To ponder…

•Do different groups see different worlds?

CONCEPTUAL SCHEMES AS CULTURALLY RELATIVE

Um waynuma!

In this lesson we are going to see:

• Cultural relativity of conceptual schemes & linguistic relativity;

• How language is determining world view;

• How concepts we use define reality;

LAST LESSON… Recapping

• Rabbit or Duck ?

Scheme and content• The object is the same but the idea (schema) of

the object can be different

• Different people have different schemas and therefore they experience the same objects in different ways (think about which schema is right??)

• Different cultures speak different language i.e. they might have different schemas and perceive the world in different ways

• Our knowledge depends on our schemas i.e. the state of our minds

Watch the clip

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNuEc6CKyvk&list=LLsH8KRt9W1w1xE7MijmPWtw&index=1

• Stephen Fry and languages (9:15 -13:18)

• Humans don’t all have the same conceptual schemes!

• There are two distinguishable elements to our experience: the data of the senses, and how this data is interpreted by our concepts.

• Conceptual relativism claims that because our conceptual schemes affect how people experience and understand reality, people with different conceptual schemes have different realities i.e. different worlds.

• People have different ‘realities’ because we can’t translate theirs to ours;

• Language ‘constructs’ reality.

• Reality is relative to our conceptual schemes;

• We express our realities through language.

• Whorf (an American linguist) :

• languages organize our experience of the world

• If a conceptual scheme organizes our experience, then our experience must be comprised of individual experiences

• Any conceptual scheme with these sorts of experiences will end up similar to our own, despite the concepts one hold and their language, and so translation between two different conceptual schemes will be possible

• There may be small parts that can’t be translated, but this only leads to a very mild form of conceptual relativism.

Whorf findings…Native America languages:

• Nootka – It does not allow to think “a house” when viewing what would we call a house.

• Hopi – It does not make distinctions between insects, aeroplanes and aviators classing them all by the same word “masa’ytaka” but they have a distinct word for birds.

Kant VS Sapir-Whorf

• Kant believed: all of humanity structures experience in essentially the same way

• The Sapir-Whorf view is that at birth no particular scheme takes precedent

• We are “blank slates”.

• The scheme is learnt from experience, but it is not understood in terms of sense impressions but in terms of exposure to the language habit by the community.

The structure of language

determines the structure of thought

with political implications

A totalitarian society which

the government control thoughts of the populace by inventing a

language(Newspeak)That makes

unacceptable modes of thought

impossible

Competing conceptual schemes

• Whose scheme is right?

• There is no way of seeing the world except through some conceptual lens

• So…There is no neutral viewpoint from which an impartial assessment can be made (between conceptual schemes).

• Key term: the raw, unconceptualised concept of experience is called the given. (It is a hypothetical notion)

• According to Quine it must be decided on the grounds of usefulness

• “To what extent do conceptual schemes threaten to cut the link between knowledge and reality”? Discuss. (Question #10 page 29)

• Next week REALISM AND RELATIVISM