I believe that you seek truth as a philosopher like Socrates.
The following comment on Analytical philosophy and on your Universal Grammar was published in the most popular website in North America, Creaders.net, in Chinese (http://bbs.creaders.net/education/bbsviewer.php?trd_id=1012677&blog_id=199910).
As the writer I feel it is not fair to you if you are not aware of it. So I provide you with the title of the comment and will translated the entire essay for you if you are interested. Thanks for your time reading it.
"From Chomsky’s "Universal Grammar" Trace How Philosophy of Language Analysis Leads Philosophy into a Dead End"
--This appears to be a translation of a very poor article that appeared in the NY Review a few years ago. Several responses were published pointing out the serious errors and misunderstandings of the author.
--Can you show your evidence and how you reach this consensus?
--You can find the responses in the NY Review, online. There are two letters, one by philosopher Sylvain Bromberger, the other by me, responding to Searle’s complete misunderstanding of Bromberger’s thorough refutation of his claims.
If you have a specific question, let me know.
--I came upon Searle's comment on your book by chance. Actually, I did not base my opinion on his - just I happened to see his comment on your project and believe that your major theory of UG launched in the 50's - now 60 years later - probably has not, since that time, been growing as fast as you expected. But if I am wrong, please tell me and I will apologize. The major reason for my claim is that I formed a philosophy called "Instance" - the electronic version of the book I sent to you. With which, I can see problems with Roddy's, Wittgenstein's and Kant's problems too (I feel that you were influence by them in forming your theory somehow.). I assume you don't know enough Chinese to read my book and wish you have other faculties or grads who can translate my book for you. But the bigger problem from the past two years since I wrote it is that I haven't see any philosopher who can understand what I am talking about - although I have tried very hard to explain. As I believe in seeking truth as you do, that's why I gathered enough strength to write to you.
If I cause any discomfort on your feelings, pls forgive me and I won't bother you any more.
--No discomfort at all. Glad to clarify the issue if I can. Afraid I can’t read Chinese. Sorry to hear about the difficulties you are facing – not unusual, unfortunately.
Searle never understood the theories of the ‘50s, and was completely confused about developments since. It’s quite remarkable that a journal like the NY Review, which purports to be a serious intellectual journal, would select a reviewer who understands nothing about the topic.
--OK, Searle aside, do you believe in the past more than half century later, your UG project is what you expected today? Or you are still as confident as you were 60 years ago on it? If you are (honestly of course), I am wrong. Else I claim that I know why.
--The project has advanced far beyond what I could possibly have anticipated 50 years ago. And is by now far more firmly established.
--Thank you for your earnest reply. I will find out where I am wrong. According to my theory, if UG is functioning well, then, there should be "common programming grammar" for all computer software and AI; "common formula for generating math logic, math itself, even for generating dreams, morality, even beauty, love, etc. because they are all in the same category - the products of brain - the reason is if one, UG, succeeds, so do others too. Agree?
Pls don't reply any more for I take too much of your time. I am very honored to talk to you.
Have a good night!
BR,
--UG is part of biology, on a par with the theory of the genetic endowment UMV that provides us with a mammalian rather than insect visual system. It’s not relevant to UMV that television works differently, let alone dreams, morality, etc.
--Thanks prof. I will study more of your work.Good night,
