Hi Erin and Rick,
--- enoonan <enoonan@kent.edu> wrote:
> RICK:In LILA Pirsig cites Whorf's Eskimo research for what appears to
> be the
> more 'extreme' version. The 'hoax' is that Whorf apparently made the
> whole
> research up. He never did any research and never even met an eskimo
> (Diana
> referenced some material on this... I'll see if I can dig up the posts
> for
> you).
I would be interested in the reference too. I assume you're talking
about the 'research' that indicated that Eskimo's have (about) 40 words
for snow? I've heard that example in Germany and in Holland during
psychology lectures. But then I heard someone say it was a lie or myth.
I've told that to a German researcher, but he came up with the reference
saying it IS true that Eskimo's have this many words for snow. I
couldn't give him the reference that said it was a myth. It's a very
stubborn myth.
> Most of the research I know looked at specific words such as color
> words.
Yes, I once read about such a research in the newspaper, too. There was
a comparison between European (English I believe) and some African
cultures. In European languages, we make a distinction between (maybe
the colors are wrong in my memory) green and yellow, and that
distinction (in language, that is) wasn't made in the African culture.
The latter culture, however, had two words for another color, maybe
orange or something. The researchers had found a statistically
significant result indicating that Europeans could easier differentiate
between green en yellow, and the Africans between different hues of
orange (or another color). So it does seem that language influences
perception; but only in a very small amount.
I don't know any Japanese, but I've heard that Japanese is a more
pictorial, poetic or intuitive language than our Western languages (with
German arguably as the most exact and differentiated). I don't think
people growing up in Japan or in Germany differ much in their perception
of reality. I do think, however, that the tiny differences in perception
and thought DID have large consequences on the (philosophies) of the
Japanese and Western CULTURES, through a couple of thousand years of
history... (an example maybe of the butterfly-effect).
Maybe the distinction between genes and environment makes sense. I state
that our perception and way of thinking primarily is a (biological)
evolutionary heritage, and that the influence of environment or culture
is not so fundamental in our thinking and perception...
Wittgenstein said that philosophy is about playing with language. Maybe
philosophers who think alot in concepts that are already laid down in
the language of their culture (note: I'm talking about words and
concepts, not grammar!) DO arrive at a different view on reality, but
it's 'just' conceptual: Our intuitive thinking and perception maybe
don't differ alot between the cultures...
That's my thoughts on the matter... Greetings, Patrick.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:50 BST