Chomsky and Descartes

CLIL Seminario, UNEC, Madrid, 15.10.2016

Posted: 26 Oct 2016

See all articles by Mariia Rubtcova

Mariia Rubtcova

North- West Institute of Management-branch of RANEPA

Oleg Pavenkov

Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation (RANEPA) - Moscow Campus

Vladimir Pavenkov

Admiral Makarov State University of Maritime and Inland Shipping

Date Written: October 22, 2016

Abstract

This report we will argue that the assumption that language is an instinct (primarily Chomsky is expressed it as an assumption) is a logical assumption, not physical/biological. This means that Chomsky is based on Descartes and his theory builds on reflections of Descartes; Chomsky is written about it in the Cartesian thinking (Chomsky, 1966).

Let us recall that Descartes said. Thinking is the first, unmistakable and reliable reality with which we are dealing. It independently and self-sufficiently, therefore, it has its own life. It cannot be nothing or empty. (This can be compared with a look at "empty" space for a child's words in the interpretation of Chomsky). This reality is filled with innate ideas, knowledge that was originally (from the moment of birth) is present in our minds, does not depend neither outside nor from experience (Descartes, 1929).

The first in the history of philosophy Plato (2000) spoke of innate knowledge. Descartes' theory is somewhat similar to the philosophy of Plato, but Plato's original ideas in the human mind due to higher but forgotten knowledge of perfect soul that before the birth of the body was in a perfect world the true Being (Plato). Innate ideas in the system of Descartes - is the main characteristic of our thinking. They are the most common (wide) and extremely simple terms, that is so clear and clearly appear to our mind, that we may not doubt them. For example, the famous axioms of Euclidean geometry are, according to Descartes, innate ideas of the mind. They do not need evidence because they are self-evident, that is so simple, clear and indisputable that there are nothing to prove in them. But why they are represented to our mind so clearly and distinctly, why it is true itself? Because it is an innate idea, inherent in our mind by God, who says Descartes, can not deceive us. And, as in geometry of a few simple axioms reliably constructed all the grandiose building of the discipline, and in other branches of human knowledge it is necessary to proceed from axiomatic innate ideas and build any science on their base (Descartes, 1929).

Descartes' influence on Chomsky's happened on several lines. In case there is special language ability, which is one of the basic elements of the human minds. It acts almost instantly, in a predetermined manner, unconsciously and outside the conscious control, and the same for all members of the species, thereby forming a rich and complex system of knowledge – specific language (Chomsky, 1999:236). In this situation, there is no place for creativity. As a result, everything that a speaker can tell already in the language is (especial, unconsciously). Of course, we can give the characteristic of "predetermined manner" as innate ideas. But, in general, the innate idea is not an instinct in the biological sense.

The inherent idea comes from "God" (according to Plato and Descartes). Chomsky replaces "God" with Nature (It's almost Spinoza). And because of the Nature (in the philosophical sense) he chooses instinct. It happened because he wrote his works in the 20th century, when the study of God`s guarantee of innate ideas is not considered appropriate. Chomsky needed the assumption on instinct to explain the causes of the "innate" of language abilities. However, this is not an essential part of his theory, a matter of fact it is the usual axiomatic philosophical premise. As a result, Chomsky was embroiled in the unnecessary debate about "instincts" (it certainly would not have happened if his family stayed in Russia, and he can be a Russian linguist).

Chomsky is a philosopher, who may provide the admiration of logic in Hegel's sense. It is not lawful to consider the philosophical doctrine of Chomsky as a psychological and especially the biological doctrine. All of his statements can be reliably understood only from the standpoint of a serious philosophical foundation and valid for philosophers' manner of question presentation. We think if we want to understand it, it is enough to read the Chomsky's description of the Lorentz or Pierce. Chomsky has a quite weak interest in the study of reality as a biological process. Even nature or instincts in his philosophical/logical ideas acquire an incredible philosophical sound.

Suggested Citation

Rubtcova, Mariia and Pavenkov, Oleg and Pavenkov, Vladimir, Chomsky and Descartes (October 22, 2016). CLIL Seminario, UNEC, Madrid, 15.10.2016, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2857580

Mariia Rubtcova (Contact Author)

North- West Institute of Management-branch of RANEPA ( email )

St.Petersburg
Russia

Oleg Pavenkov

Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation (RANEPA) - Moscow Campus ( email )

Moscow, 119571
Russia

Vladimir Pavenkov

Admiral Makarov State University of Maritime and Inland Shipping ( email )

5/7 Dvinskaya
St. Petersburg, 198035
Russia

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
687
PlumX Metrics