Sapir-Whorf is that the language you speak influences your thought, not only through the definition of things but also through syntax and phrase structure.
A d absurdum, this scholarly hypothesis could be the result of the language these linguists speak sic. In other words, if this hypothesis were true, when we speak in German about gender, in Japanese about colours and in Gangurru about orientation, how to explain the fact that we remain fundamentally immune from the language biases predicted by linguists when speaking about gender, colours and orientation? The hard facts of science have shown that in the above three areas in which the influence of languages were tested, none yielded any conclusive result, even considering a fourth area, numbers.
These people would be unable to reliably tell the difference between four and five objects placed in a row in the same configuration. However, in the words of Daniel Everett, one of the leading researchers on this language:. Another notable researcher on the nature of humans, Edward O. Wilson, has, in his works, convincingly proved that people speaking languages void of words for certain colours or numbers were nonetheless able to recognize and to match colour or exact quantities of objects.
Paul Ekmann, in his studies on facial expressions, was able to demonstrate the universality of human expressions, regardless of the language spoken, by showing 17 pictures with different facial expressions to people as diverse as Samoans, Caucasians and Africans, who invariably correctly identified which expression referred to which emotion, even when their native language lacked the appropriate words or strictly defining terms.
As the poet Samuel Johnson once observed, languages seems to be a mere convention or a dress of thoughts.
Find a copy in the library
And all of this academic quibble would have remained confined in some obscure university department if it had not been seriously picked up by some economists. Economics, like linguistics, cannot be considered an exact science in the sense of being predictive, but rather defined as a descriptive discipline. Unlike mathematicians, chemists, and physicians, linguists like economists deal with a field which we all live within and use it daily, giving us a false sense of familiarity.
So much so that we feel entitled to say something about it and little matters if our arguments are not sustained by evidence. Like linguistics, economics lacks the possibility to verify theories against counterfactual evidence or, in Popperian terms, it is not falsifiable. They both share the common trait of non-replicability of the experiment or only under very narrow circumstances, with little general validity and bear the sin of the researcher influencing the one-time experiment, although techniques such as RNM give the illusion of producing objective and certain data. Economists keep on making failures on predicting the next boom or bust, the next level of inflation or what will be the consequences of any given economic decision.
Over time, we should have become humbler, less arrogant and have accepted the fact that economy does not, and probably will never, attain the status of science, at least in the same sense as hard sciences do. Unfortunately, most economists not only have not noticed it yet, but still maintain the hubris of explaining to others how the world runs and of making predictions about its future.
Framed around equations, based on models, these papers written by the cast of the Econ are predominant and overwhelming in quantity, hardly in quality.
L'Imperatore Giuliano l'Apostata (Italian Edition) - AbeBooks:
In every hard science the theoretical models proven to be either false or irrelevant are thrown in the dustbin and forgotten, but not in economics. The belief in econometric models is relentlessly pushing the economic world towards the abyss of risky speculative adventures. None of them has ever taken shape in reality, in the predicted form. The praiseworthy attempt to free economy from its own narrow and self-imposed bounds has led some notable scholars to look for other interpretative models.
Behavioural researches have given us some important insights in the irrationality of human behaviour, such as Dan Ariel or Daniel Kahneman. Following the seductive but unverifiable idea that the language you speak determines what you think, linguistic economists like Keith Chen have tried to explain our propensity to save by the use of a language model. The hypothesis is that if you speak a futureless language you tend to be a profligate person. A futureless language is a language like Chinese, void of the future tense at least in a western language sense ; a futured language instead is a language which forms the future tense by auxiliaries and suffixes, like Slavic ones; or by inflections, as in neo-Latin languages.
According to this interpretation, this would be a sufficient reason to explain the different propensities to save. Only the set of rules of these languages works differently from western grammar rules. We have already shown how the effect of a language on our thoughts is difficult to demonstrate, even without considering the impossibility in determining the line of division between futureless and futured among the currently spoken. But even accepting for the sake of the discussion that a distinction between futureless and futured languages could be made, how would this hypothesis withstand reality?
Here below two charts taken from one of the studies on the hypothesized language-saving connection:. Despite this difference in saving rates, not only both languages are futured in the sense expressed previously but they are also linguistically very near. According to the Cambridge Encyclopaedia of language p. Why do people speaking a language falling in the same linguistic category in this case futured would display different saving patterns? One among many contradictory points which this theory does not explain is that in the previous 30 years, and not considered in the above graphs, from to , Italians speaking a futured language had attained saving level comparable to Japanese, speakers of a futureless language.
Why do people speaking languages falling in two different linguistic categories futureless and futured would then display similar saving patterns? I am not convinced that the analogy is that close. Julian was hardly the first emperor to try and reverse the decline that he saw in Rome Decius perhaps? Theodosius anyone? But it is worth a read. Attilio Mastrocinque here publishes the Italian translation and commentary of one of the most interesting writings by Emperor Julian, the Hymn to King Helios.
Mastrocinque's work is particularly useful to historians of religion and philosophy of Late Antiquity since Julian's work is a theological treatise, composed on the occasion of the feast in honour of the Sun god—which was celebrated on December 25 th —and aimed at defining the nature of this supreme god and his intervention in the world. The objectives of the commentary, stated in the brief Preface , are in the first place to highlight the "political purpose of Julian's cosmological and theological thought" p.
🎁 Books Online Reddit Lifesong Bible Centered Worship For The Emerging Generation In Spanish Fb2
VIII , and secondly, to point out the effects of Julian's thought on the political organization of the empire. Full review here. Salway includes a useful summary of the inscriptions that relate to Julian's reign, concluding that the genuine voice of the emperor rarely came through. In fact, the coins conformed to established patterns of imperial coinage rather than to the emperor's personal preferences.
Mese: Giugno 2018
Varner analyses the iconography of Julian portraiture on both coins and statues, tracing their artistic genealogy back to Aeneas, Numa, Marcus Aurelius and Pythagoras. The fine analysis offers a welcome corrective to the image of Julian the Hellenist. When need be, the emperor Julian knew how to conduct himself as a Roman. The author's main question concerns Julian's character as a philosopher. She concludes that the emperor was neither a professional nor a dilettante but rather a pragmatist who aimed at achieving his religious and political goals partly through his rhetorical writings, in which he expressed his views in a typically non-systematic way cf.
Moreover, the author argues that Julian's thought, his explicit statements notwithstanding, did not depend on Iamblichus as much as is often believed, pointing to influence from earlier thinkers instead, including Middle Platonists. Finally, she also stresses the emperor's tendency to emulate Christian theology, an aspect of his thought relatively neglected in the past.
There are many strands woven deftly together to illuminate a three-dimensional drawing of a complex character from childhood to death. Moreover, he does so in a prose that is intelligent yet free of academic pretentiousness, fast paced and yet still sufficiently thorough.
An Annotated Bibliography, 1474 to the Present
Haven't had one of these for a while. Right in that 1, years is a long time in human history, but wrong in that certain religious and cultural controversies of that era have loud echoes in our own. The similarity is in the battle between societies that promote — or at least tolerate diversity — and those that seek conformity. The impression I had from the standard histories was that Julian was trying to substitute a version of Hellenistic polytheism as the state religion for Christianity which at the beginning of his eighteen month reign held that position.
Seems to me we face a similar situation today.
Maybe this time the poly-theists will win. A review of The Last Pagan at Spiralnature. Who was the last pagan emperor of Rome?
- CHINAS GERMAN EDITION DOCUMENT PDF Original - Free E-Book Download;
- Salvation and the Holy Spirit The Christians Guide to Spiritual Rebirth?
- Marido y amante (Bianca) (Spanish Edition).
When did he die? What did his contemporaries, and those who lived after him, think of him?
These are all very basic questions. And they are ones that Mr. Murdoch a fellow of the Royal Historical Society answers in this enlightening and, more importantly, easily readable book. This is history told as biography, and relies less on dates and places and more on perceptions and actions — both those of the subject and those who wrote about him. It also shows a number of concerns expressed by Julian that are still valid today.
I meant to post this last week.