Focault and Chomsky

I'm not really sure what a blog is supposed to be, but I've read in the Blogger introduction that a blog is a good place to keep things, like where one is at. I just watched this, and I at least thought it was interesting, so, I'll blog it I guess. Gotta start somewhere I guess.


A good friend recommended this: Part 1 and Part 2 .

My first introduction to Chomsky was through a .mp3 of Chomsky's speech on Linguistics at the University of New Hampshire at Durham, published by Radio Free Maine. I'd acquired it from a friend who had acquired it from who knows where, but I didn't listen to it for probably 3 years or so after getting it. One day I listened to it, and I found he presented a very interesting picture of language.

I listened to it again over the course of the last couple of days, and something out of it came up in a conversation I had - with the same good friend who had suggested the links above. Particularly, Chomsky said (and I'm interpreting) that a dictionaries don't really contain actual knowledge, it only contains clues, i.e., this information is already in our heads; the dictionaries just have enough clues to help us figure out what we already know.

I got to thinking about that, and came to the realization that this is a very Socratic notion of language. To Socrates, there were the Forms, which people knew, but forgot at birth. The process of learning was not of experience, but remembering what was already known - which is exactly what I believe Chomsky is saying.

I've since listened to more of Chomsky, but that might be a conversation for a later time...

As for Focault, I don't know too much about him. The good friend who recommended the debate above, has mentioned him before. I've looked him up, but I haven't had a chance to read any of his work yet. I tried to find it at the local library, but the Philosophy section there almost made me cry, and I wasn't quite ready to purchase a book of his yet.

My first impressions weren't too favorable, though, but then again, they are just first impressions. He seemed a little caught up in the very thing Chomsky was talking about in the video. I believe Chomsky was talking about progress within the means of what we have, while Focault was talking about fixing what we have before progressing. I don't know if I'm right on that or not, the video was a little hard for me to follow.

Also, Focault's excitement at possibly catching Chomsky in a logic trap seemed a little petty to me.

By the way, it was in a conversation with that same friend that I decided to create a blog, so here it is, and here I blog.

Hope you enjoy!