[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

True indeed! We converge entirely on my point. Infants and young children having yet to be fully domesticated by the confines of language, syntax, and vocabulary, live only in the realm of thought and experience which we adults use art to explore. What is worse, we adults try our best to use language to describe art, knowing damn well it always falls short. Children I think know better. If anything, they only learn language to try to communicate their transcendental experience to us adults and share it with us, but alas, they learn as we already know that it is Pandora's Box, it is the Exile from the Garden, it is young Siddhartha leaving his father's palace..

 

i like joseph campbell but no, thought was never limited by language in the first place. syntax doesn't do that. the notion that language shapes the parameters of thought is just a bad myth started by clueless anthropologists and perpetuated by cultural critics in need of employment. srsly, read pinkert--

or, in other words, while i see foucault's point here, the science shows chomsky got it right-- there is a human "nature", and action >>> language wars