Comments on: Column: Noam Chomsky Walks into a Bar

By: David Erik Nelson

David Erik Nelson — Fri, 16 Aug 2013 20:45:04 +0000

OK, that LOLed me, as the sort of meta-DFW version of the gag.

By: Patrick Powers

Patrick Powers — Sun, 11 Aug 2013 22:42:23 +0000

Werner Heisenberg, Kurt Gödel, and Noam Chomsky walk into a bar. Heisenberg turns to the other two and says, “While this seems to be real, it could be a joke. How can we determine whether or not this is real?” Gödel replies, “If it is real it is funny, but if it is a joke it is not. Jokes are funny, but cruel reality is not. Either way we get a contradiction. Our status as a joke cannot be determined from within this system.” Chomsky says, “I never tell jokes, so I can’t help you.” Then the author of the joke says, “Of course it’s funny. You’re just telling it wrong.”

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Sun, 28 Jul 2013 15:05:38 +0000

@5: And of course while that was directed to you, Dave, it’s really for everyone else. :-)

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Sun, 28 Jul 2013 13:07:21 +0000

“The way to change minds…”

“Only then do I get to be rational.”

You’ve done one of those things (along the lines of an assumption) that Chomsky referred to. You’ve forgotten that communication isn’t always just between two people – there can be observers, like us readers, or some other audience, who, by dint of not being as egoistically invested in the process, can often be more objective and open minded toward “rational discussion”. So it’s not “nonsense”, at least not entirely, and you (and we) have other opportunities to be rational.

From my seat here on the couch I’d say that your case for the Political Chomsky and the LInguistic Chomsky being at odds with one another is a little weaker than you imagined when you wrote it.

By: Maria Huffman

Maria Huffman — Sun, 28 Jul 2013 03:08:53 +0000

Great article. I don’t agree with Noam Chomsky’s conclusions, but great article.

By: Daniel O'Neil

Daniel O'Neil — Thu, 25 Jul 2013 23:14:44 +0000

One additional thought: I think that your discussion at the end misinterprets Chomsky’s point about linguistic communication. He does NOT believe that the transmission method is inadequate; he is only arguing that the grammar structure we use is not the most intrinsically efficient, assuming that transmission method was a consideration during the message’s creation.

There’s a lot of good evidence that indicates the signal to noise ratio for language is actually pretty good, if nothing else because it’s unbelievably informationally redundant. Point being that if people are able to think clearly about what they want to say, they can usually say it and have it be understood by another native speaker.

So, it’s not a transmission problem. It is, I think, closer to the issue of cognitive dissonance you describe. The reason Chomsky argues that language and politics are separate is because he’s saying, “look, the fact that you need to have the courage to absorb what I’m saying is not because you won’t be able to because of inherent problems with linguistic transmission. It may, however, be a heavy problem for you to deal with existentially”.

And then, as a corollary, as all visionaries do, he says, “are you up for the challenge?”. Some folks do come around to his worldview, you know. I certainly have changed my thinking on some stuff because of him.

I love that you created a context where we can have this discussion. Lots to think about.

By: Daniel O'Neil

Daniel O'Neil — Thu, 25 Jul 2013 22:42:39 +0000

Great interview. One thing that occurs to me is that Chomsky’s assertion about sequential versus structural grammar being a result of an artifact requiring thoughts be expressed linearly is making the assumption that sequential grammar is informationally sufficient and, in fact, computationally simpler than structural grammar. There are mathematical models that would argue against both these assertions. So, I disagree with that part of his logic.

By: Mark Koroi

Mark Koroi — Thu, 25 Jul 2013 21:59:51 +0000

Noam Chomsky is one of the most authoritative figures in America.

He pioneered the field of psycholinguistics and has taught at MIT since 1955.

He worked on a kibbutz in Israel and later became a top scholar on the issue of Israel/Palestine relations. He visited Gaza just before the commencement of the November 2012 armed conflict with Israel in solidarity with Palestinians.