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

[Dr. Paul C. Mocombe]

Henry,

I am with you on chomsky ' s pessimism.   It's like reading marcuse or adorno...


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

<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com> </div><div>Date:12/17/2014  2:48 PM  (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> </div><div>Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Chomsky, Vygotsky, and phenomenology </div><div>
</div>I am wondering if we can rehabilitate Chomsky, we can rehabilitate the behaviorists. To some extent you find what you look for. Personally, I lean to Vygotsky and cognitive linguistics, because I want to find a way to help development, to teach. What appears to be a purely philosophical question of epistemology is existential for me. I want hope, which I find in teaching and learning. Chomsky depresses me, because he seems to say that all efforts to teach are illusions. Okay, then, let’s have useful illusions, as, I believe are all scientific models. Pure science, absent art/imagination, is depressing, lacks hope. Even in his politics, I find Chomsky’s “delivery” to be dismissive of any views but his own. In the end, I sense that history will, if it hasn’t already, find his dismissal of behaviorism to be a blip, an attack on a narrowly-construed straw man that he evoked for his purposes. In the same way, I find his delivery of political views as dismissive, as if dialog was for the little people. Though soft spoken, I don’t think his political views or delivery invite real dialog. Which is where I end, since this chat is, for me, real dialog, warts and all. 
IMHO
Henry

> On Dec 17, 2014, at 12:10 PM, Aria Razfar <arazfar@uic.edu> wrote:
> 
> "Cartesian Linguistics" was written in 1966. I believe Chomsky used it as a
> "metaphor" tracing the history of language studies since the Enlightenment.
> He basically used it to argue that language studies (in the West at least)
> suggests that some grammatical structures are fundamental properties of the
> mind. In 1977, "Language and Responsibility" he argued against mind-body
> dualism and this false binary of modern empiricism. While many of his
> Chomsky's assertions about the nature language have been debunked, he played
> an important historical role and his thoughts have continued to evolve.
> Given the historicity of development, Chomsky has moved quite a bit since
> the fifties and sixties. More recently, he has argued that "body" as fixed
> and unchanging is as problematic as static notions of mind. He further
> rejects the Cartesian concept of "body" citing "seventeenth century
> Newtonian physics." So I'm not sure if I would characterize Chomsky as
> Cartesian.  
> 
> 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 12:39 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Chomsky, Vygotsky, and phenomenology
> 
> Chomsky wrote a book called 'Cartesian Linguistics.'
> 
> Husserl wrote one called 'Cartesian Meditations'!
> 
> Martin
> 
> On Dec 17, 2014, at 1:18 PM, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe <pmocombe@mocombeian.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Vera,
>> 
>> When you say chomsky is a Cartesian are you saying he is a rationalist in
> the kantian camp?  Chomsky refers to himself and his efforts as kantian.  By
> no means would i call kant a Cartesian.  I would call Husserl a Cartesian?
> But not Kant and Chomsky. ..see the video below:
>> 
>> Watch "Noam Chomsky - Ideas of Chomsky BBC Interview (fu." on YouTube 
>> Noam Chomsky - Ideas of Chomsky BBC Interview (fu.: 
>> http://youtu.be/3LqUA7W9wfg
>> 
>> 
>> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
>> President
>> The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
>> www.mocombeian.com
>> www.readingroomcurriculum.com
>> www.paulcmocombe.info
>> 
>> <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Vera 
>> John-Steiner <vygotsky@unm.edu> </div><div>Date:12/17/2014  12:53 PM  
>> (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: "'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'" 
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> </div><div>Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Chomsky,
> Vygotsky, and phenomenology </div><div> </div>While Chomsky is indeed very
> influential his approach to language and its acquisition is opposite to that
> of Vygotsky. He focuses on syntax while Vygotsky focuses on semantics.
>> He proposes an innate language acquisition device while Vygotsky 
>> approaches language developmentally. (I am repeating some of Carol's 
>> points.) He is a Cartesian,while Vygotsky Opposed mind/body dualism. 
>> And the list goes on.
>> I don't think he can be integrated into CHAT.
>> Vera
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Carol Macdonald
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 7:37 AM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Chomsky, Vygotsky, and phenomenology
>> 
>> Do you think Chomsky knows he is? Howard Gardner is a very generous
> fellow.
>> 
>> On 17 December 2014 at 16:28, Martin John Packer 
>> <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> oh, I just read your second paragraph...
>>> 
>>> Howard Gardner lists Noam Chomsky as one of the "founders of 
>>> cognitive science," along with Jerome Bruner, John McCarthy, George 
>>> Miller, and Allen Newell (1985, p. 23).
>>> 
>>> Gardner, H. (1985). The mind's new science: A history of the 
>>> cognitive revolution. New York: Basic Books.
>>> 
>>> Martin
>>> 
>>> On Dec 17, 2014, at 8:54 AM, Carol Macdonald <carolmacdon@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Well yes, and as linguistic and psychology student I was very proud 
>>>> of
>>> him
>>>> for his review, it made me laugh and laugh.  But Chomsky never read
>>> Piaget
>>>> or Vygotsky.  He would have been interested in Vygotsky's 
>>>> interpretation
>>> of
>>>> Behaviousrism.
>>>> 
>>>> As to cognitive psychology - well I suppose we should be pleased, 
>>>> but Chomsky had no direct hand in that.
>>>> 
>>>> Carol.
>>>> 
>>>> On 17 December 2014 at 14:49, Martin John Packer <
>>> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Chomsky knew enough about psychology to write a devastating review 
>>>>> of
>> B.
>>>>> F. Skinner's book 'Verbal behavior,' which still makes very 
>>>>> interesting reading. And Chomsky's own book 'Syntactic Structures'
>>>>> was one of the
>>> key
>>>>> components in the emergence of cognitive psychology in the late 
>>>>> 1950s,
>>> as
>>>>> Howard Gardner's book makes clear.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Martin
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Carol A  Macdonald Ph D (Edin)
>>>> Developmental psycholinguist
>>>> Academic, Researcher,  and Editor
>>>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Carol A  Macdonald Ph D (Edin)
>> Developmental psycholinguist
>> Academic, Researcher,  and Editor
>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>