FETZER ON CHOMSKY: Linguistics & 9/11 (snowshoefilms)

James H. Fetzer, prof. of philosophy (U.of Minnesota, Duluth, ret.), critiques Noam Chomsky's linguistics and Chomsky's noted acceptance of the official 9/11 story, the basis for the 'war on terrorism'. Jim Fetzer is the author of The Evolution of Intelligence which challenges Chomsky and Jerry Fodor "and the thesis that learning a language requires a language learning module..." Our view is that while language is a crucial step toward 'consciousness', it is not consciousness, it does not imply consciousness. For a more metaphorically exacting description of consciousness, see Julian Jaynes Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Jaynes posits a pre-conscious (bicameral) era - a highly civilized era, in a sense - that gave way to our 'conscious' era, an era and a phenomenon carefully defined by the Princeton psychologist. (snowshoefilms yoryevrah ranxer nerak

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Fetzer
• Noam
• Chomsky
• linguistics
• Fodor
• 9/11
• acceptance
• conspiracy
• C-SPAN
• left
• gatekeeper
• snowshoefilms
• yoryevrah

[Yoryevrah]

to memeticverb: in the words of David Ray Griffin, let's get empirical. What evidence do you have for your flippant charge that Fetzer is a left gatekeeper? because he has a different view on what technology brought down the WTC buildings? such charges are made too easily.

[SFwizardoakland]

because we are talking a heavy scholastic scientific biological aproach to language that frankly has nothing to do with 911 and dumb as fetzer is trying to make it so...and I do believe 911 was inside job but who cares weather chomsky does, he is still right about linguistics you morons.

[moorooduc]

i find this video somewhat disappointing. there is NO connection between chomsky's linguistic theories and his political writings. since you connect the two issues, your aim seems to be "chomsky bashing". this absurd combination of unrelated topics weakens your argument, which i share some of. however, you'are suposed to tear to shreds the person AND NOT the well-respected person. the whole video is is disgrace for scientific reasoning.

[1melahat]

Is Webster Tarpely legit or a gate keeper like Chomsky?

[niriop]

Recent evidence for universal sound symbolism points further towards some form of innate semantics; there's a great lay article by New Scientist called "Kiki or bouba? In search of language's missing link" on their website about it.

Fetzer's syntactic emergentism stills fails to the recognise the comparable grammatical rules that underlie all known languages; no distinct variations have yet to come about; so either grammar is an inside job, or there is a form of innate syntax in the human mind.

[clerkhog]

@SFwizardoakland chomsky would'nt be taken seriously if he were to engage in conspiracy theorys. and he would'nt get the attention he does if he did. he captivates people on the overall issues. he still says the american goverment is the biggest terrorist state in the world. so what if unified evindence, showed up to say 911 was an inside job. he'd still be right.

[cryptickripke]

He also says you can "call on your concepts" without syntax. But how do you link those concepts up? Like "ball" and "red," leading to "red ball;" and "red ball" and "in the air," leading to "the red ball is in the air." This is syntax, and it can't be acquired from the environment. Whatever elements of syntax are unacquired are Universal Grammar. The only people who deny that UG exists are people like Fetzer who just don't understand the ideas involved.

[cryptickripke]

Fetzer doesn't understand the difference between concepts and linguistic ability--since a child can throw a ball, she obviously has the concept "ball." So "ball", plus the right linguistic stimulus, leads to her ability to use the word "ball." But how does the child know how to construct sentences she hasn't heard before? How can the child distinguish between sentences she hears? How can the child understand the relationship between elements of a sentence? The form of grammar must be unacquired.

[frantorazzo]

That someone's opinion differs to Fetzer's on a particular point is not enough to mark them as morally bankrupt. Chomsky has brought more dissent to bear on the establishment than any other intellectual alive today. The real disappoinment here is the failure of public dissidents like Fetzer and Chomsky (and many others) to unite over their shared aims instead of arguing endlessly over the few points they disagree on. This failure to unite and organize plays right into the establishment's hands.

[bofors7715]

Pot calling the kettle black does not quite capture the absurdity of this, but it is close in simplistic sense.

[sssssjjjj1]

fetzer a gatekeeper. hahahahhahaa That is soooo stupid. Fetzer is a man among boys. He is true blue and chomsky is concerned with his zion masters, period. Have you read the talmud. REad a bit of it and you'll see why he takes this position. Like the masons, it is stated in their literature, it is out there on google in the archives that a mason even if their "brother" mason is on trial even for murder, they will lie to get them off the charge. This is fact. The talmud is for psychos.

[Blissentia]

@marx102

9/11 was a part of a military doctrine called "The Revolution In Military Affairs", the end goal of which the military calls "full spectrum dominance": revolutioninmilitaryaffairs (DOT) com/about/