Neither in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy nor in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy you wil find an article on Avram Chomsky. This is not surprising, for he is not primarily known because of his philosophical ideas.
However when you search the Stanford on Chomsky you'll find 49 entries of which one is very interesting: a whole article on" Innates and language". Absolutely wroth reading.
Yet it is interesting to have him in our One Hunderd List, because his ideas and starting-point are genuine philosophical views.
It is important to realize that the work of Chomsky regarding linguistics is based on a clear and certainly not uncontroveral point of view in philosophy, which has a long history.
I remember that I was fascinated by Chomsky's ideas, maybe the starting-point was so simple and obvious. Later he disappeared behind the horizon of my interests. Not sure why, so it is interesting to meet him here agian and see what he has to tell.
His linguistic work is based on a rationalist theory of mind, which holds that the mind is not a TABULA RASA, a clean slate, but is subected to certain innate restrictions.
This is in straight opposition with the traditional empiricist view, which we already learnt from John Locke.
The choice of his starting-point is't a surprise, if you look at his basic observations. He observed that all people of all nations use language to communicate. So first there is the observation that all men use some kind of abstract , symbolic system to communicate.
A second observation is that all these symbolic systems are governed by some set of rules: we call it grammar. These grammar rules are not always simple.
Yet a third observation is that all over the world children seem to learn this grammar of their language much faster than any other subject, like calculating for instance
For Chomsky his led to the conclusion, that we must have an innate linguistic system, that enables us to assimilate language in such a fast manner.
In other words, and this has fundamental philosophical consequences, we dont learn language by observation, but with the help of an innate language system.
"Half of the existing 6,700 languages in the world will die away in a century and another 2,000 languages will be endangered if no efforts are made to save them, a top expert on social science said". a quote from LINGFORMANT, The science of linguistics in the news, november 10, 2005.
So, I dare to say, that we have more than 6000 languages in the world and according to Chomsky they are all characterized by certain common parameters and principles, which are innate and unique to the human mind, in spite of all diffeences between the languages.
This is of course a fascinatiing idea: cognitive structures baked in our hardware. In Chomsky's opinion this also had political implications. We are not the clean slate of empiricism, nor the unlimited free human of existentialism.
Our nature prevents that we are overruled by extreme forces and dictates that we only tolerate a limited number of political systems.
Totalitarian political structures like 1984 by Orwell or Brave New World by Huxley can not shape our mind completely. Our thoughts are not, like the behaviorists formulated in their psycholgy, only the result of conditioned responses on stimuli.
The concept of "FREEDOM OF THOUGHT" is deeply anchored in our hardware, Chomsky says, just like the innate structures of our ability to use language.
Does this all prove that rationalism is right and empiricism is wrong epistemologically? I don't think so. That the mind is an information digesting system with its own principles isnt such a shocking observation.
What is more interesting philosophically is our question: what is reality, where the answer still balances between the thesis that it is a construction of our mind and the thesis that it is the ultimate addition of all our sensory experiences.
The Discussion
[13:19] hope63 Shepherd: dream -dream dream--
[13:20] Herman Bergson: What I am saying is , what Chomsky thought not what I think
[13:20] hope63 Shepherd: :)
[13:20] Herman Bergson: and a second criticism of Chomsky is that he used the word "to know" when it was about grammar rules
[13:21] Herman Bergson: He recognized that he did not use the word in the fundamental philosophical way, so he changed to 'cognize'...
[13:21] Arius Baxton: lol
[13:21] Herman Bergson: kids cognize grammar rules, whatever that may mean
[13:22] Herman Bergson: this on Chomsky :-)
[13:22] Herman Bergson: I have no idea what linguistic rules etc he has discovered
[13:23] hope63 Shepherd: what was ther reaction of his fellow phil.:?
[13:23] Herman Bergson: what I said...
[13:24] Herman Bergson: in the '70 philosophers contested Chomsky's use of the word 'know"
[13:24] arabella Ella: one of his students stephen pinker took a totally opposite view and became very famous too ... he is often in the international press with his views
[13:24] Herman Bergson: so in fact...Chomsky did not established an epistemological fact by his theory of innate ideas
[13:24] Zen Arado: I have just realised I don't know what know means
[13:24] arabella Ella: and Chomsky is, if i recall, a well known American commnist well known for his political views
[13:25] hope63 Shepherd: ara.. STOP IT.. MCCARTHY AREA IS OVER..LOL
[13:25] AristotleVon Doobie: since he attempts to resurrect Plato in denying tabula rasa, what were his theological views?
[13:25] Herman Bergson: I dont know Aristotle....
[13:25] arabella Ella: hey hope i did not say anything was wrong ... who am i to judge anyway?
[13:25] Herman Bergson: and his political views are in the given context here not that interesting
[13:26] Herman Bergson: To answer you Arabella...
[13:26] Herman Bergson: the classic empiricist approach of the word "know" is the propositional one Wittgenstein suggested
[13:27] hope63 Shepherd: ara.. you can judge on the basis of your "knowledge" as well as any other so called >"philosopher"..
[13:27] Herman Bergson: knowledge is formulated in propositions which are true or false
[13:27] Nick Cassavetes: so, do you think it is strong evidence that children learn language easy? ... it's the one thing they're exposed to most ...
[13:27] AristotleVon Doobie: I think the senstivity of the pre adolescent brain is evolutionary and has nothing to do with preknowledge
[13:27] Nick Cassavetes: besides, Gorillas can learn a vocab of 500 words easy too
[13:28] hope63 Shepherd: 500? shall we have a te^st amongst us?
[13:28] Seeker Schussel: I agree with Aristotle
[13:28] Herman Bergson: Yes Nick, I think that the observations of Chomsky from a present day point of view arent so spectacular
[13:28] Zen Arado: but they say the linguistic ability of animals is very puny compared to that of humans
[13:28] Herman Bergson: I think they are of no consequence for epistemology
[13:28] AristotleVon Doobie: there are many things over than language that are instilled in a child brain that finds a quick root, religious indoctricnation to name one
[13:29] arabella Ella: but young kids increase their knowledge of vocabulary and grammar at an extraordinary rate between 2 and 4 years while both animals and AI do not seem to be able to go beyond a smallish limit
[13:29] Seeker Schussel: mobility is another
[13:29] Mickorod Renard: many animals can learn language,,but recently it apears that it is expanded by the speices feeling of comfort,,in that it goes beyond being a nessesity to survive
[13:29] Herman Bergson: I think we have to hold on for a moment
[13:30] Herman Bergson: We use the word 'language' here in different contexts...
[13:30] Herman Bergson: is the use of language by humans the same as with animals for instance?
[13:30] AristotleVon Doobie: no
[13:30] Nick Cassavetes: I think yes, it's communication
[13:30] arabella Ella: as always in philosophy there are arguments for and against that herman
[13:30] Herman Bergson: Exactly...so can we speak of animals using language,?
[13:30] Nick Cassavetes: seeking to cooperate
[13:31] Herman Bergson: Is a metaphore to me
[13:31] Seeker Schussel: who knows if aniaml have grammar?
[13:31] Mickorod Renard: socialiseing
[13:31] Nick Cassavetes: there is no devision between the linguistic and non-linguistic
[13:31] Zen Arado: it's very limited
[13:31] AristotleVon Doobie: animals form concepts?
[13:31] Herman Bergson: what do you mean Nick?
[13:31] Nick Cassavetes: it's all mental processes
[13:31] Qwark Allen: i saw some documentaries at tv about
[13:31] Nick Cassavetes: and adjustment to each other
[13:32] Qwark Allen: even with mental process language
[13:32] Nick Cassavetes: thrying to map things in a pragmatic way to abide cooperation
[13:32] Qwark Allen: and the realizing of self conciense
[13:32] Nick Cassavetes: words have no meanings in themselve
[13:32] arabella Ella: an extradordinary use of language is to refer to the distant past and the distant future ... something no animal is capable of doing
[13:32] Herman Bergson: Indeed arabella
[13:32] Mickorod Renard: most animals have not attained the social comfort that humans have aquired, except domesticated ones,,which have learnt to use language
[13:33] Seeker Schussel: how do you konw Arabella?
[13:33] Nick Cassavetes: if anything meaning is a property of a 'conversational situation'
[13:33] hope63 Shepherd: how can we know...:)
[13:33] Nick Cassavetes: and such a situation can be cross-species
[13:33] Nick Cassavetes: I don't believe in the deep structure gammar of Chomsky either
[13:33] arabella Ella: Well Seeker, have you ever observed an animal attempting to communicate about something 10 years ago or 10 years into the future? or is it something you can conceptualise?
[13:34] Nick Cassavetes: chinese is totally different gramatically for example
[13:34] Nick Cassavetes: really no common denominator to be found across the world
[13:34] Seeker Schussel: NO.. I don't speak animal. :)
[13:34] arabella Ella: LOL
[13:34] Qwark Allen: nope
[13:34] Herman Bergson: I agree NIck
[13:34] Qwark Allen: all languages come from one
[13:34] Qwark Allen: a old one
[13:34] hope63 Shepherd: come one.. we aere just trying to figure out what language is for us.. how could we judge "animal2 language if we have problems to understand our own ..lol
[13:34] Zen Arado: but the way human beings communicate is the same all over the world I think
[13:34] Qwark Allen: like sanscrite
[13:35] Herman Bergson: If Chomsky really was right, we should have had that universal grammar by now, I would say
[13:35] Nick Cassavetes: nopes Qwark
[13:35] Qwark Allen: you need to update
[13:35] Qwark Allen: :-)
[13:35] AristotleVon Doobie: yet, even Chinese is assimilated much easier fopr a child before puberty than after, even if it is a second langueage
[13:35] Zen Arado: there are just local variations?
[13:35] Nick Cassavetes: indeed herman
[13:35] Mickorod Renard: it is suggested that it wasnt that long ago that humans didnt have a language beyond that of animals
[13:35] Nick Cassavetes: psychologist are also finding no evidence
[13:35] arabella Ella: i think it is a combination of two elements, as Kant had rightly said, both th structure of our mind together with (deeply entwined with) other external social and environmental influences
[13:35] Seeker Schussel: well grammar is just the "glue" that holds language together... and varies like culture
[13:35] Nick Cassavetes: and localised semantics is still a problematic thing if you ask me
[13:36] Zen Arado: I keep thinking there is something circular about all this because we are investigating language with language
[13:36] hope63 Shepherd: may be we should start reading konrad lorenz before we make definitions on what we think:9
[13:36] Herman Bergson: Yes Zen...that is the general problem of philosophy
[13:36] Nick Cassavetes: you should read taski then Zen ;)
[13:36] Seeker Schussel: good point Zen...
[13:36] Nick Cassavetes: Tarski
[13:36] Herman Bergson: Wont help Nick
[13:37] Nick Cassavetes: well, he has been the most explicit about meta language and truth
[13:37] hope63 Shepherd: and that to unde4rstand the problems of language.. not as answers..:)
[13:37] Nick Cassavetes: and had some good point if you ask me
[13:37] Nick Cassavetes: but indeed, it doesn't help lol
[13:37] Herman Bergson: Yes but only for formal languages, Nick not for natural language
[13:38] Herman Bergson: he was very skeptic about finding a truth definition for natural languagepropositions
[13:38] Nick Cassavetes: anyway, let's not get to technical
[13:38] Mickorod Renard: I think that we should ask what bought about language in humans,,I doubt that we had a profound difference in mental abilility 35k years ago
[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: what Chomsli or Tarski say about this means noting more that a stimulus to discover the truth for ourselves
[13:38] hope63 Shepherd: chilldren on the seasaw.. not knowing how and who build it..
[13:39] Nick Cassavetes: the baiss though here was is there a universal gammar and that we are not tabula rasa
[13:39] Herman Bergson: Yes Mickorod...a good question
[13:39] Nick Cassavetes: and evidence is contrary I believe
[13:39] Nick Cassavetes: anyone who doesn't?
[13:39] Herman Bergson: Well....here I think lies the quintessence of chomsly's approach
[13:39] Zen Arado: could you explain the connection with politics again I did't get that
[13:39] Herman Bergson: the Tabula rasa theory is an epistemological principle
[13:40] Nick Cassavetes: New Speak for example
[13:40] Nick Cassavetes: Zen
[13:40] arabella Ella: I think we should take Chomsky as following Kant in claiming that a lot of what we know and learn is dependent on how our brain is structured
[13:40] Nick Cassavetes: you controll the world be controlling language
[13:40] Herman Bergson: that we are some kind of information processing system with its onw mechanisms does not apply to that principle
[13:40] AristotleVon Doobie: Is the opposite of tabula rasa called hocus pocus
[13:40] Nick Cassavetes: for what there are no words, no expression, doesn't exist
[13:40] Herman Bergson: that was chomsky's mistake, I would say
[13:40] Zen Arado: was he saying that we are predisposed to choose a certain political system?
[13:40] Nick Cassavetes: sorry for my bad typing :)
[13:40] arabella Ella: what was chomsky's mistake herman?
[13:41] Herman Bergson: the opposite of tabula rasa is innate ideas...think of Kant here
[13:41] arabella Ella: could you clarify please?
[13:41] Mickorod Renard: basically then,,the expanded grasp of language is used as power in the world of politics
[13:41] hope63 Shepherd: gosh- ara-- you are approaching the true question..
[13:41] Nick Cassavetes: he was saying we are free because the power lies within us and can't be modelled as to the power of the system I think Herman tried to say
[13:41] Herman Bergson: the mistake...or maybe our misunderstanding is to regard the innate linguistic mechanisms as an epistemological issue
[13:42] Seeker Schussel: what about NLP?
[13:42] Zen Arado: But what has that got to do with language, Nick?
[13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: yes herman
[13:42] Herman Bergson: NLP?
[13:42] arabella Ella: but of course it is an epistemological issue herman,, why should it not be so?
[13:42] Seeker Schussel: nuero linguistic programming
[13:42] Nick Cassavetes: words a are creative, a symbolic order
[13:42] Nick Cassavetes: we live in a symbolic world
[13:42] Herman Bergson: Tell us about it, Seeker...^_^
[13:42] Nick Cassavetes: imagine there being no words for relationships for example
[13:43] Nick Cassavetes: like mariage
[13:43] Nick Cassavetes: or no rituals, whatever
[13:43] Zen Arado: Yes bu why should that make us choose a certain political system?
[13:43] Nick Cassavetes: it's all the same big scheme of ineracting
[13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: ther is a ultras senstive ability to learn in a childs brain , that is as far as it is innate
[13:43] hope63 Shepherd: wnimals don't have that word nick..
[13:43] Seeker Schussel: how word choice molds world view
[13:43] hope63 Shepherd: swans livwe with one partner all their lives..so....
[13:43] arabella Ella: the question remain though that no one can yet explain how kids cognitive intelligence moves from just knowledge of a handful of words to using grammar as though they always knew it so suddenly in their lives
[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: evolution explains it very well
[13:44] Nick Cassavetes: it's arbitrary I think arabella
[13:44] Nick Cassavetes: the grammar they learn
[13:44] Herman Bergson: no arabella, maybe not, but that is an issue for cognitive psychologists, I would say
[13:44] arabella Ella: why arbitrary Nick? or how?
[13:44] hope63 Shepherd: they don't..it's agianst the course of social evolutionary development,ara..
[13:44] Herman Bergson: And yes Seeker...the relation between word and worldview.....a constant philosophicla problem too
[13:44] Nick Cassavetes: because it can take many forms, with no common denominator like we said earlier
[13:45] arabella Ella: they just suddenly pick up an extensive amount of vocabulary and use of grammar and use such in a way they have never been taught ... inexplicable so far
[13:45] Seeker Schussel: what about the differences between languages?... some languages have one word for love.. some have many for example...
[13:45] arabella Ella: regardless of which language they speak
[13:45] Herman Bergson: let's not go into linguistic or language acquiring details here
[13:45] Zen Arado: Yes Aabella and if they miss that stage they can never recover
[13:45] Nick Cassavetes: language aquisition is fascinating yes arabella
[13:45] arabella Ella: exactly Zen
[13:45] Mickorod Renard: can the politics be explained again pls
[13:45] hope63 Shepherd: vocabulary is concepts they leqrn.. grammar is a social aspect of communication..
[13:46] arabella Ella: it is often called 'the creative acquisition of language'
[13:46] Herman Bergson: Ok...back to Mickorods remark..
[13:46] Mickorod Renard: ty
[13:46] Herman Bergson: It was Chomsky's opinion that our mind does not accept all kinds of social organisation
[13:47] Herman Bergson: It is his opinion
[13:47] Herman Bergson: I think history shows different
[13:47] Mickorod Renard: ok
[13:47] Zen Arado: is this a different theory?
[13:47] AristotleVon Doobie: of course anyone can have an opinion....proving it is another matter
[13:48] Herman Bergson: Yes..:-)
[13:48] Zen Arado: I don't see the connection with linguistic ability of children
[13:48] Mickorod Renard: so are we saying that maybe we accept things that are in keeping with accepting other ways of learning?
[13:48] arabella Ella: Ari most philosophers dont just simply have an opinion, they generally argue for their position in a pretty rigrous manner with valid arguments
[13:49] hope63 Shepherd: more or less valid,ara:9
[13:49] Herman Bergson: chomsky did for his political opinions
[13:49] AristotleVon Doobie: how can anyone have a valid arugment for innate ability?
[13:49] Herman Bergson: he was very engaged in these issues, that I why I mentioned his idea about it
[13:49] hope63 Shepherd: sartre?
[13:49] arabella Ella: read Chomsky and Kant Ari ;)
[13:50] AristotleVon Doobie: opinions
[13:50] arabella Ella: and Hope .. I disagree with your 'more or less' ... the thing is language can be used in all sorts of creative ways as propagandists often do and so does the media at times
[13:50] hope63 Shepherd: existentialists like sartre had very good argumentry for innate abilities...
[13:50] Mickorod Renard: maybe if we look at computers,,what about the fact that they store or process information in the same or similar manner regardless of the subject matter
[13:51] arabella Ella: good point mick
[13:51] hope63 Shepherd: all sorts.. means more..:) 9 or unfortunately sometimes less:)$
[13:52] arabella Ella: ooops sorry
[13:52] arabella Ella: just a point for reflection ... what about brain damage which causes loss of language?
[13:53] Mickorod Renard: thats a deep one Ara
[13:53] Nick Cassavetes: Sacks has written about that I believe
[13:53] Herman Bergson: Well as far as I can see the linguistic program of Chomsky didnt work
[13:53] Nick Cassavetes: I believe the brain to flexible, up to a point
[13:54] Zen Arado: why not Hermann?
[13:54] Nick Cassavetes: certion regions can compensate a bit, but as with all, once taken form it get rigid
[13:54] Herman Bergson: But at least he showed that absolute behavioristic explanations of the learning of language didnt tell the whole story either
[13:54] arabella Ella: yes Nick but Oliver Saks wrotre about getting sight back, I am talking about losing one's brain function as with dementia for example
[13:55] Herman Bergson: I dont think that is a philosophical issue Arabella
[13:55] Nick Cassavetes: I'm no expert on dementia
[13:55] Herman Bergson: And Zen..if we really had such a universal grammar, then that would be something
[13:55] Mickorod Renard: that may be just the inability to commandfd the facial muscles to talk
[13:55] Zen Arado: But I thought he just proposed an innate predisposition to learn language quickly?
[13:56] Qwark Allen: there are so many deases that can cause mal function at language
[13:56] arabella Ella: the philosophical issue herman is knowledge and the function of the human brain ... but never mind
[13:56] arabella Ella: and thinking of course
[13:56] Herman Bergson: Yes Zen, but beneath that he supposed the existence of some universal grammar
[13:56] AristotleVon Doobie: I will concede that you cannot disprove innate ability...but isnt that kind of like theology....seems to me that nature has merely supplied us a pliant brain to absorb knowledge faster as children and that is the innate ability....simple survival
[13:56] Zen Arado: oh
[13:57] Herman Bergson: innate ability is a psychological matter, not the answer to epistemological questions
[13:57] Mickorod Renard: I would be interested to know how much thought went on in humans before they had language,,and whether in fact language actually restricts creative thought
[13:58] Zen Arado: isn't it more about the way our brains are structured and the capacity they possess?
[13:58] Qwark Allen: we can say that language could influence creativity
[13:58] Herman Bergson: that is impossible Mickorod,
[13:58] Qwark Allen: by the influence that makes at thinking
[13:58] Seeker Schussel: Is creative thought possible without language?
[13:58] Qwark Allen: some languages are better to abstract thinking then others
[13:59] Mickorod Renard: good question
[13:59] Mickorod Renard: some say not
[13:59] Seeker Schussel: what languages are better for it?
[13:59] Zen Arado: I thouht thinking proceeds language
[13:59] Qwark Allen: flexible ones
[13:59] AristotleVon Doobie: I think that language is only for communicating the results of creative thought to others
[13:59] Seeker Schussel: like?
[14:00] Qwark Allen: the more flexible is the language, the more creative you can be
[14:00] Mickorod Renard: I prefer that idea Ari
[14:00] Seeker Schussel: so we do not think in "Language"?
[14:00] Herman Bergson: Well....whatever we think....we need language to communicate our thoughts
[14:00] Qwark Allen: it`s the social/cultural effect at grow up
[14:00] arabella Ella: and about language and creativity ... depends on your definition of creativity
[14:01] Mickorod Renard: I think language during the thought process slows down the thought process
[14:01] Herman Bergson: I wonder if it is a real question whether we think in language or not
[14:01] arabella Ella: there is no one definition of creativity on which there is consensus
[14:01] Hello: Qwark Allen donated L$50. Thank you very much for supporting us, it is much appreciated!
[14:01] Zen Arado: why Herman?
[14:01] Herman Bergson: well....
[14:02] AristotleVon Doobie: since we can understand ourselves without languges the speaking becomes a communal effort
[14:02] Herman Bergson: what goes on in your head can only be observed by yourself...
[14:02] Zen Arado: true
[14:02] Herman Bergson: while any statement you want to make to communicate your thoughts will be in language
[14:02] AristotleVon Doobie: agreed
[14:02] Zen Arado: true again
[14:02] arabella Ella: that goes against wittgenstein and private language herman tho
[14:03] Herman Bergson: so I think it isnt relevante to investigate the private mind philosophically
[14:03] Zen Arado: I've changed my mind, I think there is a language of thought
[14:03] Herman Bergson: I am not afraid of Wittgenstein Arabella ^_^
[14:03] Zen Arado: we think in concepts
[14:03] arabella Ella: no reason why you should be afraid of wittgenstein herman
[14:04] AristotleVon Doobie: the private mind inded must manifest its thoughts befor the can even be considered
[14:04] Herman Bergson: just kidding..:-)
[14:04] Mickorod Renard: but have we alowed language to take over thought?
[14:04] AristotleVon Doobie: communality that is
[14:04] Zen Arado: we can investigate the mind scientifically
[14:04] Zen Arado: we may discover how language works that way
[14:05] Herman Bergson: Well Mickorod....to be honest...I have no idea how I think...I mean...in language...in images....in sounds....in neural firings....
[14:05] Seeker Schussel: well I know I think in language... but it may be an individual preference
[14:05] Nick Cassavetes: bye all, need to leave, was interesting, thx again Herman for doing this
[14:05] Herman Bergson: actually philosophically I am not interested in it that much
[14:05] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Nick
[14:05] Zen Arado: bye Nick
[14:05] Mickorod Renard: bye Nick
[14:05] Herman Bergson: my pleasure Nick, thnx for comming
[14:05] Seeker Schussel: bye nick
[14:06] Qwark Allen: i saw a doc at tv, where they implanted electric terminals, attach to brain, and the monky just realized that could make move the mouse arrow, only by thinking where wanted it
[14:06] Mickorod Renard: the subconcious proccesses things much much quicker than the concious
[14:06] Qwark Allen: it`s electric signals
[14:06] AristotleVon Doobie: knowing how you think is unimportant, just that you do is
[14:06] Mickorod Renard: because it is unharnessed from language
[14:07] arabella Ella: cool Qwark would love to watch that too!
[14:07] Herman Bergson: Qwark...in your example i only see the behaviioristic stimulus - response model
[14:07] Qwark Allen: at discovery
[14:07] Qwark Allen: was amazing
[14:07] arabella Ella: cool
[14:08] Qwark Allen: the mind of a monky controlling something
[14:08] Qwark Allen: at hardware
[14:08] Qwark Allen: by thinking of it
[14:08] Zen Arado: perhaps language processing is humans most important ability.
[14:08] Herman Bergson: that is amazing indeed
[14:08] Zen Arado: It enales us to pass on what we know to the next generation and build upon it
[14:08] AristotleVon Doobie: certainly for sharing knowledge commuanlly, Zen
[14:09] Herman Bergson: Well Zen....may I thank you and everybody else here for their language processing and good discussion...:-)
[14:09] Zen Arado: yes Arstotle
[14:09] Qwark Allen: yes
[14:09] Qwark Allen: i think so ari
[14:09] arabella Ella: altho qwark i think it has also been done with stroke patients experimentally
[14:09] AristotleVon Doobie: Thank you, Professor
[14:09] Qwark Allen: yes
[14:09] Mickorod Renard: thankyou Herman
[14:09] Zen Arado: thank you Herman
[14:09] Qwark Allen: thank you herman
[14:09] Herman Bergson: Thank you too
[14:09] Qwark Allen: excelent as usual
[14:09] Seeker Schussel: thanks Herman
[14:10] Herman Bergson: thank yu, Qwark
[14:10] Qwark Allen: :-)
[14:10] Qwark Allen: cya tomorow
[14:10] AristotleVon Doobie: later on Qwark
[14:10] arabella Ella: bye Qwark
[14:10] Herman Bergson: Next philosophers will be quite a different cup of tea..:-)
[14:11] Mickorod Renard: bye quark
[14:11] Zen Arado: Who is that Herman?
[14:11] itsme Frederix: without sugar I hope
[14:11] Herman Bergson: Levi-Strauss , Foucault and Derrida..:-)
[14:11] itsme Frederix: Oke
[14:11] Herman Bergson: Vive la France, Hope ^_^
[14:11] Zen Arado: Continental philosophers
[14:11] itsme Frederix: post-modern
[14:11] Herman Bergson: yes indeed
[14:12] Herman Bergson: exactly Itsme
[14:12] arabella Ella: wow Foucault and Derrida ... cool
[14:12] arabella Ella: are you bringing in Richard Rorty too Herman?
[14:12] itsme Frederix: I read straus thought he was more a antropologist
[14:12] Zen Arado: I like Richard rorty
[14:12] Mickorod Renard: how do u pronounce foucault?
[14:12] Zen Arado: contingency irony and solidarity
[14:12] Herman Bergson: Rorty....I have heard that name before
[14:12] AristotleVon Doobie: foucault, mick
[14:13] arabella Ella: yea Rorty is another controversial philo like Chomsky political too
[14:13] Mickorod Renard: thought so
[14:13] AristotleVon Doobie: :)))
[14:13] Seeker Schussel: bye all great class Herman
[14:13] Zen Arado: he died last year
[14:13] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Seeker
[14:13] Mickorod Renard: bye seeker
[14:13] Herman Bergson: Ok...
[14:13] Zen Arado: I have to go too thanks for the discussion
[14:14] itsme Frederix: He thx, see you next study hour
[14:14] Herman Bergson: He'll be on the next 100 List arabella
[14:14] Herman Bergson: ok Itsme..:-)
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment