/lit/ - Literature

>>10525982
>Where to start

On Language. If you are interested in his political views thats hard to say. Mainly depends on what you are interested in since he has quite a few books on politics

>reddit tier "philosopher"

No. People who actually study philosophy of language and logic understand how important linguistics is to their discipline and Chomsky is their giant for a reason. He has a strong understanding of Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, Strawson, Putnam, Kripke, etc. You can disagree with him on what he thinks, for example you might disagree with his attempt at giving an explanatory theory before finding certainty in some elucidation in some notion that we find intuitive. You might think its a good idea instead to build parameters around the word "meaning" and then build a theory once you have this idealization.

He disagrees and follows Wittgenstein, and even in a sense Frege, that you need context before you can elucidate this or that word or concept.

That isnt reddit level unless you think Wittgenstein and Kripke are reddit level, since thats what they spent a great deal of time grappling with.

But maybe you heard that when they were referring to his political work. Politics is difficult so I wont bother saying who is worthwhile and if Chomsky is one of them. I dont know.

>>10431119
>>10431198
Well I guess that depends on what you mean by saying "the world in language"

For Wittgenstein a fact is a possible state of affairs which is the case. The world is supposed to be "my world", because of how he sees propositions working through logic.

So when he says the world, take it as the world from the view of a solopsist. A fact is what is the case in that world. I wont get into the nitty-gritty of how propositions work and what logical space is, but if that view is correct then yes, the world really is just a collection of facts until you take the analysis further into what is and isnt nonsense. Then that question is just confused.