Genealogy Books - The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature

Back to The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature

Spotlight customer reviews:
Customer Rating:

Summary: Unfortunately misguided amid amusing anecdotes
Comment: It was my intention to mark the book for at least three stars, because of its many entertaining
jokes, cartoons, quotations and linguistic quirks, whatever my estimation of the rest of the
content. But on reaching chapter 7 on obscenities, I couldn't make myself mark a third star. Perhaps
I haven't read much of recent concerned literature in finding the chapter surprising, but I
definitely reject the author's thinking there is nothing wrong with his flagrant use of "taboo"
language.

The author reasons (p.19): "...the phenomenon [meaning the disapproval] of
taboo language is an affront to common sense. Excretion is an activity that every incarnate being
must engage in daily, yet all the English words for it are indecent, juvenile, or clinical". The
taboo words are of course the indecent ones. And (p.20): "No curious person can fail to be puzzled
by the illogic and hypocrisy of linguistic taboos. Why should certain words, but not their homonyms
or synonyms, be credited with a dreadful moral power?"

Ironically he observes elsewhere
that taboo words carry certain offensive connotations, and even admits they should be avoided on
occasions. But his defense in principle of them lacks the logic he talks about. Excretion, for
instance, has, in contrast to nutrition, unpleasant odors, etc., and the taboo language for it
connotes its objectionable aspects. The same holds for taboo words in general, and thus there is
good reason for avoiding them.

However, I do not wish to dwell on this topic, but
concentrate on the author's logic in more critical areas. It also enters politics, where his
reasoning is evidently biased and where I don't wish to tread, not desiring associated polemics. My
attention rather is more on his logic per se, alongside his use of it for fundamental causal
laws.

He faults Hume's famed description of causation, quoting (p.211) Hume's passage
(I corrected some punctuation in keeping with the original): "we may define a cause to be an object,
followed by another, and where all the objects similar to the first are followed by objects similar
to the second. Or in other words where, if the first object had not been, the second never had
existed" (An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (The Clarendon Edition of the Works of David
Hume)). Hume committed in his second sentence the fallacy of "denying the antecedent"; from "A
implies B" does not follow "not-A implies not-B".

The reviewed author, however, seizes
on that sentence as "an improvement over the constant-conjunction theory". He along with other
referenced authors elaborates it into a "counterfactual theory of causation", invoking a fantastic
infinity of "possible worlds". The reason for this elaboration is that the authors mistakenly
interpret "not-A implies not-B" as contradicting the "fact" of A. But these don't concern facts, but
rules. "Not-A implies not-B" doesn't follow from "A implies B", but not-A can be as much part of
this world as can A.

The real trouble is that inference. If A causes B, it doesn't
follow that B cannot happen without A. The author keeps saying that only striking the match will
make it burn. How wrong; it will burn if you hold it to any fire. "There is more than one way to
skin a cat."

He, not quite satisfied, brings further with other authors force or power
into the action (p.217), insisting that Hume's conjunction of events is inadequate. Hume, however,
was fully aware of "force" or "power" or "energy", his very point having been that these cannot be
observed outside the conjunction of events. The author persistently complains that many events
follow each other but are not causally connected, as if Hume had been ignorant of this. Our
experiences are very rich, and even animals become discriminatory in apprehending what event brings
about another.

To give one more illustration of the author's faulty logic, he mentions
(p.214) the transitive law, "if A causes B, and B causes C, then A causes C". He then decides
(p.223) that since "our concept of causation [is] based on intuitive physics, rather than a formula
in formal logic, it needn't respect logical necessities such as transitivity. If...A launches...B,
which is then stopped by...C, there is no reason to conceive of A as impinging on C at all". But B,
meant in transitivity to be caused by A, is here not the likewise meant cause of C. If it were, A
indeed would cause C. Logical laws, like mathematical ones, are universal.

Aside from
the preceding, most of this tome of over 500 pages consists of pointless inventories of linguistic
usage, lightened, as indicated, by comic relief. To me the numerous linguistic theories of various
authors cited in the book are wasted, since linguistic forms, as is recognized, are arbitrary. />
Allow me to mention that I discuss all these issues extensively in On Proof for Existence
of God, and Other Reflective Inquiries.

Customer Rating:

Summary: Insight through language
Comment: In his recent book, "The Stuff of Thought", author Steven Pinker makes a compelling case for
hypocrisy being a vital habit in human conversation. His chapter "Games People Play" argues that
hypocrisy furnishes us with a means to ease our ways through conversations in which we face
potentially awkward or risk-filled circumstances. He therefore argues that hypocrisy is a necessary
value in the evolution of the human species. As a professor of Linguistics and Psychology at
Harvard, and the author of six previous books linking these disciplines, Steve Pinker ought to
know.

But can we be entirely sure that the popular and prolific professor actually does
know what is quintessentially true about hypocrisy? I
confess that, in my heart, I want him
to be quite in error on this subject, but not because I have been guiltless in never having indulged
in hypocrisy. I want to find him in error on this question because, now in my sixties and a coach
in the development of productive authenticity, I feel exceedingly uncomfortable either witnessing or
indulging in hypocrisy, and indeed believe this can easily become slippery slope to disaster and
perdition in human evolution.

But, given Pinker's academic authority, is my wanting him
to be in error just wooly Pollyanna-like fantasy? The issue is critical for each of us to face and
decide because hypocrisy is hard to distinguish from deliberate deception. This being so, our
condoning deliberate deception in the generous assumption that it is merely "hypocrisy of a
commendably easing kind", exposes all of us as a society to the risk that we may be casually
enabling mild deception to become a habit that will grow into dangerously deliberate deception. />
This issue does not overhang the entire book, however. No, the author has given what could
be heavy and complex material frequent injections of delightful humour and penetrating wit.
Linguists will, of course, love his breathtaking summations of recent linguistic and psychological
research into what language and languages can tell us of the essential nature of the human mind.
But, if you want to play your part in the pulling of human nature up from its primitive roots to a
better potential future for planetary citizenship in which English will continue to be a potently
vital force, or even if you only want to survive in a world of sharp users of English, you too will
enjoy it.

Customer Rating:

Summary: Interesting and Thought Provoking
Comment: Well. This is tougher review than I assumed it would be while I anxiously awaited its arrival. />
The first three chapters are an entertaining overview of the English language with special
mention of the strange quirks and "hidden -- or are they?" intricacies. He starts out with a
lawsuit based on words(what else?) to determine the amount of money an insurance company should pay
for damages which occurred on 9/11. (Do they pay "double" because each tower was a separate
incident ... or do they pay the planned single amount because 9/11 was "9/11" and it was a single
event?) Mostly, he goes through the tiny differences in the words we choose and I was certainly
left with an Aha! understanding about WHY I choose words differently and the often subtle
undercurrents in that choice. (By the way, English doesn't have a monopoly on the "system" he
outlines -- variance twixt the grammars of the world are remarkably consistent.) Though typically
entertaining, these first chapters are also redundant to the point of sluggishness.
/>Then the books sparkles with his usual panache for the next three chapters. I found it surprising
to learn how many words (and how finite THAT number is!) are spatial prepositions, and, by the way
... why do "slow down" and "slow up" mean the same thing? Each element of language is treated with
style, fun and eye-opening examples, plus lots and lots to think about.

Chapter Seven
follows. I couldn't finish it. For reasons which totally escape me, he is totally enamoured with
"THE SEVEN" -- (inappropriate words for TV -- or in the presence oxygen, in my opinion). I think he
contends that a part of the brain just can't wait to unleash them on the world. I do not believe
that that is true. I was 18 before I encountered the F--- word and that was in a book printed
exactly as I have printed it here. Didn't have a clue! I don't much appreciate his adding to my
repertoire in the name of science; I finally gave up on the balance of the chapter.
/>The remainder is his delightful insights into the "innateness" of language in all cultures, the
sneaky applications that people can devise, the continuing "evolution".

As usual he
is totally professional in delivery style: his page Notes are numbered within the text, his
Reference List is extensive and his Index is complete and easy to use.

It's a good
book but not his finest hour. (The Blank Slate -- verrry scary -- wins that award, I think.)

Customer Rating:

Summary: Clever
Comment: Pinker iis brilliant and is trying to bring psychology into the realm of hard science. Better to
read his HOW THE MIND WORKS.

Customer Rating:

Summary: A Scientist's view of "The Stuff of Thought"
Comment: Even though I am a scientist with deep interests in language and reason, I found this book too
frequently getting bogged down in minutia to keep my interest. The introductory sections were very
interesting and promised much would be revealed in the text - but to garner that revelation took too
much effort for me, and I gave up after about 100 pages. It reads more like a PhD dissertation than
a popular book for the enlightened masses.

Back to The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature

Showing page 2 of 6
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |