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

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



Hi Martin,

See below. He finds Vygotsky's work "quite interesting." Let's see if he
elaborates. I find his persepctive on the "Linguistic Wars" also
interesting.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics_Wars

Aria

-----Original Message-----
From: Noam Chomsky [mailto:chomsky@mit.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 6:09 PM
To: Aria Razfar
Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Chomsky, Vygotsky, and phenomenology

The "linguistic wars" are largely an invention of overheated imaginations of
those who thought they were fighting them.  If you check the record you'll
discover that I barely participated, and didn't consider them any different
from interchanges within what's claimed to be "my side" of the non-existent
wars.

Vygotsky did quite interesting work.

-----Original Message-----
From: Aria Razfar [mailto:arazfar@uic.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 6:28 PM
To: Noam Chomsky
Cc: arazfar@uic.edu
Subject: FW: [Xmca-l] Re: Chomsky, Vygotsky, and phenomenology

See question below re: "opinion on Vygotsky"? 


-----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 5:12 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Chomsky, Vygotsky, and phenomenology

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
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>