> Greetings Economists, > On Jun 5, 2007, at 10:24 AM, Matthijs Krul wrote: > >> This same theory of language is interesting because Habermas uses it >> explicitly to argue against Marx and in favor of Kant; see > > Doyle; > That is where Habermas is working in metaphysics. His work as far as I > know is not grounded in physiology. Within metaphysics it is hard to > prove anything about language. > > Whereas, we have a lot of computer experience, and neuroscience > experience to better ground what we are talking about in reference to > language. Much as I disagree with Chomsky, linguistic theory of noun > phrases, and verb phrases summarize a certain sort of physical > experience. I.e. we see something distinct we name it, it does > something we explain the movement that is how the thing did something. > Which follow from visual physiology. > > These observations have correlates in neuroscience, and that's where > Habermas has no influence. Here is the link to Wikipedia essay on > Mead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Mead > > One interesting discussion in this area is in the book "The Invisible > Sex, Uncovering the True Roles of Women in Prehistory", Collins, 2007, > J.M.Adovasio, Olga Soffer, Jake Page. > > pages 103 to 113 ending with the observation based upon how speech is > present in both hemispheres of most human females that females invented > language. In the past Brocas and Wernicke's areas were considered left > brain only which may reflect male bias about language. > Doyle > >
Well I'm in no position to evaluate that, I'll readily admit. I don't think we need be entirely physiological in terms of neuroscience to talk about language formation and its related formation of the self/other, though; for example, the Mead-Cooley Hypothesis is supported (moderately) by modern empirical research. See David C. Lundgren, "Social Feedback and Self-Appraisals: Current Status of the Mead-Cooley Hypothesis" in: Symbolic Interaction (Spring 2004), p. 267-286., (available at http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/si.2004.27.2.267.), and Lundgren, Jergens & Gibson, "Marital Power, Roles, and Solidarity and Husbands' and Wives' Appraisals of Self and Other", in: Sociological Inquiry 52 (Dec 1982), p. 33-52 (available at http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1982.tb01237.x). But maybe I'm getting too offtopic here - philosophy is my specialization, not linguistics or economics, so I just wanted to throw that out there. I think the theory is relevant when talking about origins of altruism, which was the original subject. Matthijs Krul
