Loricat wrote:Julian:

Here's a concern that came to mind when reading that part of the book. Since I wasn't previously familiar with those theories, my sole exposure to them came from someone who disagrees with them. Though Pinker puts forth a good-faith effort to describe opposing theories, it still seems a little one-sided to learn about them from Pinker.

Well, if it helps any, none of my professors at my university were fans of Linguistic Determinism in its extreme forms.

So, while I don't think that the language we speak creates our perception of the world we live in, I think that learning new words/concepts can alter how we think. For example, the means of communication open to us because of the invention of the Internet has forever changed the meaning of the word "communicate"...

Those rival theories do seem a bit hard to swallow. I to am new to the theories and yes, Pinker is not a proponent of the theories, but I also agree he is presenting a fair estimation of them.

The Extreme nativism is the most problematic to me. I mean, just the idea that the word 'carburator' already exists in our minds is a bit insane, as I mentioned above. I just cannot find any way to make that idea makes sense.

As for Determinism, I agree with Loricat, and I also remember Pinker saying as much, that words we use and learn can impact our thoughts, but not to the extent that words have a profound influence on HOW we think and how we create and utilize language.

I am enjoying this book. This is a totally new topic to me and the reading is slow going, but I feel rewarded after each chapter.

Mr. P.

Mr. Pessimistic wrote,

Those rival theories do seem a bit hard to swallow...The Extreme nativism is the most problematic to me. I mean, just the idea that the word 'carburetor' already exists in our minds is a bit insane...I just cannot find any way to make that idea makes sense.

Perhaps the proponents of extreme nativism believe in the idea of eternal return!? (Are you on Chapter Four now?) For, if you believe in eternal return, (which is "This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything immeasurably small or great in your life must return to you-all in the same succession and sequence"), then the word "carburetor" could, in fact, be innate to us. Since we have known it before in our hundreds of "past lives," there is no reason why "carburetor" shouldn't we be a part of our psyche since birth. Without eternal return, though, extreme nativism holds less credence to me....

tlpounds wrote:Mr. Pessimistic wrote,

Those rival theories do seem a bit hard to swallow...The Extreme nativism is the most problematic to me. I mean, just the idea that the word 'carburetor' already exists in our minds is a bit insane...I just cannot find any way to make that idea makes sense.

Perhaps the proponents of extreme nativism believe in the idea of eternal return!? (Are you on Chapter Four now?) For, if you believe in eternal return, (which is "This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything immeasurably small or great in your life must return to you-all in the same succession and sequence"), then the word "carburetor" could, in fact, be innate to us. Since we have known it before in our hundreds of "past lives," there is no reason why "carburetor" shouldn't we be a part of our psyche since birth. Without eternal return, though, extreme nativism holds less credence to me....

I am in Chapter 4 now. FWIW, eternal return sounds like bunk to me as well. Where is this idea from? Who proposed it and who supports it?

Mr. P.

Not only does eternal return sound like bunk, but it also doesn't really answer the objection. We could not have had an innate word for carburetors because we have had human language for tens of thousands of years. Carburetors are very recent developments in that time scale.

I think Pinker's critique of Extreme Nativism is spot on.

George

Mr. Pessimistic wrote

I am in Chapter 4 now. FWIW, eternal return sounds like bunk to me as well. Where is this idea from? Who proposed it and who supports it?

Nietzsche posited the idea. (Please see my post on the Chapter Four thread.) It has its roots in Egypt and Rome, yet some theories in physics today, including Stephen Hawking's "arrow of time," have a bit of eternal return in them. Ckeck out this article on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return

Also, have you read the book The Unbearable Lightness of Being by Milan Kundera? It's one of my favorites, but more importantly, it is a work that is centered around the concept of eternal return, with the author explicitly referring to and building on Nietzsche's idea.

Nietzsche (who was a Professor of Philology - the study of ancient languages and literature) utilized the notion of Eternal Return of the Same to challenge his readers to confront their own lives: could you live with the fact that your life (in all of its relationships and details) will be repeated again, and again, eternally- exactly the same way. If you were well disposed toward the life you have lived and the path you have chosen- you might find consolation and confirmation in this tought experiment. If your life was ripe with banality and chagrin, then such a thought experiment might shock you into substantially changing your life. Perhaps The Eternal Return of the Same (ERS) could be understood as Existential Shock Therapy.

In relation to tlpounds point, I think (ERS) might make sense in this context, vaguely, if we accept that there is a finite amount of matter and an infinite amount of time. If that is the case, then eventually every possible combination of atoms, molecules, cells, personalities, cultures, planets, nebulae...and words...would be repeated. The Extreme Nativist would not have to make the case that words are innate...only that we have been uttering them for an eternity.

Dissident Heart wrote:In relation to tlpounds point, I think (ERS) might make sense in this context, vaguely, if we accept that there is a finite amount of matter and an infinite amount of time. If that is the case, then eventually every possible combination of atoms, molecules, cells, personalities, cultures, planets, nebulae...and words...would be repeated. The Extreme Nativist would not have to make the case that words are innate...only that we have been uttering them for an eternity.

Sorry, DH, but it still sounds like gobbledygook to me. I can understand the value of a thought experiment in which one considers having to endlessly repeat one's life. It might lead a person to be more thoughtful about the choices he or she is making. But that's as far as it goes.

And, in point of fact, from an Extreme Nativist point of view, you would have to make the case the words were innate. If we have been uttering them for an eternity, then it follows we must have known them for an eternity. If that wouldn't qualify as innate knowledge, then I don't know what would. (Incidentally, I understand you aren't necessarily arguing for the Extreme Nativist position, just offering a suggestion of how it might play out in a certain context.)

George

Dissident Heart wrote:
In relation to tlpounds point, I think (ERS) might make sense in this context, vaguely, if we accept that there is a finite amount of matter and an infinite amount of time. If that is the case, then eventually every possible combination of atoms, molecules, cells, personalities, cultures, planets, nebulae...and words...would be repeated. The Extreme Nativist would not have to make the case that words are innate...only that we have been uttering them for an eternity.

I recently heard this concept while watching....I forget if it was a show on black holes or String theory. It is an interesting thought, but that is about it IMO. It is something to ponder while in a pondering mood...but what does it really do for us?

I am with George...it still smells of bunk, and does nothing to undergird the Extreme Nativism theory.

Mr. P.

Mr. Pessimistic wrote:I am with George...it still smells of bunk, and does nothing to undergird the Extreme Nativism theory.

Hi Boys! I simply posed the idea of Eternal Return as a possible explanation for how the Nativists can even think to argue in favor of innate meanings/words since birth. However, in trying to understand from where they might be coming, I wasn't (and I believe Dissident Heart wasn't either) conceding to the plausibility of Extreme Nativism

[quote="tlpounds"] Hi Boys! I simply posed the idea of Eternal Return as a possible explanation for how the Nativists can even think to argue in favor of innate meanings/words since birth. However, in trying to understand from where they might be coming, I wasn't (and I believe Dissident Heart wasn't either) conceding to the plausibility of Extreme Nativism