No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Geoffrey Sampson: Liberty and Language
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2010
Extract
This book should be of interest to philosophers because it shows how important empiricist/rationalist debates are to a large range of issues. Sampson is a defender of empiricism, of liberalism, and of a tie between them. He has produced a sustained attack on Chomsky's Cartesianism and on his political views. He tells us that “the central aim of this book has been to show that Chomsky's fine-sounding words about human nature actually mean something close to the opposite of what they appear to say” (210). This suggests that Chomsky has written in an Aesopian language which Sampson has generously agreed to translate for us. It also makes Sampson's interpretation difficult to attack. Given his interpretive principle, there would appear to be no way of demonstrating that he has misinterpreted, misunderstood, or falsified the text he purports to be criticizing. Accordingly, I shall content myself with suggesting a few ways in which he seems to be in error. There can, however, be no doubt that Sampson seeks to make evident the philosophical foundations of the “principled liberalism of Margaret Thatcher and Sir Keith Joseph” (39).
- Type
- Critical Notices/Études critiques
- Information
- Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , December 1981 , pp. 771 - 783
- Copyright
- Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 1981
References
Notes
1 “The Rules of the Language Game”, Times Literary Supplement, 10 September 1976;1118–1120.
2 “Philosophy and Racism”, Philosophia, VIII (1978), 241–260Google Scholar.
3 For example, see his Éclaircissement X, De la recherche de la vérité in Oeuvres complétes de Malebranche, ed. Robinet, A. (Paris: Vrin, 1958 f)Google Scholar.
4 “Equality: Language Development, Human Intelligence, and Social Organization”, Philosophy and Social Action, II (1976), 1.19Google Scholar.
5 “Psychology and Ideology”, in For Reasons of State (1973), p. 362.
6 Davie, George E., The Democratic Intellect, (2nd ed.: Edinburgh, 1964)Google Scholar.
7 See also Sampson's, “Liberalism and Nozick' ‘Minimal State’ ”, Mind, LXXXVII (1978). 93–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar.