Chomsky 2003

[Jose-Luis Mendivil]

At 11:55 +0100 6/2/02, Miquel Serra wrote:

>There is an intriguing question about Chomsky that may be someone
>can clarify to me: the apparent contradiction, between his
>theoretical postulates and his courageous political ideas and
>compromise  - his contribution at the Porto Alegre conference and
>the other over the years have my deepest admiration and gratitude -.
>But it is difficult for me to understand, from the european
>political frame of ideologies,  when he confesses, for exemple,
>that he is "nativist because he is anarchist". I have never well
>understood this association. Has someone?

Hi, Miquel and all:

To begin with, I must confess that I consider myself generativist
(i.e. I think that Chomsky's "method" of inquiry is essentially right
and that Richman's pamphlet is essentially wrong) and that I admire
Chomsky's compromise and political ideas too.

But I also belive that the causal association between both Chomsky's
facets (scientific and political) is always 'a posteriori' and
untenable (Barsky's biography is a good example of a weak and
unsuccessful attempt to establish that connection).
You can believe that there is an UG as a biological property of the
species and simultaneously you can prefer the Davos Forum to the
Porto Alegre conference.

Of course, if there is not a necessary connection, there is not an
apparent contradiction either.

Best regards,
Jose-Luis.