While listening to Dr. Bjornstad's lecture today, a light bulb went off in my mind. The Scientific Revolution was the gateway to the Englihtenment which gave way to...Language in Thought and Action? It's an odd connection, I know, but let me explain.
The glue that holds these events together is none other than John Locke. Lockian movements emphasize the ideal behavior of humans in general: equal rights to mankind, human nature is contrary to war-like states, etc.. These are not the ideas which I am looking to connect to Hayakawa.
Locke presented the idea of the blank slate, or tabula rasa. It expressed the notion that humans are not born with innate behavioral standards. Original sin did not exist. He believed one's character, one's blank slate, to be shaped by external environments to which one has been subjected. Like Hayakawa, Locke believed that each person's internal map varied by means of their extensional and intensional experiences.
I just found this observation to be interesting. Yes, it's simple..but I believe it to be noteworthy.
P.S. Whenever I think of "tabula rasa," all I can picture is the 12 Days of the Enlightenment video that Dr. Bjornstad showed to the class.
(Samantha Maliha)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I see where you are drawing the connection from, but the difference between Locke and Hayakawa was that Hayakawa was talking about words and how they are interpreted by different people while Locke was talking about human nature and how people interact. Unless you want to say that the way people understand language affects how people interact, the connection between the two is weak.
Also Hayakawa believed that people develop differently due to their different extensional worlds while Locke says, that in addition to being born free of sin, all humans are the same and equal. Maybe they would both agree that all people are unique but built from the same mold.
p.s. Me too!!
(Kelley Volosin)
To add on to the differences that Kelley brought up, Locke's beliefs were mainly related to the government. One of his main arguments was that humans had the ability to reason and therefore choose the government they want.
While I agree that the blank slate Locke talks about can be considered similar to Hayakawa's beliefs, I think that the difference in context and time period makes it a weak comparison.
As Emily pointed out with her post: can you accurately compare something to something else from a different time?
I believe that there is at least some connection between Locke's blank slate and Hayakawa.
After all, isn't a blank slate simply an empty intensional map? Locke's point was that humans are not born inherently good/evil/stupid, but are born with a blank slate that can be filled with experiences that later shape that person. Similarly, our intensional maps start out very small and limited, but we expand it with additional experiences and knowledge. We might skew our map with incorrect information, but we do not start out with a skewed map. This agrees with Locke's blank slate ideal, as opposed to "original sin" or Hobbes' view that humans are inherently predisposed toward war.
(Eric Wei)
My main problem with the comparison between tabula rasa and a blank intensional map is the idea of the extensional map. If Locke's ideaology centers around the fact that people are simply a reflection of their environment, where would all of the information recieved from the extensional maps come into play?
I believe that, speaking in Lockean terms, everything written on our "slate" would have to include both our intensional and extensional maps. I think it can hardly be disputed that who we are is based on solely what is in our intensional worlds. What we hear from others, what we read in books, and even what we see on television also helps write on our blank slate.
Thus is my problem with the connection. If what is written on our blank slates equates to what we have experienced in our intensional worlds, how do our extensional worlds fit into the equation?
Molly Dunbar
Post a Comment