citizens' lives.' Lul wut. Someone needs to take politics 101. -- 79.64.234.155 ( talk) 02:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)