What Kind of Creatures Are We?

by Noam Chomsky

Este libro aborda los aspectos fundamentales que definen nuestra condición humana: la exclusiva capacidad para el lenguaje, la naturaleza y los límites de la mente humana y las posibilidades del bien común en la sociedad y la política. Utilizando un lenguaje preciso y exento de tecnicismos, Chomsky examina en profundidad cincuenta años de desarrollo científico en el estudio del lenguaje, esbozando cómo su propia obra ha tenido repercusiones en la concepción de los orígenes de éste, la estrecha relación entre lenguaje y pensamiento y su eventual base biológica, pasando del ámbito del lenguaje y de la mente al de la sociedad y la política.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Linguistics, Politics, Science, Psychology, Language

196 pages, Kindle Edition

First published December 15, 2015

About the author

Avram Noam Chomsky is an American professor and public intellectual known for his work in linguistics, political activism, and social criticism. Sometimes called "the father of modern linguistics", Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science. He is a laureate professor of linguistics at the University of Arizona and an institute professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Among the most cited living authors, Chomsky has written more than 150 books on topics such as linguistics, war, and politics. In addition to his work in linguistics, since the 1960s Chomsky has been an influential voice on the American left as a consistent critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, and corporate influence on political institutions and the media.
Born to Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants (his father was William Chomsky) in Philadelphia, Chomsky developed an early interest in anarchism from alternative bookstores in New York City. He studied at the University of Pennsylvania. During his postgraduate work in the Harvard Society of Fellows, Chomsky developed the theory of transformational grammar for which he earned his doctorate in 1955. That year he began teaching at MIT, and in 1957 emerged as a significant figure in linguistics with his landmark work Syntactic Structures, which played a major role in remodeling the study of language. From 1958 to 1959 Chomsky was a National Science Foundation fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. He created or co-created the universal grammar theory, the generative grammar theory, the Chomsky hierarchy, and the minimalist program. Chomsky also played a pivotal role in the decline of linguistic behaviorism, and was particularly critical of the work of B.F. Skinner.
An outspoken opponent of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, which he saw as an act of American imperialism, in 1967 Chomsky rose to national attention for his anti-war essay "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". Becoming associated with the New Left, he was arrested multiple times for his activism and placed on President Richard M. Nixon's list of political opponents. While expanding his work in linguistics over subsequent decades, he also became involved in the linguistics wars. In collaboration with Edward S. Herman, Chomsky later articulated the propaganda model of media criticism in Manufacturing Consent, and worked to expose the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. His defense of unconditional freedom of speech, including that of Holocaust denial, generated significant controversy in the Faurisson affair of the 1980s. Chomsky's commentary on the Cambodian genocide and the Bosnian genocide also generated controversy. Since retiring from active teaching at MIT, he has continued his vocal political activism, including opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and supporting the Occupy movement. An anti-Zionist, Chomsky considers Israel's treatment of Palestinians to be worse than South African–style apartheid, and criticizes U.S. support for Israel.
Chomsky is widely recognized as having helped to spark the cognitive revolution in the human sciences, contributing to the development of a new cognitivistic framework for the study of language and the mind. Chomsky remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, U.S. involvement and Israel's role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and mass media. Chomsky and his ideas are highly influential in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements. Since 2017, he has been Agnese Helms Haury Chair in the Agnese Nelms Haury Program in Environment and Social Justice at the University of Arizona.

Reviews

[Christopher Taylor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Noam Chomsky is not known as a slouch. And there is nothing slouch-like in this book. But it is limited. That appears to be his answer to the question posed by the title.

This brief book consists of four essays: “What is language?”, “What can we understand?”, “What is the common good?” and “The mysteries of nature: How deeply hidden?”

The first two essays and the last are loosely linked. They explore the nature and the limits of some central aspects of human beings: language, cognition, scientific knowledge and the relationship between the body and the mind. There is considerable repetition between the essays and while this is not a serious problem it does give the impression that a leaner, more focused book would have been possible. However, a leaner book might have been viewed as too short to publish so this is not a major complaint. It is better to have the book as it is than not to have it at all.

The opening essay on language is dense, almost telegraphic at times. It is sprinkled with acronyms and linguistic terms that are too familiar to Chomsky for him to recognize the benefit that could be gained by explaining more and telegraphing less. That said, the key points he makes are clear: language is a unique human trait which appears to have arisen 50,000 to 100,000 years ago; language is about thought and only secondarily about communication; language design is hierarchical, not linear; language does not involve word-object relations but something much fuzzier; and, language is, at its core, mysterious.

What does this essay tell us about what kind of creatures we are? Chomsky doesn't say, although it's implicit that we are lucky – we got language by some evolutionary fluke. The other animals didn't.

The second essay is more general in scope and more obviously polemical in tone. Citing a wide range of philosophers and scientists, Chomsky makes two main points.

First, he argues that we are limited beings with a limited ability to understand. A truism in his view but one which he believes needs to be strongly asserted. He emphasizes the fundamental shift in the approach to scientific knowledge entailed in Newton's acceptance of gravity (a mysterious form of “action at a distance”) and Netwon's consequent focus on the mathematical laws of motion without attempting to explain them. In essence, common sense understanding (fortified by rigorous scientific thought) was replaced with mathematical and conceptual modeling. And science has proceeded on that basis ever since – sometimes unbeknownst to the participating scientists.

Chomsky's second point relates to the study of consciousness and the mind/body problem. He argues that, post-Newton, there is no basis for believing in any form of Cartesian dualism. Instead, it should be accepted that mind is an aspect of the body (whatever it may be) and that the mind should be studied in the same way as other scientific problems are post-Newton. There should be no methodological dualism whereby certain phenomena are studied in one way (e.g., laws of motion) and others are subject to different considerations (e.g. consciousness). He also emphasizes that we should accept that we may never understand what mind or body really are. But that should not stop us from studying them anyway.

These arguments are strong and only wobble when put into practice by individuals who refuse to apply them vigorously. If phenomena associated with gravity (which is no less mysterious in Einstein's universe than in Newton's) can be studied by science then the same should be true of the full range of mental phenomena. These latter phenomena should not be discounted or ignored because there is no common sense understanding as to what they may be or how they may occur. There should be no methodological dualism of this type either. However, this is not an area Chomsky turns his mind to.

What does this essay tell us about what kind of creatures we are? Unitary in mind-body (until proven otherwise). And limited in our understanding (until we cease to be human) .

The third essay is a stand-alone piece on the possibilities of human society for human flourishing and it comes across as a form of political-science intermission. The writing is more fluid and more comfortably polemical. The tone is more relaxed. There are no acronyms. There needn't be. Who can argue against “human development in its richest diversity”? Self-centred, greedy assholes, that's who. And that's the end of that story.

What does this essay tell us about what kind of creatures we are? Not as good as we should be.

The final essay returns to the nature of science and the limits of human understanding. Chomsky revisits most of the philosophers and scientists discussed in the second essay, plus a few more. He explores philosophical and scientific thinking over the last few centuries and lingers on the idea of panpsychism but he doesn't commit himself. The central points remains unchanged: we are limited beings with limited minds; and, the nature of the universe – whether it be called matter or matter-energy or mind-matter-energy – is unknown to us now and probably will remain so forever. The sooner we face this reality, the sooner we will be able to proceed with our study of the universe free of unreasonable expectations and unacknowledged confusions.

What does this essay tell us about what kind of creatures we are? Limited in our intelligence. But hopeful and endlessly curious.

Overall, this is an interesting book but uneven in style and somewhat repetitive. It could have been better. But it is still good.

[HillbillyWizard · Rating 1 out of 5]

The first Chomsky I had to put down. I think this piece is meant for PhD linguists who care about super intellectual, nerd impedimenta. With yawning sentences like, "Suppose X and Y are merged, and neither is part of the other, as in combining read with that book to form the syntactic object corresponding to 'read that book'." I did way too many drugs in the 80's to comprehend this sentence. Or mayhap not enough. I think I'll stick to his rants on anarchy, Manufacturing Consent and true histories with Howard Zinn.

[Jim Coughenour · Rating 5 out of 5]

A short book based on Chomsky's lectures at Columbia, composed in his usual boring* style, a deceptively simple summa of his work on language, science and society. I've been reading Chomsky's books since the 1970s. This is my favorite.

If you haven't read Chomsky before, this is probably not the best place to start.** According to Kirkus Reviews, "The writing is academic in its tenor, referencing throughout the work of philosophical luminaries such as David Hume, John Locke, Joseph Priestley, and many more. As such, general readers may find the text opaque and the narrative flow disconnected." That's one impression; mine was the opposite. Reading these lectures was like watching a great artist pick up a pencil and sketch. A few lines, and everything's there: the style of thought, a lifetime of learning and critical thinking, and above all, the integrity of the thinker.

The chapters on language and the common good cover familiar Chomsky territory, but what I found most fascinating was his elucidation of "mysterianism" – of what we can't understand – in the final chapter. The discussion of Newton, Locke, Descartes, Hume, Priestly, and Bertrand Russell is bracing, but here I'll just pull some icing from the cake:

In brief, if we are biological organisms, not angels, much of what we seek to understand might lie beyond our cognitive limits – maybe a true understanding of anything, as Galileo concluded, and Newton in a certain sense demonstrated… We might think of the natural sciences as a kind of chance convergence between our cognitive capacities and what is more or less true of the natural world. There is no reason to believe that humans can solve every problem they pose or even that they can formulate the right questions: they may simply lack the conceptual tools.

He follows this with a bit of dry Chomskyan humor: "Since the Newtonian revolution, we speak of the 'physical' world much as we speak of the 'real' truth: for emphasis, but adding nothing." and "A more appropriate formulation, I think, is to recognize that post-Newton, the concept 'physical facts' means nothing more than what the best current scientific theory postulates, hence should be seen as a rhetorical device of clarification, adding no substantive content."

It's tempting to hear echoes of Paul Feyerabend, but Chomsky is no puckish provocateur. If anything, he's logical to a fault. (But it's probably no coincidence that both he and Feyerabend are anarchists.) The intellectual clarity, probity and fearlessness evident throughout is animating, quickening, exalting. A perfect book for the first day of the year.
__________
* His own word, according to Stanley Fish.

** Instead I'd recommend Michel Gondry's "animated conversation" Is the Man Who Is Tall Happy?

[Paul Ataua · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this for a philosophy group and ended up questioning why on earth we had chosen this for discussion. Then I spent time puzzling about why the publishers had thrown this together for the general public. Four areas supposedly brought together to get Chomsky’s take on what kind of creatures we are. The first, on language was nothing new, but pitched solely at the level of those academically well versed in his theories. It was a demanding read. The other three were quite comprehensible, but annoyingly indirect. Rather than clearly stating a position, expanding it, and defending it against all-comers, the chapters just meandered through the thoughts of different philosophers, and I ended each chapter wondering what his position was exactly. On a positive note, it did send me scurrying to other sources to clear up the confusion.

[Jason Gordon · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an incredible book as it clarified Chomsky's linguistic project, which can be summed up by asking: what do we expect to discover when language is brought under naturalistic inquiry? What we expect to discover according to Chomsky is a computational procedure that accounts for the Basic Property of language (defined as an unbounded array of hierarchically structured sentences that receive interpretations at two interfaces: the sensory motor interface for externalisation and the conceptual intentional interface for mental processes). The goal of linguistics is to find the principles that govern this computational procedure which in turn delineates what languages are possible (thus human in so far as we can acquire them given our genetic endowment) and what languages are not. Since the focus is on a computational procedure and not an externalised object, language for Chomsky is internal, individual and intentional as opposed to social or external -- a point that is often missed when people discuss his theoretical views about language. In addition to clarifying Chomsky's views on language this book also has great sources pertaining to the history and philosophy of science making it doubly useful.

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 2 out of 5]

My gut tells me the author slopped together some essays or incomplete thoughts he had over the years, put them together as a slightly incoherent book labeled it as ‘what kind of creature are we’ and loosely tied them together under the rubric on the nature of thought, language, common good, and anthropological considerations on being human, and most of all dropping a lot of names of some of my favorite dead thinkers such as Kant, Hume, Leibnitz, Descartes, Russell, and probably about thirty other thinkers not to mention a lot of more modern philosophy of mind or language experts I’ve never heard about.

Why did he write this book? He covers too much with too little and name drops often in support of his positions or perhaps even in opposition to his position at times I wasn’t sure (I’m not really overly familiar with this author and so I wasn’t always sure what direction he was coming from). That’s part of the problem I had. I really don’t know what he himself was defending at times. That became a little bothersome. I know he was for ‘universal grammar’ (UG), but if all one knows about that is what one read in this book one would think it appeared as all things to all people and could not possibly be refuted thus making it an ultimate pseudo-science and best ignored.

This book is mostly trite and doesn’t tax the mind whatsoever and except for some vague defense on UG, I have no idea why the author wrote this book. He seemed to ‘atomitized’ the world and leaned towards philosophers who were defining human consciousness through experience; he seemed to think of consciousness as an emergent process (for me, I always think of the word ‘emergent’ to mean ‘I give up trying to explain and wave my hands and say that it is magic that explains that phenomenon’, read Whitehead’s Function of Reason for a defense of ‘emergence’). Often we can’t explain phenomenon because we are trapped in the paradigm that understands the phenomenon insufficiently, but he seemed to think Pierce’s abduction (appeal to best explanation) is the preferred way; that’s one way of understanding reality, but maybe not the best. There are multiple (probably about 30 or so) other items I could criticize from this very short book, but the point is that one should not be able to nitpick on so many different things from such a short book, because that clearly means the author was being too broad in his story telling.

I wouldn’t even say I fully disliked this book since it quotes from many of my favorite thinkers. But, really, tell me a coherent story better where I haven’t read it elsewhere since I had to use one credit from audible to listen to this book, and I’m already very familiar with most of the long dead philosophers he mentions.

[Kevin · Rating 3 out of 5]

When Wilhelm von Humbolt noted that language makes “infinite use of finite means” what he meant was that a limited amount of words can ultimately give rise to an unlimited variety of meanings and expressions. That little kernel of observation lies at the heart of Chomsky's linguistic postulations. Every person on earth can produce an endless array of sentences, limited only by their life experiences and the limitations of their particular language.

I get so caught up in Chomsky’s matter-of-fact political analysis and social philosophy that I sometimes forget he is, at heart, a linguistic anthropologist. What Kind of Creatures Are We? begins and ends with linguistics, but in the middle there are forays into Newtonian physics, gravitational constants, the Scottish Enlightenment, David Hume’s Treatise of Human Nature, and Bertrand Russell’s theory of relations—just to name a few.

When Chomsky writes about the functions and fallacies of modern capitalism I am with him on almost every turn. But hen he dives into complex linguistics following his train of thought is, for me, like trying to herd cats. I envision him assembling his ideas on 5x7 notecards, each one containing a paragraph of rational thought, and then shuffling them into a totally random order before sending them to some clueless typesetter for publication. Next time I read his linguistic stuff I think I’ll hire a tutor.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have a couple (couple dozen?) books on my Kindle that I bought on various whims when they were on sale. Another history of World War 1 for just $1.99? Sure! A book on poverty in the United States for $2.99? Why not? A short book purportedly covering the basic ideas of Noam Chomsky for $3.99? I’ve heard of him, why not?

So here we are. The blurb here on goodreads says something along the lines of this book presenting Chomsky’s basic ideas in accessible language. I mean, sure, I guess. But there’s a lot packed into these four essays.

Admittedly, from time to time I scroll through the dozen or so books I have from Kindle deals wondering which to read. Some I no longer have any interest in (and those 5 dollars are lost forever!). Others I am surprised I have (why do I have two books on Custer and the battle of little big horn?). Then still others, like this one, always look interesting.

Interesting it is. Definitely worth the read if you want to get some Chomsky in your life. His wide-ranging knowledge is impressive, from language and philosophy to science and politics. I think my favorite essay was the third one, “What is the Common Good.” I appreciate how Chomsky argues for an inherent, or ultimate, mysteriousness in all things. For those out there who insist science will one day explain everything, Chomsky offers a dose of reality and humility.

Overall, worth a look if you’re into philosophy…and find it on a kindle deal.

[hayatem · Rating 5 out of 5]

استعرض الكاتب والمترجم حمزة المزيني في باكورة عمله هذا المحاضرات الثلاثة التي قدَّمها عالم اللسانيات الأميركي نعوم تشومسكي برعاية من قسم الفلسفة في جامعة كولومبيا. ونُشرت في صحيفة «نيويورك تايمز» بتاريخ 9 كانون الأول 2013 .والمحاضرات كالتالي: أي نوع من المخلوقات نحن ؟ [وهو عنوان هذا الكتاب]، مالذي يمكن أن نفهمه؟ مالصالح العام؟.


" نعوم تشومسكي هو أستاذ كرسي اللسانيات والفلسفة في معهد ماساتشوستس للتقنية في أمريكا والتي عمل فيها لأكثر من خمسين عام. إضافة إلى أنه عالم إداركي وعالم بالمنطق ومؤرخ وناقد سياسي. أحد أكبر المفكِّرين في القرن الماضي، والقرن الحالي. اشتغل لأكثر من 60 عاماً، في الحقول المذكورة، وتجاوز ذلك إلى الكتابة عن الحروب والسياسة ووسائل الإعلام، وحصيلة هي أكثر من 100 كتاب. صاحب النظرية التوليدية التحويلية، التي ارتكز فيها على أسس عقلية مع نشر كتابه «التراكيب النحوية» في العام 1957م، ما انفك يراكم اشتغالاته تلك، علاوة على مناهضته لسياسات بلاده في أكثر من محفل وحراك أكاديمي. "


في أي نوع من المخلوقات نحن ؟ يطرح تشومسكي تأملاً فلسفياً عن اشتغاله العلمي خلال أعوام طويلة من حياته، في اللسانيات وعلم اللغة ( ك-فلسفة الذهن واللغة) والعلوم، وفي مجال علم الإدراك، والفلسفة السياسية والأخلاقية، واشتغالات أخرى. في ضوء تاريخ العلم والتأمل الفلسفي للفهم المعاصر. والأعلى من ذلك كله توجهه الإنساني الفريد.

يفند ويدحض المترجم حمزة المزيني في صدر الكتاب وبوسائل عدة واضحة البيان، الادعاءات المتكررة( عند النحويين العرب خاصة) التي تزعم بأن تشومسكي أخذ نظريته التوليدية من النحو العربي، و القصة التي تدعي أن تشومسكي أخذه نظرية( الربط العاملي) من سيبويه من خلال البرفسور يوسف عون. تجاوزت هذه الادعاءات المغلوطة عن تشومسكي القول بأخذه نظريته اللسانية من المصادر العربية الى الادعاء بأنه تخلى عن نظريته وبدأ يشتغل في النقد السياسي .

"لا يمكن الاطمئنان أبداً لأي شكل من أشكال القسر الذي يعترض الابداع البشري . ف القسر بحاجة إلى التسويغ دائماً. " نعوم تشومسكي .

فتح تحول المنظور إلى النحو التوليدي في إطار اللسانيات الإحيائية ، أواسط القرن العشرين ، الطريق إلى استقصاء ذي أبعاد شاسعة عن اللغة نفسها والموضوعات المرتبطة بها . وتزايد حجم المدونة [ اللغوية] التجريبية التي جاءت من لغات تنتمي إلى أنواع كثيرة من الأنماط [ اللغوية] إلى حدود بعيدة جداً ودرِست [ هذه اللغات] على مستوى من العمق لم يكن تخيله ممكناً قبل ستين عام .*

و القضية المحورية التي يتناولها تشومسكي في هذا الكتاب هي " إن... كنا كائنات أحيائية لا ملائكة ، فستكون قدراتنا الإدراكية [وأهمها اللغة في نقاشه هنا] مماثلة لتلك القدرات التي تسمى «قدرات فيزيائية » [ مادية] وينبغي أن تدرس بالطريقة نفسها تقريباً التي تدرس بها أنظمة الجسد الأخرى ."

.......".اللغة.. " قوة للربط بين أكثر الأصوات والأفكار تنوعاً

يطرح تشومسكي في الكتاب عدد من الأسئلة:
«ماللغة؟» - هل نحن مخلوقات مع اللغة، بوصف اللغة قدرة فريدة بيولوجية في الإنسان ظهرت فجأة وفي وقت متأخر جداً من قصة التطوُّر، قبل ربما 75 ألف سنة. ثم، ألم تنشأ اللغة من البيئة الاجتماعية/ الثقافية، على رغم أن البيئة توفر لوازمَ، تقوم بالمساهمة فيها لعمل اللغة تلك. هذه المساهمة هي نوع من «الإفقار»، لا يمكن حسابها إبداعاً في الأداء اللغوي، والتي لها مصدرها ليس في العالم التجريبي، بل في القدرة الفطرية، والتي هي أقوى من تحفيزها واستغلالها والتلاعب بها. إنها ترتبط بقضية ما إذا كنتَ ترغب في فهم اللغة، يجب عليك ألاَّ تنظر إلى السلوك اللغوي، بل إلى الآلية الداخلية - النحو العالمي (*). ماحدود
الفهم البشري ( إن كان ثم حدود )؟ مالصالح العام الذي ينبغي أن ننشده ؟

لا يعد تشومسكي القارئ بتقديم إجابات مرضية، بقدر مايعد بإثارة خلايا أعصابه النائمة.

من بين أكثر النقاط إثارة في الكتاب بالنسبة لي كانت حول وظيفة اللغة وتصميمها، وأضعها تحت هذا العنوان : [اللغة ليست للتواصل].

نعوم تشومسكي حالة فكرية - إنسانية فريدة من نوعها.

[Dan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Decent and brief introduction to Chomsky's ideas done by himself. All these seemingly diverse topics (language, knowledge, politics/anarchism, and mysteries) belong together simply because he was interested in them during his lifetime.

[Fredrik deBoer · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is as good of an overview of Chomsky's immense corpus of insights into cognitive science, linguistics, and politics as you're likely to ever find. It's quite serviceable in that regard, and you can get the major thrust of Chomsky's initial influence here - the rejection of behaviorism as a plausible explanation for the human language capacity, the poverty of the stimulus, language as a function of our genetic endowment, generative/universal grammar. You can also get a somewhat prosaic but efficient overview of his views on human political affairs and the depravity of American foreign policy, if that's your thing. I think what knocks this book down a peg is that it kinda sorta advertises itself as an explanation of how those two mental worlds are connected and influence one another, and that stuff seems pro forma and unconvincing and is easily the weakest part of the book.

Also the introduction, not written by Chomsky, expresses that dogged, defensive rejection of applied linguistics that's common to syntacticians, for reasons that still baffle me.

[Benjamin Stahl · Rating 3 out of 5]

Here, the formidable Mr Chomsky truly dons his linguistics hat. Fine, if you’re into that kind of thing. For an idiot like me though - someone who chooses the book solely on the merits of the author, without bothering to read the blurb, and who goes in blindly expecting a very certain kind of party - you might end up feeling somewhat perplexed.

Joking aside, this book was fine. And there was some commentary on modern political and social issues. But much of it went above my head, and at the risk of likely sounding like an absolute dick to anyone who finds linguistics exhilarating, I often felt like he really was overthinking things a bit too much. Was all this philosophising about words and sentences necessary?

[Ethan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A relatively succinct, but by no means dumbed down, overview of Chomsky's view on linguistics, cognition, politics, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of language. Only one chapter is on politics, so exclusive fans of Chomsky's politics may not enjoy this one as much. I'm particularly interested in his famous distinction between problems (that we are cognitively equipped to solve) and mysteries (that remain beyond our ken), which he applies to the history of early modern European philosophy in chapter four. I think it might provide an explanation for the entire cross-cultural history of philosophy and human thought more generally. What kind of creatures are we? Apparently not the kind that can unravel deep issues concerning language, mind, reality, etc. But, according to Chomsky, recognizing our limitations need not be depressing. Rather, mysteries give us a framework within which we can engage those problems we are equipped to solve.

(See also my blog review: http://examinedworlds.blogspot.com/20...)

[Chuy Ruiz · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting little book. Only 127 pages, but man it touches on a lot of topics. Lunguistics, evolution, the evolution of language, politics(because I don't thin Chomsky can write a book without talking about politics lol), morality, the nature of knowledge, the nature of what we can even know, the difference between mind and matter and the relationship between the two. It dragged a bit sometimes, when citing what other scientists or philosophers have said about certain things, but overall an engaging read.

[Chris Merola]

A true brain grinder. Our boy scribes eye-bleeding, read-three-times-to-maybe-grasp sentences that add up to: we really don't know a lot, and we may never know much more. You can nom a fistful of shrooms and come to the same conclusion, would be a lot more pleasurable 😅

Jokes aside, there's something really humbling and reassuring to Chomsky's thoughts here. He's grappling with the limits of the questions we can answer about our nature - can a rat understand how it solves a maze, why it likes cheese? Can a fishie describe wetness? In a world of people across vast domains/professions confidently declaring certainty, it's affirming to see one of the most well-read scholars of our time be like "shit, I dunno"

The cherry on top is that, despite his epistemic concerns, Chomsky has never wavered in his pursuit of the common good. His political positions have remained remarkably clear and courageous for over half a century. We don't need to know why or how we experience consciousness to know what liberty is.

[Wu Shih · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tre lezioni sull'uomo che si possono riassumere, semplificando:
1. Il linguaggio è intimamente legato al nostro corredo genetico e serve più per pensare che per comunicare
2. La conoscenza umana ha dei limiti intrinseci alla sua natura con buona pace del mondo scientifico classico
3. Il bene comune, o la sua forma più completa, ha le sue radici nello sviluppo di forme di autorganizzazione dal basso, nella consapevolezza e nella partecipazione

Un testo carino che si legge in poco tempo, abbastanza interessante, ma non imprescindibile.

[Luzie · Rating 2 out of 5]

This seems more like a study guide rather than a self contained book, mentioning a lot of theories and people and leaving it to the reader to figure out what to think about them. With its long, meandering sentences and frequent name dropping, it is also not easy to follow. I frequently got lost and found it hard to piece together, what he thinks about the theories and people he mentions, and what his own views on the topics are. And I still don’t know what point he was trying to make with this book.

[Daan Konink · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dit is een erg interessant boek waar ik soms wel wat moeilijk doorheen kwam. Het hoofdstuk "what is the common good?" sprak me erg aan om de politieke analyse. Met name het laatste hoofdstuk was erg moeilijk door te komen omdat er best wel wat achtergrondkennis is vereist over filosofie, natuurkunde, Newton enzovoorts. Het hoofdstuk over de taalwetenschap vereist ook echt wel wat achtergrondkennis over de taalwetenschap.

[Jessica Zu · Rating 5 out of 5]

so, 1940s the leading liberal intellectuals wanted to protect property owners from poor people without violence, a democracy led by bankers, elite people…

[Gary Moreau · Rating 4 out of 5]

MIT’s Professor Chomsky is a leading scientist-philosopher and political theorist with special contributions in the areas of theoretical linguistics and cognitive science. Both topics are as dry as they sound upon utterance, but both lead to grand implications for the question “What Kind of Creatures Are We?”

If you are like me you might think of language as it relates to words. In fact, Chomsky seems to have little interest in words themselves and occupies himself with the much broader issues of What is Language? What Can We Understand? and What is the Common Good?, the latter relating very much to the former.

The author defines two types of language. Inner language is the medium of thought. Outer language is the medium for communication. And the latter is of far less significance; an after-thought if you will excuse the tortured but initially unconscious pun.

Ultimately Chomsky uses this distinction to destroy, quite convincingly, the idea that language is a human invention, an artificial convention brought into existence for our efficiency and effectiveness in communication. It is, he argues, quite biological, unique to humans, and only recently introduced when mapped against the grand timeline of evolution. It didn’t, he argues, evolve in some slow methodical way and does not continue to evolve today. It burst forth in some inexplicable leap we now think of as consciousness.

Much of this short but powerful work is devoted to Newton. Or, more precisely, the pre-Newtonian era of science when reality and everything in it was considered to be mechanical, a machine that we could eventually reverse engineer and replicate. And the post-Newtonian era, where reality is know to be “action at a distance” (i.e. gravity, or the “properties of attraction and repulsion”), a world of invisible forces that, in the end, lend themselves better to scientific representation than scientific discovery or explanation.

This inevitably leads to the acceptance, so successfully argued by Chomsky, that there are many mysteries of reality that we will never fully understand. And that’s okay. That doesn’t discredit what we do know so long as we keep an open mind.

Much of what we currently refer to as science, however, is mapping or representation. It is not understanding. It provides a viable theory of reality, but does not expose that reality’s origin or true nature. It promotes an empirical worldview that is valid, but overly rigid, and ultimately incomplete.

One of the more fascinating revelations of the book is not a revelation at all, but something I hadn’t previously ever considered in all of its glory. That is the fact that language is a system that uses a finite number of elements to create an infinite number of hierarchically structured expressions or outcomes. And an equally mind-boggling truth, the path from finite to infinite cannot be mapped in any sense we can comprehend or communicate as a pattern. There are too many exceptions to every potential rule to be remotely systematic.

In the latter part of the book Chomsky leaps from language to politics. He correctly notes that Adam Smith, as others have likewise pointed out, would be appalled at what we call democracy and free market capitalism today. Smith pointedly noted, although this part of his work appears to have been conveniently lost to history, that the division of labor, while generating great wealth, would ultimately destroy our humanity and inevitably result in a rigid and authoritarian plutocracy. How right he was.

This leads to one of the more informed and enlightened discussions of anarchy that I have ever come across. If you can jettison the indoctrinated vision of anarchy as lawlessness and the irresponsible destruction of property you will see that anarchy describes the America we swear allegiance to but almost never actually act upon; more akin to the belief system of the Quakers than the politicians and capitalists who currently run the show for their own exclusive benefit.

A wonderful book, although not for those who find the language of philosophy too cumbersome to be worth the effort. (Hence the 4 for those most likely to read this.) There is something quite empowering about accepting the reality of mystery and the knowledge that we will never know everything. I was left with one enduring question, however. Do we know more, or can we know more, internally than we can ever communicate externally? And what kind of creature would that make us and what impact does that have on our society and the institutions that are its foundation?

[Jonty Watt · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting to hear the ruminations of such an important thinker on a wide variety of topics. The moments of insight are dispersed somewhat widely between meandering chaff, but Chomsky does manage to be compelling even when decidedly indirect. I get the impression that he speaks on a wider variety of topics than his expertise would really qualify him to, leading to some quite remarkable (and, to my unlearned mind, implausible) claims. Surely the most incredible of these is the insistence that the gastrointestinal tract can have autism (about which my own bemused internet research has dredged up not a thing).

[Kevin Doyle · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is written by Chomsky himself and is by far, to my mind, the best short overview of what he thinks and what is important about what he has to say. Sections of the book are not an easy read, but if you are interested in fundamental questions such as who we (humans) are and what we are about, you will likely be prepared for hurdles such as these. I did not take notes as I read this book – tut, tut - so I cannot accurately synopsise it for this micro review. All the same the breath of Chomsky’s knowledge, interest and intent are apparent from my read of the four essays which make up the book. Chomsky is an indefatigable defender of the human spirit, our creativity and freedom loving (and needing) nature. Here one is made aware of how much he has given academically as well as politically to this venture. A highly rewarding read.

[Shaimaa]

The back cover delivers the gist of it.

My only complaint is that this book is not written in an "accessible" fashion; in fact, if I were not a linguistics student myself, I wouldn't have read through the whole book. Don't let the small size of the book fool you -- this is the most cognitively demanding text I've ever read by Chomsky, and the least accessible one (needless to say that I'm not an expert, neither have I read much of his work).

This book deserves multiple readings, so I will save my rating and my detailed review for my next reread insha'Allah.

[Chaunceton Bird · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although the title seems to suggest a more familiar philosophical subject matter, this short book packs an esoteric punch. The first half is pretty thick linguistic sludge that is all but inviting. I was hoping Captain Chomsky would tone it down a bit for us laymen, but that hope was unrealized. Noam Chomsky's intellect is remarkable, and this little volume is an excellent peak into how he thinks about language, thinking, and being.

[David Wiik · Rating 3 out of 5]

An advanced book for me personally, but written in a straight to the point kind of manner, about language, human nature and our achievements and challenges. I haven't paid that much attention to the political aspect of the book, but Chomsky has definitely made me think critically about history, economics and politics.

[Alex Johnston · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dense and meandering - I blasted this audiobook into my brain with both barrels. Language is thought with (or without!) sound. The fact that the human brain is a physical object means there are things we cannot understand. Also there was some anarchist history in there, not sure where that came from, kind of out of left field. Thanks Noam.

[Dale · Rating 4 out of 5]

Language, cognition, the common good, and the limits of the knowable: an excellent guide to Chomsky's current views.

[benj landman · Rating 2 out of 5]

although majority of the lingo looped my head, moments of clarity were enriching

[Sarah Cupitt · Rating 3 out of 5]

Understanding begins with accepting what we can't understand

“Communication is not a yes-or-no but rather a more-or-less affair.”

“If we are biological organisms, not angels, then our cognitive faculties are similar to those called “physical capacities” and should be studied much as other systems of the body are.”

“the man whose life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects too are, perhaps, always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding… and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to be…. But in every improved and civilized society this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it.”

Notes:
- Take a simple phrase like "red house." Your brain merges these two elements into a new unit, which can then merge with other elements to form more complex structures. This operation is the foundation of all human language, and it's remarkably different from anything found in the animal kingdom.
- how language works: it operates based on structural relationships, not simple linear order
- A crucial distinction arises between what Chomsky calls problems and mysteries. On the one hand, problems are questions that fall within your cognitive architecture's capacity to solve – like understanding cause and effect, or recognizing faces. Mysteries, on the other hand, might permanently exceed human comprehension due to the fundamental structure of our brains.
- when you read "the unicorn danced through the quantum realm," your mind effortlessly constructs meaning from concepts that have never existed in physical reality. This example shows how language functions as the operating system of human thought. Your brain combines abstract symbols in ways that transcend simple reference, creating new meanings that have never existed before.
-When you use a word like "democracy" or "justice," you're activating what linguists call atomic concepts, fundamental units of meaning that can't be broken down further.
- tension between elite control and democratic self-organization directly affects how human cognitive capacities can develop. Modern experiments in worker-owned enterprises and participatory democracy show practical alternatives to traditional power structures. When workers control their workplace, when communities manage their own resources, human creativity and potential flourish in ways that conventional systems suppress
-

[Luis Cervantes · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nunca había sentido tanta la necesidad de releer un libro como esto. Es una joya. Creo que al menos los capítulos uno, dos y cuatro son lecturas que todo científico debería hacer a lo largo de su carrera. Los primeros dos por hacer notar las constricciones que como entes biológicos que somos los humanos tiene nuestro lenguaje, y que por tanto transmitimos a la ciencia. Esto es vital en la medida que la ciencia de este siglo va a incorporar herramientas para la descripción y prescripción del mundo que pueden librarse de estas limitantes (por ejemplo, la linealidad del pensamiento que no necesariamente tiene que acarrear la inteligencia artificial o, aún más, la inteligencia artificial cuántica).

Es un texto corto, y es difícil porque espera del lector un bagaje intelectual más o menos extenso, pero quizá no exhaustivo. Incorpora muchos conceptos y discusiones filosóficas históricas que no explica sobre la marcha. Sin embargo, creo que teniendo una idea de temas como la filosofía cartesiana, la discusiones de Locke y Hume, el problema mente-cuerpo, el materialismo newtoniano, los problemas “soft” y “hard” de la consciencia, las discusiones de Russell y Wittgenstein sobre la creación de una metamatemática, y las posturas realista y anti realista en filosofía de la ciencia, uno puede más o menos seguirle el hilo (pero también me perdí en muchas cosas por no conocer a muchos de los autores que va mencionando).

Creo que Chomsky habla como si estuviera discutiendo en un bar con un amigo igual de letrado que él. Por ejemplo, empieza a hablar de una tal “Mary” a secas, sin decir que se refiere al problema de la habitación de Mary sobre los sentidos. De igual forma con otras analogías que no caché a qué tema se refería.

El tercer capítulo me gustó, sobre el anarquismo y otras cosas, pero la verdad, así por encima, parece un poco fuera de lugar en relación a los otros tres capítulos.

La neta me duele la cabeza, ya voy a dejar de leer cosas así, jajajaj.