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

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


Chomsky in cartesian linguistics is critiquing the rational linguistics of descartes' time via the lens of port royal linguistics...sorry driving right now can not go in depth with the anaylsis.

Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.

<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> </div><div>Date:12/17/2014  4:46 PM  (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> </div><div>Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: FW:  Re: Chomsky, Vygotsky, and phenomenology </div><div>
</div>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. 


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