Chomsky is just screwing off

that is know as the “homunculus fallacy”. It works like this.

there is a man, how does he have language? well, there is a “little man” inside him that has language. Chomsky calls them “mental organs” but it is the same fallacy. So how does the little man know language? Oh, let’s talk about that later.
The concept does not explain the phenomena, it just dodges understanding it. It is an attempt to avoid metaphysics. but it does not work.

This happens all the time in artificial intelligence, Computational linguistics and cognitive science “research” and it totally bogus. Chomsky’s linguistics work is just as bogus as his political crap if you as me, at least from a computational,scientific POV. There is nothing to implement, mostly because of this fallacy and ones like it.

Wittgenstein is about issues about language and formalisms, not moral truth. it is not about metaphysics much. He seems not very interested in this.

I am coming more from the judeo-christian heritage, by way of Plato and Plotonious.

Really eggplant, it is a longer discussion about morality than I can have right now because I have to go.

But Empiricism is a method, not truth in and of itself. Mathematical truth, for example, lies outside of its scope. I would argue so does morality. Empiricism works best in science because it has no ontology, no theory of meaning, it is only descriptive and predictive. Using it for aquiring moreal truth borders on Scientism. I wanted to get at it less from philosophical stance than more a philosophically backed theological stance.

but I want to get back to you about it because i actually thing it is important.

I think that is it crucial to be clear about these things for positivism leads to the errors of “scientific socialism”.

I think ultimately we have to talk about morality in the metaphysical sense (in the sense of epistemology, ontology, etc., not in some “New Age” sense). It come down to notions about the true nature of mankind, of Good, Truth and Beauty, and that to me is a discussion about absolutes, and thus God.

Marxisms is an outrage because it defines man in terms of materialistic determinism. But he is much much more than that. This is what we mean by placing Liberty above security. This is precisely the problem we have with the Marxists, and what must be defeated. But I will get back to you later about it.