A Philosophy of Language 

Machine derives its identity from a system

Kinda in time, but anyways: Волошинов (Voloshinov), Михаил Бахтин (Mikhail Bakhtin)

We would be very grateful. However I do believe RU-vid has disabled community captions so we'd have to get in touch outside the platform to coordinate. You can find us on Twitter or Discord, or by email: themarxistproject[@]gmail.com

@@themarxistproject will get in touch soonish

Yeah, this is what the right are talking about when they say the left is literally changing language and definitions, you're using newspeak and are proud of it. Insanity.

@@runbychews134 You fool, I can tell you didn't watch the video because your comment is so unhinged and unrelated to the video.

But you used different meanings of biology. The first was science and the second was object of that science.

Do you know what that book was about?

Hahaha I figured someone would do it! I'll admit, it was a missed opportunity

I kinda disagree. Cavemen still prioritized their own lives than other cavemen. And cavemen didn't have a spoken language. Sure, they worked together but they had egostic instincts like we do now.

​@@bobert6686 The language in that context used less in the meaning as "speech" but more generally as ability to form abstractions and symbolise them. That innate to human psyche process of "extracting" concepts from reality is primitive form of language, and it's making possible advanced logical thinking by "extracting" properties as ideas and recombining them into "predictions" of something never seen. Therefore "the language" here is likely refers to ability to divide reality into different relationships. And the more interwoven relationships you understand the more conscious you are of an object in question. Having no division, makes you perceive reality as an total unity. Or "the One", God, absolute reality, Dao, Logos, Absolute Spirit etc. which is referred in some of those groups as "enlightenment"

It's not so much that the Marxist view is correct (though I obviously prefer it lol). It's more that these terms reveal different things. It would be fully correct to say that extremely low wages are competitive. One could easily lose themselves in the economic jargon of why low wages might be good for growth, attracting capital, etc. etc., but at the end of the day the term puts a blatantly positive spin on an otherwise grim reality; a reality that is conveniently obscured by framing starvation wages as economically competitive. But even the misleading term reveals something interesting. Capitalism thrives at the expense of exploited labor, and the more exploited it is (aka. the more "competitive"), the more capital thrives. This is good for capital, and thus is framed by the ideology of capital as implicitly (or explicitly) desirable.

@@themarxistproject what about the economic jargon of the material wealth of even the poorest of people in capitalistic, market-driven countries like the US/western europe and what china is approaching these days? That the market has lifted even the poorest out of poverty, thought exploiting labor to lift the most wealthy much higher than they would have without exploitative labor? The inequality has increased, but nobody is starving for instance, everyone has a smartphone and plenty of clothing excess calories etc while nominally communist countries seem to botch material prosperity at every opportunity

@@user-cp7lx7vs1y ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-fo2gwS4VpHc.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--Nc_THkV9DM.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-j08ND3_PNgs.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-nXYKFVXjQcU.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-FEHYeeRCtVI.html

@@user-cp7lx7vs1y yes, capitalism has made some countries extravagantly rich, but always at the expense of others (and at the expense of its own people in many cases). This whole narrative is immersed in charged language. Some of the repeat offenders are terms like "communism" and "capitalism", which in themselves contain so many multiplicities of meaning that are meant to evoke all kinds of systems. Another big one is "growth" which always seems like a positive term but it can be used to obscure complicated problems. "Poverty" is kind of the inverse of "growth" in that it's obviously always negative (except maybe to the most zealous neoliberals). It's often used as a rhetorical tool because of how universally undesirable it is. It's well and good to say that the "market has lifted millions" out of poverty, but people who mention this often forget to note that they're moving the goalposts. Or worse yet, they set the goalposts so far apart that the statement has no real meaning: nearly half the world lives on less than $5/day, and over two thirds live on less than $10/day. Depending on how one seeks to employ the term, "global poverty" can even be weaponized against the poor of the developed world, precisely as you are implying. "You are wealthier than your counterpart in Central Africa. You are hardly poor in the global context" is an argument made to dismiss the very real poverty that exists in the "first world" (another loaded term). Something like 10% of Americans are "food insecure" (also a funny turn of phrase, isn't it?) which amounts to tens of millions of Americans skipping meals because they cannot afford them. Bear in mind that figure is much higher for minorities. Moreover, access to medical care is becoming more of a luxury. Same for adequate housing and education.

Well the issue that Lecercle raises in the book I am referencing is not that Chomsky et al. reject external elements altogether -- they certainly do not -- but rather that the object of linguistics as a science is the study of "innate language". The critique is that the study of language should always prioritize the historical and social because that's precisely where language is situated. I didn't elaborate more on the Chomskyan position because a) there are better resources for that out there and b) the focus of this video is to outline an alternative approach to the study/philosophy of language.

@@themarxistproject I'm not sure if I have completely missed the point of this video but I don't see how one could give a non-immanent or historical account of something like syntax or phonetics. These two subdisciplines are purely focused on the internal structure of language and must necessarily be abstracted before they could be thought of in social terms. In addition to this the social/historical is already is considered in other parts of linguistics like pragmatics/semantics through the influence of Grice and Wittgenstein, morphology through the study of dialects and the social conditions they arise from, and most obviously sociolinguistics where the very point is to study language in its historical/societal position. Even something like phonology is studied in within the context of definite social relations (for the same reasons as morphology). It just seem that if one is to study certain aspects of language effectively they must assume certain things for the sake of clarity. There is no grand unified theory of language, but if there were I am sure almost every respected linguist/philosopher of language would basically agree with the tenets of a Marxist theory of language. The problem is that language is not and currently cannot be studied as a whole so each subfield must have certain assumptions/abstractions to make any progress at all. I the future, when the study of language is more mature, something like a unified Marxist theory of language may be possible. However, it just seems that currently this is impossible, so people must use many different methods and assumptions (many of which may be decidedly unmarxist) to understand language effectively. sorry if non of that made sense or if I am way off base