1. Kant assumes that the forms of intuition (space and time) and the concepts of the understanding (substance, causality etc.) are universal, that they are part of the cognitive apparatus – the shared conceptual framework – of all human beings, regardless of language. In his essay, “An American Indian Model of the Universe,” the linguist Benjamin Whorf uses the example of the Hopi language to show that the fundamental categories through which we interpret reality vary with the language we speak (the Hopi are a native American tribe). According to Whorf, the particular language one speaks influences the way one thinks about reality so that people who speak different languages perceive the world differently. This theory is known as “the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis” or “the linguistic relativity hypothesis” (Sapir was Whorf’s teacher).
What cosmic forms and actions correspond in the Hopi language to Kant’s forms of intuition and categories and how are they different from these? What features of Hopi grammar does Whorf think contributed to the development of these different concepts or abstractions in the Hopi language? One objection that has been raised to the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis runs as follows: Whorf appears to be saying that if a person’s language has no word for a particular concept that is found in another language, then that person would not be able to understand that concept, but that is untrue. Based on what Whorf says in the article, how do you think he would respond to this objection? Back up your argument with references to the text. Some linguists and anthropologists have also objected to the position Whorf takes on the chicken-and-egg question of whether thought shapes language or language shapes thought. Where do you think Kant and Whorf stand on this issue and why? Who do you think is right? Explain your reasons.
