[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: FW: Re: Chomsky, Vygotsky, and phenomenology
- To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: FW: Re: Chomsky, Vygotsky, and phenomenology
- From: Martin John Packer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 21:46:30 +0000
- Accept-language: es-CO, en-US
- Authentication-results: mailman.ucsd.edu; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- List-archive: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l.mailman.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <38C43AE248831048B6AF57F364680D3C72A23DDA@OC11EXPO32.exchange.mit.edu> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Thread-index: AQHQGkLq2Bx0LyLgz0SPOE0l0eIj/w==
- Thread-topic: [Xmca-l] FW: Re: Chomsky, Vygotsky, and phenomenology
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.
On Dec 17, 2014, at 4:34 PM, Aria Razfar <email@example.com> 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.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noam Chomsky [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> 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