I like that very much. And the political implications are huge. So many of the PC regulations that oppress us are built on the assumption that words make people think and do disapproved things.
It's necessary to realize Pinker is an adamant evolutionist. He therefore imagines language 'necessarily' came after thought. This is contrary to what we learn in Genesis. As a materialist he believes thought is just the reactions of chemical accident. I wonder why he then expects us to take his views seriously? Since he believes (or so he claims) man is just an animal he relates human thought to animal reaction. (And so if a dog chases a cat it's because the dog had some 'thought' about the cat. This 'thinking' then 'evolved' into human thought.) In my opinion this supposed 'evolution' of animal instinct to human thought is an impossibility. If it were true it would make human thought utterly irrational. – I realize Pinker has a great reputation… and is the 'golden boy' of evolutionary thought… but he doesn't impress me. In his book 'Blank Slate' he rejects the idea of the human mind as a 'tabula rasa' and defends his belief in 'free will' by saying; ''well it's obvious… I know I have it.'' This of course refutes everything materialism is all about. There can be no freedom under materialism… but few evolutionists will admit it. – in my opinion, the idea human beings invented language is a complete fantasy. All humanist conceptions of language miss the point. (The best book on language I know of is 'Language Gap' by Clifford Wilson.)
Yes, I remember the overview of evolutionary theory on language in a college class I had. It was ridiculous. Didn't Walker Percy have a book on it, calling language a delta that flowed in many directions at once without clear delineation?
I like that very much. And the political implications are huge. So many of the PC regulations that oppress us are built on the assumption that words make people think and do disapproved things.
It's necessary to realize Pinker is an adamant evolutionist. He therefore imagines language 'necessarily' came after thought. This is contrary to what we learn in Genesis. As a materialist he believes thought is just the reactions of chemical accident. I wonder why he then expects us to take his views seriously? Since he believes (or so he claims) man is just an animal he relates human thought to animal reaction. (And so if a dog chases a cat it's because the dog had some 'thought' about the cat. This 'thinking' then 'evolved' into human thought.) In my opinion this supposed 'evolution' of animal instinct to human thought is an impossibility. If it were true it would make human thought utterly irrational.
– I realize Pinker has a great reputation… and is the 'golden boy' of evolutionary thought… but he doesn't impress me. In his book 'Blank Slate' he rejects the idea of the human mind as a 'tabula rasa' and defends his belief in 'free will' by saying; ''well it's obvious… I know I have it.'' This of course refutes everything materialism is all about. There can be no freedom under materialism… but few evolutionists will admit it.
– in my opinion, the idea human beings invented language is a complete fantasy. All humanist conceptions of language miss the point. (The best book on language I know of is 'Language Gap' by Clifford Wilson.)
Yes, I remember the overview of evolutionary theory on language in a college class I had. It was ridiculous. Didn't Walker Percy have a book on it, calling language a delta that flowed in many directions at once without clear delineation?