[Xmca-l] Re: Chomsky, Vygotsky, and phenomenology

[Martin John Packer]

Since we have Professor Chomsky online, might we be able to ask him his opinion of Vygotsky?

Martin

On Dec 17, 2014, at 4:59 PM, Aria Razfar <arazfar@uic.edu> wrote:

> Hi Martin,
> 
> Metaphor was my take and other cognitive linguist's take (i.e. Lakoff). I
> believe his rejection of "Metaphor" at least in the embodied cognition sense
> is rooted in the "Linguistics Wars." Several people in this thread as well
> others in the field of cognitive linguistics made the claim that he was and
> remains a Cartesian dualist. He definitely does not consider himself as
> such. In order to establish the field of linguistics, he had to position it
> within the broader arch of western enlightenment and romanticism. Hence, the
> title of the book.
> 
> Aria  
> 
> Aria Razfar, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor of Literacy, Language, and Culture
> Director of Graduate Studies, Curriculum and Instruction
> University of Illinois at Chicago
> 1040 W. Harrison St. M/C 147
> Chicago, IL, 60607
> 
> Director of English Learning through Mathematics, Science and Action
> Research (ELMSA)
> www.elmsa.org
> 
> Webpage: http://education.uic.edu/personnel/faculty/aria-razfar-phd
> Tel: 312-413-8373
> Fax: 312-996-8134
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Martin John Packer
> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 3:47 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: FW: Re: Chomsky, Vygotsky, and phenomenology
> 
> Hi Aria,
> 
> It would help to see the message that Noam is responding to! I don't see,
> for example, how metaphor crept into this discussion. (Actually, looking
> back through the thread, I see that this was your proposal.)
> 
> I suppose a lot depends on what one means by being "a Cartesian." As I just
> wrote in another message, Chomsky was, I think, positioning his approach to
> linguistics in a tradition in which Descartes was prominent: in which one
> tries to figure out what makes possible a specific characteristic or ability
> of the mind. Chomsky asked what universal competence would be necessary to
> make language possible - any language.
> 
> I'm not trying to attach a label to the man; but he give the book its title
> for a reason, and a very respectable one. 
> 
> Martin
> 
> On Dec 17, 2014, at 4:34 PM, Aria Razfar <arazfar@uic.edu> wrote:
> 
>> Here is Chomsky's response to whether or not he is a Cartesian. Not
> surprisingly, he categorically rejects the idea of "metaphor" as well. At
> least he's open to change. Now whether our subject is dead or alive that is
> a different question.  
>> 
>> Aria 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Noam Chomsky [mailto:chomsky@mit.edu] 
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 3:16 PM
>> To: Aria Razfar
>> Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Chomsky, Vygotsky, and phenomenology
>> 
>> The reason for the phrase "Cartesian linguistics" was explained very
> clearly in the opening pages of the book.  No one who read at least that far
> could believe that I am "a Cartesian," let alone anyone who read farther.  I
> can't account for the illiteracy of "notable folks."
>> 
>> It's also not a metaphor.  Rather, exactly as I described it, which I
> would repeat verbatim today.
>> 
>> There's no need to argue against "mind-body dualism." As I've discussed
> repeatedly, Newton's discoveries terminated the thesis, at least in its
> classical form, through Descartes and beyond.
>> 
>> Of course I've changed my views since the '50s and '60s, in fact in the
> past few months.  That's normal in subjects that are not dead.
>> 
>> Noam Chomsky
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>