Presentation about Conceptual schemes

1. To ponder…
•Do different groups
see different
worlds?

2. CONCEPTUAL SCHEMES AS
CULTURALLY RELATIVE
Um waynuma!

3. 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;

4. LAST LESSON… Recapping
• Rabbit or Duck ?

5. 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

6. Watch the clip
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNuEc6CK
yvk&list=LLsH8KRt9W1w1xE7MijmPWtw&ind
ex=1
• Stephen Fry and languages (9:15 -13:18)

7. • 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.

8. • 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.

9. • 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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

13. 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

14. • “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