Arash quoted Steven Pinker and Ray Jackendoff:
> “This view of human nature may be the hidden variable that accounts
> for
> Chomsky’s otherwise disparate beliefs. In the political arena,
> Chomsky’s
> “anarcho-syndicalism” assumes that humans are equipped with a
> spontaneous
> tendency to cooperate and to engage in productive, creative work
> for its
> own sake…. In the linguistic arena, Chomsky posits a system for
> productive, creative generation of an infinite number of sentences, a
> system which allows for the expression of thought for its own sake
> but is
> not designed for (and not even particularly good at) the practical
> function of communication.”
Chomsky's "disparate beliefs" are human phenomena. Consistency with the explanatory framework of "evolutionary psychology" requires that they be explained in terms consistent with this framework. How is this explanation of them in terms of Chomsky's "view of human nature" consistent with explaining them in terms of a "reproductive strategy"?
Ted