 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)big recycle ...and 633 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614121 Today 4 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes you all know of my extreme fanaticism and adoration when it comes to Noam (recently voted ), but he's going to be delivering the first annual amnesty international lecture in Trinity College Dublin, sometime in January. He's 77 now, so this is most probably the last time you'll get to see him. Tickets are free, but amnesty members get preference. I've requested mine already, I'll go fucking apeshit if i don't get one. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
record it. thatd be ace. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
he had a lecture here not too long ago..i didn't go. because of all the hype and everything.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ive not read any chomsky BUT in a random mention of his philosophies in one of my seminars i was amused to find he believes that me speaking english is merely coincidental in the sense that i develop my own language and it just so happens to be the same as what you speak (ie what we call english) i dunno it was mentioned in passing seemed completly mental and quite funny. but i am no expert so dont lynch me |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I like the fact that he doesn't like behaviorists. Behaviorists are stupid, plain and simple. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that is true i know a really crap behaviourist joke but its so lame i shall spare you |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the one where they have sex? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
don't quite know what you're on about, but it's probably one of two things - something to do with his theory of an innate language faculty that we're all born with... This faculty is responsible for the learning and acquisition of language.. The reason we're speaking English is a historical and geographical one. It's what we were exposed to when we were young, and so was the first language we acquired. By "we", I mean you and I exclusively, Taffmonster: naturally people like tolstoyed have had different histories of language acquisition. The other possibility is that what you're talking about is the , which isn't one of Chomsky's own theories, but instead a feature of language which was probably first written about many years ago. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
as i said im in no posistion to comment properly. im sure i will read some chomsky when i get sme time but at the moment i am writting a shittingly dull essay titled "Is prudential first personal choice in conditions of ignorance an appropriate model for social choice under conditions of knowledge?" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Tru dat. :o at least you don't have to write a 5000 word essay on the meaning of the word "and". seriously. i'm looking forward to it though. as for Chomsky, seriously, read some of his political stuff. It's beautifully written and doesn't require as much background knowledge as his linguistics stuff does... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
lol an essay on and or all connectives? sounds finely detailed. i did an essay not so long ago on negative truth based on the idea of not and without etc negative truths are very daunting |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no, just the co-ordinating conjunction "and", none of the others. What is negative truth? Do you mean simply something that is false? Sounds like my friend's essay (not). johnl (who rarely frequents this board, but has 5 tracks on the new vibes) is doing his on "maybe". Deadly stuff. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yer basically the idea that when you make a statement you are point to something in existence, for instance "the cat is on the mat" saying "the cat is not on the matt" applies to nothing. You are not point at anything there is nothing there. Its a negative truth. i came up with a whole theory of temporal truth and what not. i got a crap mark but i think that wa smainly cos i found it so difficult to explain what i meant. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that "and" essay sounds awesome! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Ah right, I get you now.. Still, how do you deal with statements like "audacity is (not) something i detest"? I mean, you can have conversations about hypothetical situations and circumstances, all about things that "aren't there"... Does that make them full of negative truths, even if the sentences uttered in those conversations are not so constructed? ps those tits jiggle like there's no tomorrow. excellant. drunken mastah - ha :) many people have recoiled in horror when i've told them, and many others have actually been vaguely interested -- i think mainly because they're perplexed about how one would manage to squeeze 5000 words out of such an apparently simple word. i'll put it up on my netsoc webspace (once they unban me for harrassing nerds in college) for all those interested. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that was kind athe point its obvious that there are negative truths but how do you justify them when there is infact nothing there. bleh was horrible essay hehe have around somewhere most likely |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, it's probably because I've been interested in language and stuff like that for quite some time, and it's definately interesting to see how such an everyday word is actually put to use and what it subconsciously could lead us to assume just because it is so common. Like "sin," which is a really large word, and one of those words that we have to redefine or "purge" to be free of all religious sentiment before it can be put to a more proper use. The most important words are the ones we wouldn't think about or notice that we use: the simplest of all words. I just did a thread on here based on a video where someone had put together lots of clips of the bush administration saying stuff like "terr'ism" and "terr'ist," (bush talks funny ha ha) and I suddenly began thinking about the consequences of giving such a word a day-to-day use and meaning.. it's definately easier to justify certain actions by saing that "it's to fight terr'ists"; people will more easily accept the fact that that there are terrorists (even though there may not really be any terrorists) if it is so "everyday." I'm babbling, but I hope you understand what I mean. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you have become hiedegger, he hated connotation of words so called things his own worlds, like his idea of the self or teh soul was called dasein (german for being with i believe) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Totally understand what you mean.. I think you're just overcome by the amazing role and importance that language has in our lives. As for the Bush administration's use of language - much has been said on the topic. One linguist has come up with the concept of "vocabulary frames" or something, frames of words that the neo-cons lock themselves into and repeat ad nauseum. It's worth remembering Goebbels' words, "If you repeat a lie frequently enough, society quickly adopts it as truth." Speaking of Bush, our semantics lecturer pointed out one funny use of the word "and" in our first lecture, when we were discussing our essay titles. He read an excerpt from a NYTimes article in which Bush was quoted as having said that "...we will always try and avoid inflationary economic strategies..." or something similar (i just shoved in the "inflationary economic strategies" myself). So, 'and' can be used as the first part of an infinitive, instead of "to".. I'm figuring it's used in cases like these because of the alliteration that would result otherwise... But if you think about the literal meaning of the sentence, then how does one try doing something and avoid it at the same time? Good shizzle, so it is. Anyways I'm off home now - the nerd closest (in proximity) to me in this lab is really pissing me off, laughing really weirdly and rubbing his hands together while he reads webcomics. i think he's a furry () |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hahah! no way, man! I'm me! And I thought of this before I read Heidegger (though it was only two-three days before). You studied philosophy too, right? also.. "Swing Thing" is your track, right? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
before I go, please answer me this - why is it necessary to purge words, such as sin, of their connotations before they can be put to "proper use"? words which have connotations to them are basically, in my opinion, more complex than others, since they carry this extra layer of meaning with them.. I don't agree with you at all there. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hahaha! furries! anyway, yeah.. languge has a huge impact on how you think, or at least on how you are able to express your thoughts (to yourself as well as to others). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
swing thing is now a finished track mate www.myspace.com/nedavine its called being and time or you can just grab it off me on soulseek and yep i study philosophy hehe |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh.. I just mean it has to be secularized. This also goes for words like "soul" and "good." I just phrased myself badly as I didn't know how to spell "sekularisert" (secularized) in english, but I checked a dictionary. The religious content of these words are making it harder to do serious ethic philosophy. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
awesome! I'll get it right now! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
as i know the city London was settled by roman soldiers when they invaded islands. the base-camp,called Londinium, survived times of war and have been furtherly settled with peasants,and various ppl from various places. i wouldnt say that english language was in here at this stage, i rather believe it was created by ppl. thus,its not really old language that has roots of its own-like tribal languages etc. its just language, and that self belief of majority of english people in their extraordinary roots ( which are fake,obviously ) and old historical background, well, its funny. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I have talked with him a few times. he even sent me a Le Monde article for a class in which I was doing a project on the reconstruction/reimagining of iraq.. this was before the whole thing was completely hopeless, obviously.. but he's great and alarmingly accessable he answered a lot of questions and was open to my perspective as well.. it was a real meeting of the minds, ykno. that list was bullshit by the way. umberto eco was #2, christopher hitchens was #5!!??!?!?! fareed zakaria, paul krugman, paul wolfowitz!? on the same list as jean baudrillard.. pshh-nigga PLEASE |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"you make my noam chomsky!" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Honestly, "philosophy" in todays work place means shit. "philosophy" generaly ( how it is taught now) is worthless. A degree in it means you will jump threw loads of hoops to progress. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
