[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



Thank you!


Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
President
The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
www.mocombeian.com 
www.readingroomcurriculum.com 
www.paulcmocombe.info 

<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Aria Razfar <arazfar@uic.edu> </div><div>Date:12/17/2014  4:34 PM  (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> </div><div>Subject: [Xmca-l]  FW:  Re: Chomsky, Vygotsky, and phenomenology </div><div>
</div>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