Marxist Scientists.

[Deicide]

I'm trying to find contemporary scientists - Physicists, Geologists, Biologists, Astronomers, and so on - that are Marxists or influenced by radical leftism in some way. I haven't been able to find one, apart from Stephen Jay Gould, but he's dead. Just to make this a little clearer, I'm not trying to find, for instance, an astronomer that has somehow managed to intertwine Marxist theory with astronomy (lol) but rather a scientist that has radical leftist politics or believes Marxist analysis is correct.

If there's a more suitable forum section for this thread, feel free to move it there.

[Brosip Tito]

David Harvey is a geologist.

[Anarpest]

Perhaps you could count Lewontin?

[Deicide]

David Harvey is a geographer, not a geologist. Geography is not a 'natural science' like biology or geology. Geologists are concerned with what the material world - rocks, mountains, volcanoes and so on - is made out of and how it formed. While geographers are concerned with the topography of the earth.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I assume we're excluding social scientists, since that would include every genuine Marxist theorist there's been.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c6/Antonie_Pannekoek.jpg

[Deicide]

^ Yes.

[Teacher]

Richard Lewontin

[∞]

Oppenheimer was close to the communist party.
Einstein wasn't a commie but he was a socialist.
I don't really care enough to name anymore, but there is a plenty of them I reckon.

[Robespierres Neck]

Trofim Lysenko.

[marl]

"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate (the) grave evils (of capitalism), namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society."



Albert Einstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein), Why Socialism?
(http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism)

[Deicide]

Trofim Lysenko.

He was a joke and a fraud and he's dead, long dead. I'm looking for contemporary scientists.

[The Machine]

every marxist thinks theyre a scientist

[Ocean Seal]

Black Magic Hustla is a physicist. I'm currently a research assistant in physics, and I believe that some of the technocrats on this forum were also scientists, in addition I believe we had some mathematics majors here. But big names, I don't really have any contemporary scientists in mind.

[blake 3:17]

Perhaps you could count Lewontin?

I`ve abandoned all interest in Lewontin -- apparently he`s a shite scientist. The history of American Marxist biologists seems to be a bit shady.

Nobody`s mentioned Einstein yet!

[Deicide]

Nobody`s mentioned Einstein yet!

He's not exactly contemporary.

[Yuppie Grinder]

He's not exactly contemporary.
He was also a Zionist.

[zoot_allures]

He's also an anti-communist and a Zionist.
Plus, he actually has been mentioned, two times.

[Ocean Seal]

He was also a Zionist.
A Zionist you say?

http://www.rense.com/general59/ein.htm

[Ocean Seal]

Actually I can't believe I almost forgot. There is always Chomsky, who might have dubious leftist creditials, but he is actually probably the foremost living linguist.

[Valdyr]

I`ve abandoned all interest in Lewontin -- apparently he`s a shite scientist. The history of American Marxist biologists seems to be a bit shady.

Nobody`s mentioned Einstein yet!

Can you expand on this? I'm not opposing you, just curious.

[Rafiq]

Actually I can't believe I almost forgot. There is always Chomsky, who might have dubious leftist creditials, but he is actually probably the foremost living linguist.

He has no inherent Marxist attributes. He's 100% Idealist as a Linguist, as well. I'd say he's one of the most AntiMarxist linguists out there

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Welshy]

He's 100% Idealist as a Linguist, as well. I'd say he's one of the most AntiMarxist linguists out there

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Just out of curiosity and sorry for derailing the thread, can you explain what you mean by this a bit more?

[Revoltorb]

Still new to this forum but I'm (going to be) a scientist. I'll be studying structural mechanics next fall as a PhD candidate.

[Rafiq]

Just out of curiosity and sorry for derailing the thread, can you explain what you mean by this a bit more?

Chomsky is an Idealist, in his linguistic works: Chomsky believes that humans are born with the "Universal Laws of Language" and can thus already understand them (Something which he offers no evidence for).

Materialists believe language to stem from relations to the mode of production over time, as a direct result of it. In other words, for Materialists, language is solely economic and serves no other purpose, and was developed over the course of history for no other purpose.

Chomsky, on the other hand, believes Language to stem from some kind of inherent genetic coding within us, that was not developed over time, but existed by default. To Chomsky, we are already born with the necessary structure for us to produce thoughts, i.e. We are born with Ideology, and this "Ideology" is not something that is inherent from the Material existence (Mode of production and relations within it).

[ridethejetski]

Materialists believe language to stem from relations to the mode of production over time, as a direct result of it. In other words, for Materialists, language is solely economic and serves no other purpose, and was developed over the course of history for no other purpose.
.

what LOL

[Rafiq]

what LOL

Elaborate, please.

I don't see what is so ridiculous about that. Language is solely economic ,and all of it's other uses, such as it's deployment here in this little conversation, are a reflection and can only exist within the economic constraint established by the capitalist mode of production (For example, revolutionary terms, or revolutionary thought stems from the Proletariat, inhernet to capitalism). The language we have now wouldn't exist in lesser-developed economic modes of organization existent in the past, for example, before the neolithic revolution.

So again, elaborate. Though, You don't strike me as the most intelligent of types, so I can hardly expect anything of meaningful worth to come from you.

[Koba Junior]

what LOL

Language is a kind of technology, and technology is how mankind deals with the natural world. That being said, it's difficult to determine exactly how language arose as a technology, but it was quite obviously in the need to communicate fairly complex things. Language probably arose alongside the advent of division of labor.

[ridethejetski]

Could you first please provide sources for such claims about language.

[Caj]

Chomsky is an Idealist, in his linguistic works: Chomsky believes that humans are born with the "Universal Laws of Language" and can thus already understand them (Something which he offers no evidence for).

Materialists believe language to stem from relations to the mode of production over time, as a direct result of it. In other words, for Materialists, language is solely economic and serves no other purpose, and was developed over the course of history for no other purpose.

Chomsky, on the other hand, believes Language to stem from some kind of inherent genetic coding within us, that was not developed over time, but existed by default. To Chomsky, we are already born with the necessary structure for us to produce thoughts, i.e. We are born with Ideology, and this "Ideology" is not something that is inherent from the Material existence (Mode of production and relations within it).

What stops you from applying this to all aspects of human behavior though? Surely you don't believe that all aspects of human behavior are purely economic and subscribe to some "blank slate" perspective? I don't think it's by default idealist to maintain that some aspects of human behavior, say language, are genetically natural to human beings independent of economic circumstances, so long as evidence is provided for such assertions. In fact, I'd say it's idealist to deny this. (I'm not saying Chomsky is right, by the way. I'm not familiar enough with his linguistic hypotheses to really have a view on the matter.)

[Rafiq]

Do you mind of I link you some Marxist works, whcih contain works in regards to language?

I don't know what you mean, really. For one, this claim relies on notions we already know, but re organizes them in a better way for understand their function and existence. I think everyone knows that language before the neolithic revolution was primitive and not even close to as developed as the language we use in modern times. Though, one doens't need a hard source to confirm that this is due to changes in the production process, something most know occurs.

I think this is from that Terry Eagelton book:



Language, the currency of thought, is itself the creation of labour. We can see this even among jackals and other hunting animals that rely upon teamwork rather than just brute force or speed to kill their prey. They have a series of barked commands and warnings—the beginnings of language.

That is how language evolved among people, as a result of their co-operative labour. The germs of rational thinking among the higher apes, and the limited use of tools by some animals, have remained at a beginning stage, while reaching fruition only in human beings.



I think, on the contrary, to suggest otherwise would be ludicrous. Can you do so, and provide examples with substantial evidence?

[Rafiq]

What stops you from applying this to all aspects of human behavior though? Surely you don't believe that all aspects of human behavior are purely economic and subscribe to some "blank slate" perspective?

All aspects of Human behavior external from the functions of our own body, such as the necessity of Sex to reproduce, or, for example, eating and dumping, and so on. But even here, this is not limited. For example, the evolution of the ape that links us Humans with our Chimp counterparts arguably experienced this change for "economic" purposes, i.e. Survival. Survival, to Marxists, is economic, and vice versa. By "Economics" I don't just mean what results of the mode of production, but the mode of production itself. The base of it.



I don't think it's by default idealist to maintain that some aspect of human behavior, say language, are genetically natural to human beings independent of economic circumstances, so long as evidence is provided for such assertions.

Well, I would argue that language itself has never been as complex as it is today, has never been utilized in such a way (As before, if anyone adheres to evolution, it was used in the same way it is used for several animals), as it does today, therefore it cannot come naturally or be independent of economic interests when this occurring is unique to modern times (Say, the past thousands of years or so, when humans as we know them have existed for maybe one million?).

Anyway, there isn't any scientific evidence to confirm Chomsky.

[Caj]

All aspects of Human behavior external from the functions of our own body, such as the necessity of Sex to reproduce, or, for example, eating and dumping, and so on. But even here, this is not limited. For example, the evolution of the ape that links us Humans with our Chimp counterparts arguably experienced this change for "economic" purposes, i.e. Survival. Survival, to Marxists, is economic, and vice versa. By "Economics" I don't just mean what results of the mode of production, but the mode of production itself. The base of it.

Well, if you extend the "economic" to encompass prehistoric means of survival, I don't see how Chomsky's hypotheses are idealist. He asserts that humans are genetically pre-wired for language, correct? Well, if we're genetically pre-wired for something, it must have been advantageous for our survival evolutionarily.


Well, I would argue that language itself has never been as complex as it is today, has never been utilized in such a way (As before, if anyone adheres to evolution, it was used in the same way it is used for several animals), as it does today, therefore it cannot come naturally or be independent of economic interests when this occurring is unique to modern times (Say, the past thousands of years or so, when humans as we know them have existed for maybe one million?).

Anyway, there isn't any scientific evidence to confirm Chomsky.

I'm not really familiar with the scientific evidence behind the emergence of language, so I don't really have any response to this.

[Rafiq]

Well, if you extend the "economic" to encompass prehistoric means of survival, I don't see how Chomsky's hypotheses are idealist. He asserts that humans are genetically pre-wired for language, correct?

No, he asserts humans have the necessary skills and constructive seeds for language incorporated in their minds from birth. What this implies, is that language as we know it today is not a product of social relations within the mode of production, but a realization of something that was already inhernet within us.

Also, the notion that we are pre wired for Langauge is not what you think, i.e. It doesn't just means we are pre wired for Communication with each other, to some extent (which has some feasible evidence), it implies we not are just pre wired, but we know already the laws of modern day language as we know it. To materialists, language would not become something external from mere language among animals, if not built upon over millennial time periods as a result of social relations between each other and the (according) mode of production. To materialists, all language itself is, in itself a product of material production, and not a cause of it. As the need for the mode of production to exist in dynamic ways and the necessary means of human survival to enhance grow gradually, whether it be because of population, or because scarcity of resources, or, for example ,the meeting of other tribes and so on, as this exists, language acts as a reflection to it as well, and becomes no longer constrained. To Chomsky, language was never constrained, it was within us all along. That is the problem.


Well, if we're genetically pre-wired for something, it must have been advantageous for our survival evolutionarily.


In the case of language, though, this is a dependency on the location and the situation. For example, among chimps, a Chimpanzee born into a Chimp community that is different from another would certainly carry traits different from the latter, and language shouldn't be an exception. So I wouldn't say we are pre wired for Language, as a Materialist, as language in itself is something we gain and harness over time in accordance with specific material conditions.

Evolutionary traits built up is not an exception to this. It's different, for example, for thoughts to be "Pre Wired" and for bodily necessities such as the act of Sex (which, admittedly has a lot to do with whatever condition the community is in, for example, Sex is different everywhere and is arguably a product of material relations and so on), of eating and using the bathroom. Language, in all cases isn't necessarily a bodily necessity, i.e. One can survive without Language (If he were to simply hunt, or be fed), and it is language that is developed to contribute to this survival, not the other way around.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

I can't find anything official, but it does seem that Richard Dawkins has left leanings.
He seems to despise neo-liberalism, and he took part in demonstrations against the Vietnam War when he was at Berkeley.

But I don't know if he's a socialist or social democrat....

[Caj]

No, he asserts humans have the necessary skills and constructive seeds for language incorporated in their minds from birth. What this implies, is that language as we know it today is not a product of social relations within the mode of production, but a realization of something that was already inhernet within us.

Also, the notion that we are pre wired for Langauge is not what you think, i.e. It doesn't just means we are pre wired for Communication with each other, to some extent (which has some feasible evidence), it implies we not are just pre wired, but we know already the laws of modern day language as we know it. To materialists, language would not become something external from mere language among animals, if not built upon over millennial time periods as a result of social relations between each other and the (according) mode of production. To materialists, all language itself is, in itself a product of material production, and not a cause of it. As the need for the mode of production to exist in dynamic ways and the necessary means of human survival to enhance grow gradually, whether it be because of population, or because scarcity of resources, or, for example ,the meeting of other tribes and so on, as this exists, language acts as a reflection to it as well, and becomes no longer constrained. To Chomsky, language was never constrained, it was within us all along. That is the problem.



In the case of language, though, this is a dependency on the location and the situation. For example, among chimps, a Chimpanzee born into a Chimp community that is different from another would certainly carry traits different from the latter, and language shouldn't be an exception. So I wouldn't say we are pre wired for Language, as a Materialist, as language in itself is something we gain and harness over time in accordance with specific material conditions.

Evolutionary traits built up is not an exception to this. It's different, for example, for thoughts to be "Pre Wired" and for bodily necessities such as the act of Sex (which, admittedly has a lot to do with whatever condition the community is in, for example, Sex is different everywhere and is arguably a product of material relations and so on), of eating and using the bathroom. Language, in all cases isn't necessarily a bodily necessity, i.e. One can survive without Language (If he were to simply hunt, or be fed), and it is language that is developed to contribute to this survival, not the other way around.

Ok, I think I see what you're saying.

You gave the example of sex, i.e., how sex, although of evolutionary necessity and thus genetically pre-wired, is also subject to influence by the mode of production and the social relations it entails. For this reason, sex, although retaining its evolutionary function for reproduction, differs from society to society based on differing material conditions.

Could not the same thing be applied to language? Clearly language, like sex, differs from society to society owing, ultimately, to differing material conditions and social relations. At the same time, language in general (what I think you called "communication"), like sex in general, could have emerged evolutionarily for purposes of survival.

[Koba Junior]

Could not the same thing be applied to language? Clearly language, like sex, differs from society to society owing, ultimately, to differing material conditions and social relations. At the same time, language in general, like sex in general, could have emerged evolutionarily for purposes of survival.

I should think the influence of productive behavior and the influence of the survival impulse are not mutually exclusive.

[Rafiq]

Ok, I think I see what you're saying.

You gave the example of sex, i.e., how sex, although of evolutionary necessity and thus genetically pre-wired, is also subject to influence by the mode of production and the social relations it entails. For this reason, sex, although retaining its evolutionary function for reproduction, differs from society to society based on differing material conditions.

Could not the same thing be applied to language? Clearly language, like sex, differs from society to society owing, ultimately, to differing material conditions and social relations. At the same time, language in general, like sex in general, could have emerged evolutionarily for purposes of survival.

Indeed, as did the societies that influenced them, in turn.

The problem with Chomsky is his conception of a Universalist Linguistic Law which exists in the minds of all humans, pre wired. This is hardly the case.

[Koba Junior]

The problem with Chomsky is his conception of a Universalist Linguistic Law which exists in the minds of all humans, pre wired. This is hardly the case.

This is not dissimilar to a current of thought popular among racists and fascists, the idea that certain cultural impulses are "built into" people's genes. From this, they tend to extrapolate that "whites" have "superior" genes due to their relative wealth and control of the means of production.

[L.A.P.]

He has no inherent Marxist attributes. He's 100% Idealist as a Linguist, as well. I'd say he's one of the most AntiMarxist linguists out there

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

I honestly think Noam Chomsky is a pretty shitty linguist, and it's sad how he is the main influence on all modern linguistics today. Idealist!? How can a man who believes that there is a "language acquisition device" in our brains be an idealist?:rolleyes:

[Welshy]

Chomsky is an Idealist, in his linguistic works: Chomsky believes that humans are born with the "Universal Laws of Language" and can thus already understand them (Something which he offers no evidence for).

Materialists believe language to stem from relations to the mode of production over time, as a direct result of it. In other words, for Materialists, language is solely economic and serves no other purpose, and was developed over the course of history for no other purpose.

Lol, have you taken any linguistics course ever? Language does have universal rules (which are more like switches and constraints) and chomsky isn't the only one who holds to that and we have been able to make fairly successful in making predictions. And when it comes to sociolinguistics economics plays a huge role, but as far as structure goes its fairly divorced from economics, especially since you see some of bits what we know as human language with in other animals. To look at language as something separate from our biological evolution is a mistake, IMO.



Chomsky, on the other hand, believes Language to stem from some kind of inherent genetic coding within us, that was not developed over time, but existed by default. To Chomsky, we are already born with the necessary structure for us to produce thoughts, i.e. We are born with Ideology, and this "Ideology" is not something that is inherent from the Material existence (Mode of production and relations within it).

I think your analogy is rather shitty, but I also don't think that Chomsky is entirely correct either. However cognitive linguistics is not my specialty (I'm a syntax, semantics and computational guy), so I won't venture to far into that.

[Caj]

Indeed, as did the societies that influenced them, in turn.

The problem with Chomsky is his conception of a Universalist Linguistic Law which exists in the minds of all humans, pre wired. This is hardly the case.

I'll have to read more of Chomsky's linguistic works, as I'm not really familiar with them. If his linguistics is anything like his politics though, I don't doubt that it's idealist.

[Welshy]

Just out of curiosity, Rafiq could you link to a peer reviewed article that shows how the underlying structure of language is a result of productive forces and also to show in what way languages spoken by two groups that exist in two different modes of production (modern language or not). I also want something that is (fairly, like mid 80's at the earliest) recent.

Note I'm not a big fan of Chomsky as he often declares things and doesn't back it up and other linguists have to test them.

[Pirx]

Geneticists like Haldane and Muller (tried to convince Stalin of eugenics).
Sociobiologists like R. Trivers and John Maynard Smith.
Ivan Pawlov was a conservative, but he changed form enemy to friend of Bolshevism.
Marvin Harris, Anthropologist: Not a "commie", but his theories are heavily leaned on materialism.

[Valdyr]

Geneticists like Haldane and Muller (tried to convince Stalin of eugenics).
Sociobiologists like R. Trivers and John Maynard Smith.
Ivan Pawlov was a conservative, but he changed form enemy to friend of Bolshevism.
Marvin Harris, Anthropologist: Not a "commie", but his theories are heavily leaned on materialism.

Just a minor nitpick, John Maynard Smith wasn't a sociobiologist. While he was an evolutionary biologist and population geneticist who did very important work applying game theory to evolution, sociobiology proper is specifically the study of social behavior through the lens of neo-darwinism, which is a paradigm with the following axioms:

1. Genetic determinism
2. Reductionism (gene is ultimately the only unit of selection, the evolutionary subject)
3. Panadaptationism (all identifiable discrete traits are themselves the results of selective pressure/adaptions, rather than the by-products of another trait, i.e. a "spandrel.")

One can be a mathematical population biologist and still not be a sociobiologist.

[Kenco Smooth]

Steven Rose, a still living biologist, and Richard Levins, an ecologist, are both very openly Marxist and have claimed that this has influenced them in their work (they both worked with Lewontin). Can't comment on their work in their own field but I know they're not considered to have emerged from the protracted battle they've waged against sociobiology/evolutionary psychology too well.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

He was a joke and a fraud and he's dead, long dead. I'm looking for contemporary scientists.

He was a joke and basically just a careerist. I don't think Marxist-Leninists should be ashamed to admit that most of his theories on genetics (or whatever you call genetics without the hereditary aspect) have been disproven. With other Marxist scientists, I wouldn't know who they are, except a few people on this forum.

[Revolution starts with U]

Rafiq;2438560

Well, I would argue that language itself has never been as complex as it is today, has never been utilized in such a way
The first part is dubious, you're going to have to provide evidence of that. The second part is obvious.

(As before, if anyone adheres to evolution, it was used in the same way it is used for several animals), as it does today, therefore it cannot come naturally or be independent of economic interests when this occurring is unique to modern times (Say, the past thousands of years or so, when humans as we know them have existed for maybe one million?).

Homo Sapiens Sapiens (humans) are not more than 2-250k years old. Homo Sapiens (archaic) is maybe, and this is stretching it, 500k years old. Homo, as a species is roughly 1m years old. I guess it all depends on how you are defining "human." (which is a point of contention in the anthropology field)


Just out of curiosity, Rafiq could you link to a peer reviewed article that shows how the underlying structure of language is a result of productive forces and also to show in what way languages spoken by two groups that exist in two different modes of production (modern language or not). I also want something that is (fairly, like mid 80's at the earliest) recent.

Note I'm not a big fan of Chomsky as he often declares things and doesn't back it up and other linguists have to test them.

He's already declared that denying his position is, in fact, the positive assertion and requires the proof, and that his is the default position that requires no proof. I wouldn't expect that link to come any time soon...


Either way, I'm not sure Rafiq's description of Chomsky's linguistic contributions are anything less than a total straw man. He doesn't say that grammar is hard-wired into the brain, but the ability to learn grammar.
I rather prefer, if you're going to criticize UG (and I admittedly don't know much about the field) that it is not idealism (that some ideal creates or influences society) but pseudo-science; that it is not falsifiable and doesn't make testable predictions.
Nevertheless, UG is not Chomsky's only contribution to linguistics. There is also the Chomsky-Schutzenberger theorem, and (ironically) the Chomsky Heirarchy.

[Welshy]

I rather prefer, if you're going to criticize UG (and I admittedly don't know much about the field) that it is not idealism (that some ideal creates or influences society) but pseudo-science; that it is not falsifiable and doesn't make testable predictions.

It does allow us to make predictions because we can say that "X universal allows us to predict that this language should behave in X way". So for example we can predict that languages that don't make use of wh-movement should have internally headed relative clauses. So we can look languages with out wh-movement to see if they have internally head clauses or not. If universal grammar is wrong then we wouldn't be able to make such predictions (from what I understand). The problem is that when people hear Universal Grammar they think hard and fast rules that are present in every language, but there are only a handful that are like that, like languages don't count (this is different from what we normally call counting) or no language only agrees with accusative arguments. What mainstream linguistics understand as universal grammar is more of like switches that languages flick on and off.

[Paul Cockshott]

Sokal

[Rafiq]

Lol, have you taken any linguistics course ever?

Admittedly, no, but none the less we can easily analyze whether some modes of thought are Idealist in regards.


Language does have universal rules (which are more like switches and constraints) and chomsky isn't the only one who holds to that and we have been able to make fairly successful in making predictions.

You're missing the point: The complex language that has developed today, is not entirely a product of Universal Language "rules", a large chunk comes from relations to the mode of production over time.


And when it comes to sociolinguistics economics plays a huge role, but as far as structure goes its fairly divorced from economics, especially since you see some of bits what we know as human language with in other animals.

What are you going on about in regards to language? The root of our language, which a lot can stem out from in regards to economics or just langauge in general?

To say the langauge we have today was developed external from our relations to the mode of production is absurd. Hell, I'd go as far as to say language was only developed for economic reasons, i.e.: Survival. That is the basis of economics, for Marxists.


To look at language as something separate from our biological evolution is a mistake, IMO.


I wouldn't. But I would assert that our biological evolution more or less is something heavily influenced by the several relations to the mode of production we've had over the course of history, and relations with each other in regards, at that.



I think your analogy is rather shitty, but I also don't think that Chomsky is entirely correct either. However cognitive linguistics is NOTmy specialty (I'm a syntax, semantics and computational guy), so I won't venture to far into that.


No need to be hostile, as I've nothing against you, and you've nothing against me, I'd hope.

[Rafiq]

Just out of curiosity, Rafiq could you link to a peer reviewed article that shows how the underlying structure of language is a result of productive forces and also to show in what way languages spoken by two groups that exist in two different modes of production (modern language or not). I also want something that is (fairly, like mid 80's at the earliest) recent.

Note I'm not a big fan of Chomsky as he often declares things and doesn't back it up and other linguists have to test them.

I'll do my best. But in fairness, I ask you do the same as well.

[Rafiq]

Rafiq;2438560

The first part is dubious, you're going to have to provide evidence of that. The second part is obvious.

What, that language has never been as complex as it has today? I've never heard of Homo Sapiens before the Neolithic era having a complex linguistic system, and languages before were never as rapidly evolving as they are now, as the world wasn't as linked as it is today, and language today is utilized by the capitalist mode of production for many reasons..

What is the second part?


Homo Sapiens Sapiens (humans) are not more than 2-250k years old. Homo Sapiens (archaic) is maybe, and this is stretching it, 500k years old. Homo, as a species is roughly 1m years old. I guess it all depends on how you are defining "human." (which is a point of contention in the anthropology field)


My mistake. Point stands.



He's already declared that denying his position is, in fact, the positive assertion and requires the proof, and that his is the default position that requires no proof. I wouldn't expect that link to come any time soon...


Show me where I did that, would you?


Either way, I'm not sure Rafiq's description of Chomsky's linguistic contributions are anything less than a total straw man. He doesn't say that grammar is hard-wired into the brain, but the ability to learn grammar.

Such is a more idealist assertion than to say it's hard wired. He is basically saying we have the necessary tools to develop the language that we know of today without the necessary social relations that evolved over time within the mode of production. That it was "Within us" all along. Materialists say the ability to learn grammer isn't "Hard Wired", but developed through young ages via whatever grammer system is in place in X mode of production.


I rather prefer, if you're going to criticize UG (and I admittedly don't know much about the field) that it is not idealism

Well now, I don't care of what you "Prefer", it is Idealism. Many Marxists have acknowledged this.


(that some ideal creates or influences society)

That isn't necessarily the only qualification for what can be called "Idealist". Matter precedes "Ideal", not some kind of magical mechanism in our brains which already knows the structure of an "Ideal".


Nevertheless, UG is not Chomsky's only contribution to linguistics. There is also the Chomsky-Schutzenberger theorem, and (ironically) the Chomsky Heirarchy.


... ?

And?

[Welshy]

I will respond in a little bit, but I want to say that I am not being hostile and I'm sorry that what I wrote was easy to misinterpret. It should be noted that Chomsky's UG isn't the only UG out there and I do think that how handles it isn't correct and once I finish this damn degree I will hopefully be able to start working for a better model.

[Welshy]

If any of you are interested in reading something on the development of language and a look at UG that is different from Chomsky, check out Ray Jackendoff's Foundation of Language. I had to read some of it for my semantics course and found it to be quite good. I can only link you to a short review but if any of you are interested in reading the section I had to read (its about 35 pages long) send me a PM.

http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/reviews/jackendoff-foundations/

[Revolution starts with U]

What, that language has never been as complex as it has today?
Yes, that is a claim which can be verified, as we have knowledge of past languages. If you're using complex to just mean "more words," ok. But that is not what I would have thought when you said "complex."


I've never heard of Homo Sapiens before the Neolithic era having a complex linguistic system,
That's probably because nobody alive today has ever heard a pre-neolithic language :lol:
You could argue certain H-G societies, but even those would be tainted by being on the outskirts of civilization.


and languages before were never as rapidly evolving as they are now, as the world wasn't as linked as it is today, and language today is utilized by the capitalist mode of production for many reasons..
This is true. I guess it all boils down to what you meant by "complex." When you said that I was thinking things along the lines of the type and amount of rules which govern language's use... not just more words.


What is the second part?

That language is used differently today than it was in the past (and differently in the past than it was in its' past). Of course this is obvious.


My mistake. Point stands.

Ya, I was just correcting.


Show me where I did that, would you?

When you said (something along the lines of) "I would think this obvious, and it is the denier that must show evidence..." Perhaps I misunderstood your point..


Such is a more idealist assertion than to say it's hard wired. He is basically saying we have the necessary tools to develop the language that we know of today without the necessary social relations that evolved over time within the mode of production.
I think it could be as simple as him saying that language is older than homo sapiens sapiens, and if it was inherent to the first homo sapiens sapiens, it is inherent to all of us.


That it was "Within us" all along. Materialists say the ability to learn grammer isn't "Hard Wired", but developed through young ages via whatever grammer system is in place in X mode of production.

I'm pretty sure "materialists" always say "whatever happened is what happened," and not "if it doesn't fit in with Marxism it's not materialist."


That isn't necessarily the only qualification for what can be called "Idealist". Matter precedes "Ideal", not some kind of magical mechanism in our brains which already knows the structure of an "Ideal".

Ok...? But if the capacity to learn language is genetically expressed, and older than Homo Sapiens proper (us), then the capacity for learning language would be hard wired into the human brain... would it not?


And?
Just pointing it out (mostly for the irony of anarchist Chomsky having something named the "Chomsky heirarchy" after him :lol: )

[Revolution starts with U]

It does allow us to make predictions because we can say that "X universal allows us to predict that this language should behave in X way". So for example we can predict that languages that don't make use of wh-movement should have internally headed relative clauses. So we can look languages with out wh-movement to see if they have internally head clauses or not. If universal grammar is wrong then we wouldn't be able to make such predictions (from what I understand). The problem is that when people hear Universal Grammar they think hard and fast rules that are present in every language, but there are only a handful that are like that, like languages don't count (this is different from what we normally call counting) or no language only agrees with accusative arguments. What mainstream linguistics understand as universal grammar is more of like switches that languages flick on and off.

As I said, my knowledge of the field is admittedly very small. :lol:

[∞]

Do engineers count cuz I know some that are devout socialists.

Makes a alot of sense considering they take shit from cappies who don't make anything.

[Revoltorb]

Do engineers count cuz I know some that are devout socialists.

Makes a alot of sense considering they take shit from cappies who don't make anything.

In my experience studying in an engineering field it's actually the opposite. Most engineers I know (who are politically conscious) tend to view themselves as some sort of overman who is mentally superior, and therefore more deserving of reward, than other, lesser people. Very few are socialist, let alone left-capitalist.

[Rooster]

I used to be a research chemist for a long time as well as working with industrial chemistry, which isn't really science, just doing math and working out how fast things will flow down tubes.


In my experience studying in an engineering field it's actually the opposite. Most engineers I know (who are politically conscious) tend to view themselves as some sort of overman who is mentally superior, and therefore more deserving of reward, than other, lesser people. Very few are socialist, let alone left-capitalist.

From my experience, a lot of engineers, when it came to politics, liked to believe that they could also social engineers. This is pretty much as far from Marxism that you can get.

[Rooster]

Yes, that is a claim which can be verified, as we have knowledge of past languages. If you're using complex to just mean "more words," ok. But that is not what I would have thought when you said "complex."

I'm not trying to make a fuss or anything, I'm just interested in the topic, but is that really true? That languages today are more complex? I found that Old English was quite a bit more complex than modern English, in grammar terms, and the same can be applied to Norwegian and Swedish, I think.

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm not trying to make a fuss or anything, I'm just interested in the topic, but is that really true? That languages today are more complex? I found that Old English was quite a bit more complex than modern English, in grammar terms, and the same can be applied to Norwegian and Swedish, I think.

That's what I am asking Rafiq. He made the claim, a claim which could be easily verified. And by my (admittedly low level) knowledge of past languages, the only thing "more complex" would be that there are more words.

[Rooster]

That's what I am asking Rafiq. He made the claim, a claim which could be easily verified. And by my (admittedly low level) knowledge of past languages, the only thing "more complex" would be that there are more words.

Sorry, I'm recovering from dental surgery. :blushing:

[Rafiq]

Yes, that is a claim which can be verified, as we have knowledge of past languages. If you're using complex to just mean "more words," ok. But that is not what I would have thought when you said "complex."

I would suspect that more words would also mean more rules in regards to grammar and so on, so no, it doesn't just mean "More words".



That's probably because nobody alive today has ever heard a pre-neolithic language :lol:

The drawings on caves I believe is our earliest recording. Perhaps this would be interesting to check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language


You could argue certain H-G societies, but even those would be tainted by being on the outskirts of civilization.


So what would it say, if those societies, which haven't a fraction of our Language's complexity today, have such a linguistic structure, about the societies before them?


This is true. I guess it all boils down to what you meant by "complex." When you said that I was thinking things along the lines of the type and amount of rules which govern language's use... not just more words.


So you think that the usage of Language, i.e. Proper Grammer, slang, the ways in which our sentences are constructed, could exist without "More words"?


That language is used differently today than it was in the past (and differently in the past than it was in its' past). Of course this is obvious.


Alright.


Ya, I was just correcting.


Okay.


When you said (something along the lines of) "I would think this obvious, and it is the denier that must show evidence..." Perhaps I misunderstood your point..


I never said that.


I think it could be as simple as him saying that language is older than homo sapiens sapiens, and if it was inherent to the first homo sapiens sapiens, it is inherent to all of us.


A structure in our brain which has the required mechanisms to already comprehend and articulate language is absurd. Of course Language predates the homosapien sapien, the point is that his magical device was never existent in any animal. Our understanding of language is dependent on how advanced the productive forces are in said community. There is no "Pre wiring" in this.


I'm pretty sure "materialists" always say "whatever happened is what happened," and not "if it doesn't fit in with Marxism it's not materialist."


And what happened doesn't violate the several laws and tenets of Materialism, which is why Materialists exist. And Materialism is the core structural basis of Marxism, so yes, if it doesn't fit within Marxism, chances are it's not Materialist.



Ok...? But if the capacity to learn language is genetically expressed,

That's what I am arguing against. I don't see how that can be genetically expressed, and I don't see any evidence to suggest that.


and older than Homo Sapiens proper (us), then the capacity for learning language would be hard wired into the human brain... would it not?


Assuming this magical device was present within our ancestors.


Just pointing it out (mostly for the irony of anarchist Chomsky having something named the "Chomsky heirarchy" after him :lol: )

Chomsky, by my knowledge isn't against "Hierarchy". Again, he's a conservative Liberalist, whose anarchism merely extends to "Authority should be questioned".

[Rafiq]

I will link this in several threads, but I am "resigning" from posting in this thread and the rest that I have engaged in up to this specific point. I can't reply to these massively long posts in all of these threads. I'm out.

In the case of the touching women subject, it's irrelevant, and sorry, I don't feel like being barricaded with Bourgeois-Liberal trolls with no solid grounding in Marxism or Radicalism.

[Revolution starts with U]

I would suspect that more words would also mean more rules in regards to grammar and so on, so no, it doesn't just mean "More words".


Not necessarily. Again, I'm sure this is a claim that can be checked. Are older languages less complex? Latin seems like a pretty complex language to me, and I'm partially bilingual.



The drawings on caves I believe is our earliest recording. Perhaps this would be interesting to check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language

I have a fair knowledge of the theories on the origin of language. I'm not sure anybody would consider Lascaeux an expression of language, rather than art. You can argue that this is language, but then we're just talking about communication in general... so whatever, right?
Even had one considered cave paintings language, that would be written language and not spoken word.
Here's what we can say; human language, containing vowels basically, did not exist in pre-homo sapiens, even the neanderthals. The function of their throat is not set up into a way to allow such tonal expression. That doesn't mean there couldn't have been a non-voweled vocab/grammar/syntax; ie language. Indeed there is evidence that this was the case, if we assume things like tool making and burying and decorating the dead require a complex means of communication.


So what would it say, if those societies, which haven't a fraction of our Language's complexity today, have such a linguistic structure, about the societies before them?

I don't know, other than that time unfolds linearly; cause and effect. We can check melynesian language and find this out tho. I think it would be fair, probably Austro Aboriginal language would as well.



So you think that the usage of Language, i.e. Proper Grammer, slang, the ways in which our sentences are constructed, could exist without "More words"?

I don't think the rules governing grammar and syntax necessarily have to be more complex simply because there are more words. I think that's kind-of opposite of the point of language, to formalize communication.


I never said that.

Fair enough, I don't want to pursue it. (If you need a victory point there, feel free :lol: )


A structure in our brain which has the required mechanisms to already comprehend and articulate language is absurd.
Why is it absurd? I don't think anybody has taught even a chimp grammar yet. Non-humans can often learn large vocabularies, but grammar and syntax (as far as I know) has not been observed.
Obviously there is something different, and would not the most obvious assumption be that it is in the structure of the brain?


Of course Language predates the homosapien sapien, the point is that his magical device was never existent in any animal. Our understanding of language is dependent on how advanced the productive forces are in said community. There is no "Pre wiring" in this.

Why wouldn't they be? Why couldn't homo erectus have had a language passed down to us (which would fit your model, I believe).



And what happened doesn't violate the several laws and tenets of Materialism, which is why Materialists exist. And Materialism is the core structural basis of Marxism, so yes, if it doesn't fit within Marxism, chances are it's not Materialist.

Chances are, perhaps. That doesn't mean one should patently dismiss things that are materialist and non-marxist.



That's what I am arguing against. I don't see how that can be genetically expressed, and I don't see any evidence to suggest that.

The gene encodes for the formation of a structure of neurons in the brain allowing for grammar and syntax. That's not so hard to believe.


Assuming this magical device was present within our ancestors.

Short of the written word, I don't see how it would be provable either way :lol:


Chomsky, by my knowledge isn't against "Hierarchy". Again, he's a conservative Liberalist, whose anarchism merely extends to "Authority should be questioned".
Fair enough :lol: