UKC

Comrades,

I am looking for a book by Noam Chomsky (explicit Christmas wish by my wife).

Thinking about getting two: The Architecture of Language for his linguistic work, and Who rules the world for a bit of agitation.

Any better suggestions?

Thanks,

CB

In reply to cb294:

Manufacturing Consent

In reply to cb294:

I think Chompsky did Bridget Jones' Diary.
Mrs N N loved it.
Best holiday read ever she said

In reply to jockster:

That's really interesting and still totally relevant.

In reply to cb294:

Does she want to read him because of his linguistics work or for his politics? My impression is there isn't much overlap between the two sets of readers.

In reply to TobyA and jockster:

I agree about Manufacturing Consent, but should have mentioned that I have read that one.

The reason my wife wants to read some Chomsky is that she has recently come across both aspects of his work somewhere. Of course his voice could not be overheard during the political events of 2016, but for some random reasons his name also came up in the context of her work (neurophysiology, which of course has a very loose connection to linguistics), so she is interested to see what he has to say there.

Thanks,

CB

In reply to cb294:

Have a particularly painful memory of being told by the Psychology department that Chomsky was entirely wrong about language acquisition and Skinner was right.

'We gotta get out of this place
If it's the last thing we ever do...'

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward:

I understand that most of Chomsky's ideas have been challenged recently. But Skinner is still rejected. Constructivism is where it's at these days apparently.

In reply to Bob Kemp:

There was an Economist column discussing his contribution to language evolution just last week I think. Is that connected to what you mention? Something I know nothing about.

http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21710783-scientists-have-reach...

In reply to TobyA:

Yes, it's still debated territory it seems. Stephen Pinker is still broadly a Chomsky supporter - I just found this article citing a summary of his current position:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-chomskys-theory-of-lang...

"If I may paraphrase: Pinker is saying that Chomsky’s fundamental claim--that language is innate—will endure in one form or another."

In reply to Bob Kemp:

I know less than nothing about this stuff but can I venture that it's unwise to be quite so certain about any form of human inquiry? No matter how celebrated the speaker may be.

In reply to Bob Kemp:


Oh I knew Chomsky's theories would be challenged and refined/superseded/discarded. That's the way it works. But Skinner and linguistics - ffs!

What was worse was that everyone was going along with this bollox because it fitted the prevailing academic party line. That's what really got to me. Within a decade, they would have changed their stance utterly and imposed a radically different academic party line with the same Stalanist fervour.

A painful time. I was very idealistic and even more naive.

'EVerybody's gotta learn sometime...'

Thanks for alerting me to Constructivism. I'll go and look it up.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward:

Your experience pretty much sums up psychology for me. To paraphrase a book review I saw a few years ago, it is not a science, but a series of fads that lack experimental evidence, are carried by devout disciples, and very often die out quickly after the death of the respective guru.

Being wrong is not a crime in science, being nonscientific very much is!

CB

In reply to cb294:

If you can find a copy in a library or at an affordable price you'd probably find 'Psychology Exposed: Or, The Emperor's New Clothes' by Paul Kline very interesting. It does a very good job of critiquing the methods of traditional experimental psychology. Rather old now but still worthwhile.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Psychology-Exposed-Emperors-New-Clothes/dp/0415006...

In reply to Bob Kemp:

Operant conditioning is still seen as a useful concept in areas outside of linguistics. As a practitioner, it comes in handy in trying to understand and work with client's behaviour, and when I'm teaching as well.

In reply to damhan-allaidh:

Yes, still has applications in education too. Eg. prompting is a form of operant conditioning.

In reply to cb294:

in his 'anti imperialist' stance , he had no problems siding with groups the EU, USA and the 'rest of the west' regard terrorists.

youtube.com/watch?v=-WAP2S6rSoY&

i imagine quite a few people on ukc would agree with him on that vid, no names mentioned...

In reply to jondo:

One man´s terrorist is another man´s freedom fighter. Same thing, except for who pays them.... Actually, classification may even change over time: Most Afghan Jihadi groups were "freedom fighters" when fighting the Soviets with the help of Western money, but are terrorists when pushing their unchanged Islamist agenda 20 years later.

CB

In reply to cb294:



yes the definition is somewhat fluid, though i dare you to find someone in the UK willing to say ISIS , for instance, are his 'freedom fighters' .
still Chomsky goes to Lebanon and takes photos with Hizbollah militants near burnt Israeli tanks... hard to call him a 'peace activist' of any kind.

In reply to cb294:

A really good book on Chomsky but not written by him is The Chomsky Update. It gives a great synopsis of his views with half the book on his linguistics and the other half on his politics. I also found it an easier read than Chomsky's own books which sometimes can be a bit too wordy if you don't have pretty good familiarity with the subject matter.

In reply to Mike Highbury:


Whilst that is true I suspect Pinker's comment is far more related to the evidence supporting Chomsky's ideas rather than the fact it is Chomsky who is behind them. The idea that language acquisition is something innate with a genetic basis fits with Pinker's own ideas about the brain and from what I know mainstream current thinking in neuroscience too.

In reply to cb294:

You might like 'Godel Escher Bach' by Douglas Hoffstadter and/or 'I Am a Strange Loop'. Probably some of the best books on theory of mind out there. He's very good at knitting together many different subjects too (each book is full of music, math, art, puzzles all related to the central idea).

In reply to cb294:


It's more a tactical difference, guerrillas were called Freedom fighters, much less so terrorists, due to the different tactics.

Guerrillas and Freedom Fighters are fighting a war, of sorts, guerilla tactics are available to all, terrorists utilise political violence from a non-state actor.

Chomsky on Anarchism is a reasonable collection of essays, not compiled by Chomsky, that covers nearly 50 years of writing, much more broadly based than his books.

In reply to jondo:

But Hezbollah and ISIS are two different things, actually they are at war in Syria at the moment. The tanks were burnt during an illegal invasion of Lebanon by Israel, during the course of which Christian militias committed massacres in two Palestinian refugee camps while the Israelis were watching.

I agree on Daesh, but Hezbollah are essentially the official Shia political party cum militia in Lebanon. In a way they are an excellent example for how "terrorists" are made. Just because the US labels them terrorist doesn´t mean it has anything to do with the realities on the ground. Instead, it has everything to do with courting the Jewish domestic vote in the US.

CB

In reply to SenzuBean:

I know GEB, will have a look at the other one.
Thanks,

CB

In reply to stp:

Sounds interesting, thanks,

CB

In reply to winhill:

Maybe this is how it should be, but if you listen to the news the difference in naming will follow political allegiances much more closely than tactics.

I will look at the essay collection.
Thanks,

CB

In reply to cb294:

I know nothing about linguistics, or much of the debate above, but I read this a couple of years ago and found it fascinating:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dont-Sleep-There-are-Snakes/dp/1846680409

I gather it contains elements of a 'counter Chomsky' argument......either way it is thought-provoking.

In reply to cb294:


I said he is no peace activist, you are just making excuses for him. When you quote the sabra and shattilah massacres and say Israel invaded Lebanon illegally, maybe you should also mention what led to that invasion which was the PLO cross border terrorism for over a decade in the 70's.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma'alot_massacre

Or maybe the above is not terrorism for you since it involved israeli kids as victims?


They are responsible for many acts of terrorism, like the massacre of jews in argentina, killing and abducting us citizens, and many more. You can call them your friends like corbyn or chomsky, doesn't change their recorded actions.

As you yourself said hizbollah are a militant group embedded in the Lebanese government, while serving Iran who are their masters.
The fact that chomsky sided with them so openly while wearing a military uniform and taking selfies near vehicles that were blown up and people killed says to me that person is violent himself.
He would love to see israel destroyed.

In reply to jondo:

Hi,

I think there is a interesting discussion to be had there, but unfortunately I am too busy to commit.

Let´s just agree to disagree.

CB

In reply to jondo:


It gets worse than that.

http://www.monbiot.com/2012/05/21/see-no-evil/

In reply to cb294:





that's fine, unfortunately its not clear what the disagreement is about, since you failed to answer any of the points.

In reply to Pekkie:



to my uneducated mind, being a successful intellectual in one or more fields was never a sufficient condition for wisdom.

In reply to Pekkie:



perhaps even more telling :
http://www.monbiot.com/2012/05/21/2181/

In reply to jondo:


Maybe he just couldn't be arsed, this being the "culture" forum, and a thread about Chomsky's books, not the pros and cons of Zionism (plenty of that in The Pub - knock yourself out).

In reply to planetmarshall:


it wasn't about the 'pros and cons' of Zionism, rather about the subjective nature of defining 'evil', and whether there is anything objective about it.
but thanks for the wonderful advice planetmarshall

In reply to cb294:

Try US editions, there are many, maybe via Amazon. There's a Chomsky reader, "The Essential Chomsky" I think, that fits the bill and fills the stocking.

In reply to jondo:

Interesting that a professor of linguistics should be so stubborn in avoiding a dialogue.

In reply to Pekkie:


well, being a professor of linguistics he would know how to while seeming to engage.

In reply to the thread:

Hi everyone, I just bought "Manufacturing consent" as a classic and "Who rules the world?" as a current work, and ordered the linguistics stuff from the uni library.

Thanks everyone for the input,

CB

In reply to cb294:

For politics Understanding Power is highly recommended. Also Language And Politics is a good read that has both the linguistic stuff and social commentary included. Both of these books are in an interview style format and Chomsky covers many topics.

In reply to cb294:
If you haven't already seen it there is an excellent documentary ( on Netflix and probably elsewhere ) all about his life . Requiem for an American dream . Very sobering watch .

In reply to mrgleb and mike 123:

Thanks!

In reply to jockster:


That does indeed sound fairly explicit.