[lbo-talk] The postmodern prince

[C. G. Estabrook]

from the examples he gives, I think what Chomsky means by a simple idea is
first of all that it's not a theory.  I think he would consider his
fundamental insights about language (e.g., so-called innateness) simple
ideas, although his work has clearly been an attempt to fashion some
theories about language.

He has claimed that for almost all the subjects his MIT colleagues work on,
he can find someone who can give him a straightforward and simple account
of what they think. That that cannot be done for what some literary
scholars have been calling theory for a generation is for him an
indication that there is something profoundly wrong with it.  And that
seems plausible to me. --CGE

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Doug Henwood wrote:


> Why should an explanation of a long complex evolution that takes a lot
> of work emerge as "simple"? There's no royal road to knowledge, as the
> old guy said.
> 
> Doug