Editing Noam Chomsky (section)

==Philosophy==
Chomsky has also been active in a number of philosophical fields, including [[philosophy of mind]], [[philosophy of language]], and [[philosophy of science]].{{sfn|McGilvray|2014|p=19}} In these fields he is credited with ushering in the "[[cognitive revolution]]",{{sfn|McGilvray|2014|p=19}} a significant [[paradigm shift]] that rejected [[logical positivism]], the prevailing philosophical methodology of the time, and reframed how philosophers think about [[language]] and the [[mind]].{{sfn|Szabó|2010}} Chomsky views the cognitive revolution as rooted in 17th-century [[Rationalism|rationalist]] ideals.{{sfn|Friesen|2017|p=46}} His position—the idea that the mind contains inherent structures to understand language, perception, and thought—has more in common with rationalism than behaviorism.{{sfn|Greif|2015|p=313}} He named one of his key works [[Cartesian linguistics|''Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought'']] (1966).{{sfn|Friesen|2017|p=46}} This sparked criticism from historians and philosophers who disagreed with Chomsky's interpretations of classical sources and use of philosophical terminology.{{efn|name=rationalism|
* {{harvnb|Hamans|Seuren|2010|p=377}}: "Having achieved a unique position of supremacy in the theory of syntax and having exploited that position far beyond the narrow circles of professional syntacticians, he felt the need to shore up his theory with the authority of history. It is shown that this attempt, resulting mainly in his Cartesian Linguistics of 1966, was widely, and rightly, judged to be a radical failure"}} In the philosophy of language, Chomsky is particularly known for his criticisms of the notion of reference and meaning in human language and his perspective on the nature and function of mental representations.{{sfn|Cipriani|2016|pp=44–60}}

Chomsky's famous [[Chomsky–Foucault debate|1971 debate]] on [[human nature]] with the French philosopher [[Michel Foucault]] was a symbolic clash of the [[analytic philosophy|analytic]] and [[continental philosopher|continental]] philosophy traditions, represented by Chomsky and Foucault, respectively.{{sfn|Greif|2015|pp=312–313}} It showed what appeared to be irreconcilable differences between two moral and intellectual luminaries of the 20th century. Foucault held that any definition of human nature is connected to our present-day conceptions of ourselves; Chomsky held that human nature contained universals such as a common standard of moral justice as deduced through reason.{{sfn|Greif|2015|p=315}} Chomsky criticized [[postmodernism]] and [[French philosophy]] generally, arguing that the obscure language of postmodern, leftist philosophers gives little aid to the working classes.{{sfnm|1a1=Barsky|1y=1997|1pp=192–195|2a1=Sperlich|2y=2006|2p=53}} He has also debated analytic philosophers, including [[Tyler Burge]], [[Donald Davidson (philosopher)|Donald Davidson]], [[Michael Dummett]], [[Saul Kripke]], [[Thomas Nagel]], [[Hilary Putnam]], [[Willard Van Orman Quine]], and [[John Searle]].{{sfn|Szabó|2010}}

Chomsky's contributions span [[intellectual history|intellectual]] and world history, including the history of philosophy.{{sfn|Otero|2003|p=416}} Irony is a recurring characteristic of his writing, such as rhetorically implying that his readers already know something to be true, which engages the reader more actively in assessing the veracity of his claims.{{sfn|McGilvray|2014|p=162}}