Cultures Problem study
论文作者:www.51lunwen.org论文属性:学术文章 Scholarship Essay登出时间:2015-05-26编辑:xiaoni2000点击率:10662
论文字数:4687论文编号:org201505211614422287语种:英语 English地区:美国价格:免费论文
关键词:
摘要:本文是一篇美国议论文,主要讨论了二战后来自不同文化背景的人们能够互相理解的问题。
第二次世界大战以后,许多的思想家一直感到困惑的是,来自不同文化背景的人们是否能够互相理解的问题。当我们开始思考文化的语言和思想的形成时自然而然的的问题就会出现。解决该问题的主要办法要么跟着乔姆斯基的做法或奎因和纳尔逊·古德曼的做法。乔姆斯基的方法是考虑语言,而且它们都基于先天语言结构,并把这看作根本。奎因和古德曼的做法是把语言和思想作为根本的变量。对于乔姆斯基,所有的人都有一个可被理解的语言,因为所有的语言都基于同一套深层语法规则的能力。对于奎因和古德曼,来自不同文化背景的人无法理解对方,因为文化和语言建构难以现实。奎因和古德曼的情况下,跨文化的理解是不可能的:理解和现实相对于文化,只能在文化的出现。
Many post World War II thinkers have been perplexed by the problem of how or even whether people from different cultures can understand each other. The problem arose when we started to think of culture as formative of language and thought. The main solutions to this problem have followed either Noam Chomsky's approach or W. V. O.Quine's and Nelson Goodman's approach. Chomsky's approach is to think of language and thought as fundamentally universal because they are based on innate and deep linguistic structures. Quine's and Goodman's approach is to think of language and thought as fundamentally variable. For Chomsky, all people have an ability to understand each other regardless of language and culture because all languages are based on the same set of deep grammatical rules. For Quine and Goodman, people from different cultures cannot understand each other because culture and language constructs reality. In both cases, the problem of how people from different cultures can communicate dissolves. In the case of Chomsky, the problem dissolves because the difference is not fundamental. In the case of Quine and Goodman, the problem dissolves because cross-cultural understanding is impossible: understanding and reality are relative to cultures and can only occur within cultures.
The common assumptions are that language is fundamental to thinking and culture; and language, thought, culture or humanity is a natural product of biological evolution. Two other philosophers Karl Popper and Michael Polanyi who are seen as diametrically opposed both independently criticize those assumptions. Moreover, both provide alternative theories of humanity (i.e. culture, thinking, and language) whereby cross-cultural understanding is a real problem that can be broached through engaging in the pursuit of scientific knowledge. So, though language and culture creates hurdles for achieving cross-cultural understanding, the pursuit of
Science transcends the limitations of culture. For Popper, science follows the
methodology of rational dialogue which transcends culture; for Polanyi scientists use tacit knowledge to make scientific discoveries by joining the distinctive culture of science.
Many dismiss Popper's views for being too naive. They argue that science is part of Western culture, and as part of Western culture, it produces knoweldge which is relative to Western culture. Science does not transcend culture. Rather, science is an artifact of a specific culture and as an aritifact of Western culture produces a language and form of thinking that constructs a reality relative to Western culture. Popper replies to this criticism in his
essay, 'The Myth of the Framework.' Popper's argument is that frameworks can be criticised in the same way all theories can be criticised. However, Popper seems to miss the main point of his critics argument which is that frameworks both define theories and set the procedures for criticising theories within the frameworks. All
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。