I think Cheerskep should look at Marc Hauser's book before making spurious comments. Marc Hauser is Professor of Biological Anthropology Director of Cognitive Evolution Lab plus other posts at Harvard. Hauser anticipates Cheerskep style objections in his preface and introduction and deals with them handily. He is, of course, a Chomsky fan, to a point.
Cheerskep is our trained philosopher here. I expect philosophy, not 19C cane-whacking outbursts like "Balderdash, What nonsense!". Such expressions are fairly annoying although quaintly painless because they lack the authority required to confront a scientist lkike Hauser. I hope Cheerskep does not have one of his actors blurt "Balderdash" in a play unless he's doing a Victorian redux. I'm willing to learn new ideas and try to read the most expert people if I can find them and understand their ideas. I can't think of a language that has no verbs. I do think gestures and grunts of all sorts can stand for verbs among certain groups fully conditioned by their social prqactices. But no verbs at all? As for intuitive morality, Hauser carefully explains to the eye-rolling layman at the outset that many variables must be considered in different cases when group or societaql values replace the instinctual impulse. IS is a perfectly good carriage for our metaphors. It carries our meanings outward in make-believe. It's quite simple and universally understood. Cheerskep want to pick a fight but all the toughies are wandering off. WC --- On Sun, 7/27/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: "An 'aesthetic experience' MAKES the work 'art'" > To: [email protected] > Date: Sunday, July 27, 2008, 1:51 PM > William writes: > > > "What I mean by commonsense logic is akin to what > linguists say about the > > innate parameters of language -- an a-priori > constraint for word order: > either > > subject-verb-object or subject-object-verb....all > require a subject, a verb, > > an object to make sense. > > > "Nah. Balderdash. What nonsense." > > Even William doesn't believe it. How could he when just > two days ago he wrote > that a simple elbow in the ribs is sufficient to convey a > notion? > > This quasi-Chomskian deluded notion about the "deep > structure" of language > has breathed its last, I hope. Good riddance. One of the > things that began to > undermine my faith in mathematical/symbolic/existential > logic was my noticing > how often its practitioners would take someone else's > statement and tell us, > "Here's what he's really saying," and > they'd put it into math-logic format -- > introducing all sorts of text-elements that weren't in > the original guy's > utterance. "We're just filling in the elisions. > They are assumed by the > speaker." > > Linguists tend to do the same. Look up "zero > copula" languages. They > regularly lack 'is', 'am', and > 'are'. Don't expect they'll all be > "primitive" > languages. Chinese, Indonesian, Russian, Arabic, Irish, > Aztec, and many more > -- even > ASL: American sign language. "Oh, well, the verb is > assumed." > > Remember the early-movie parodies of English spoken by the > Indians and the > Chinese immigrants? "You good man. Him crook." > Since over half the people on > this globe were born and brought up with no 'is', > 'am', or 'are', it's hard to > believe they are "assuming" they never herd > about. "But they MUST be > assuming > it, or their utterance wouldn't make sense!" Not > to you, maybe. > > William refers us to Hauser's "Moral Minds", > and says, "He makes a claim for > an intuitive moral sense by which we instantly know what is > morally, ethically > right or wrong through unconscious innate logic that is > genetically > determined." I don't know Hauser, but I think > he'd have a tough time > convincing me that > every marauding tribe in history believed it was morally > wrong to live the > way they did -- the Vikings, the Mongols, etc. Would he > say, oh, well, those > tribes were missing a gene -- the moral gene. The Catholics > of the inquisition > felt there was nothing wrong with torturing unbelievers. > It's hard to believe > they lacked a "moral gene", given their > preoccupation with sin. But perhaps > William and I digress... > > > > > > ************** > Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for > FanHouse Fantasy Football today. > > (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
