[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Chomsky, Vygotsky, and phenomenology
- To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Chomsky, Vygotsky, and phenomenology
- From: Martin John Packer <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 23:11:50 +0000
- Accept-language: es-CO, en-US
- Authentication-results: mailman.ucsd.edu; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-archive: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l.mailman.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <38C43AE248831048B6AF57F364680D3C72A23DDA@OC11EXPO32.exchange.mit.edu> <email@example.com> <0CBE4C26-68FE-49F7-BE9F-00A0121B4CD8@uniandes.edu.co> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Thread-index: AQHQGk7WSngjk6HNz06OpOx9Dg6BAw==
- Thread-topic: [Xmca-l] Re: Chomsky, Vygotsky, and phenomenology
Since we have Professor Chomsky online, might we be able to ask him his opinion of Vygotsky?
On Dec 17, 2014, at 4:59 PM, Aria Razfar <email@example.com> 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 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)
> Webpage: http://education.uic.edu/personnel/faculty/aria-razfar-phd
> Tel: 312-413-8373
> Fax: 312-996-8134
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com] 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.
> On Dec 17, 2014, at 4:34 PM, Aria Razfar <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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:email@example.com]
>> 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