No. 56 (2026)
Articles

Babel, Science, and the Origin of Languages: An Epistemological Review of the Scientistic Heritage in the West through the Lens of Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty

PDF (Spanish) ePUB (Spanish) TXT (Spanish)
  • Facundo Exequiel Gregorutti
Facundo Exequiel Gregorutti
Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Rosario. Argentina

Published 2026-06-18

Keywords

  • Heidegger,
  • Merleau-Ponty,
  • Positivism,
  • Proto-Indo-European,
  • Babel

Copyright (c) 2026 Facundo Exequiel Gregorutti

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Gregorutti, F. E. (2026). Babel, Science, and the Origin of Languages: An Epistemological Review of the Scientistic Heritage in the West through the Lens of Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty. Revista Sarance, 56, 140-161. https://doi.org/10.51306/ioasarance.056.08

Share

Abstract

This study examines the legacy of logical positivism in modern science and its impact on the legitimacy of scientific knowledge. The analysis is framed within a phenomenological–hermeneutic approach, drawing on Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of perception and Heidegger’s ontological critique of the Principle of Reason and techno-scientific thought. Methodologically, the study adopts a theoretical–conceptual perspective based on a critical review of the literature and a contrastive analysis of explanatory frameworks regarding the origin of language diversification. It compares the hypothetical reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European (PIE), developed through comparative methods and inferences drawn from attested languages, with the biblical account of Babel, which—despite certain indirect archaeological parallels—is dismissed within scientific discourse for failing to conform to contemporary empirical and methodological criteria. The study argues that the divergent epistemic status of these narratives does not stem from the consistency of their evidence, but rather from the scientistic framework inherited by modern disciplines, which privileges only what can be observed, inferred, or verified. It concludes that this paradigm restricts the understanding of the origin of languages to what can be objectified by science and highlights the inherent, though academically accepted, limits of positivism.

PDF (Spanish) ePUB (Spanish) TXT (Spanish)

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Anthony, D. W., & Ringe, D. (2015). The IndoEuropean homeland from linguistic and archaeological perspectives. Annual Review of Linguistics, 1, 199–219.
  2. Baldwin, T. (2013). Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenological critique of natural science. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements, 72, 189–219.
  3. Botha, E. (2010). Heidegger’s critique of technology and the educational ecological imperative. South African Journal of Education, 30(4), 555–565.
  4. Campbell, L. (1998). Historical linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh University Press.
  5. Candelero, N. (2011). Merleau-Ponty, distinto a Descartes [Apunte de cátedra].
  6. Candelero, N. (2016). Principio de razón: Origen, características y propiedades. En Experiencia científica y experiencia religiosa. Facultad de Humanidades y Artes, UNR.
  7. Carling, G., & Cathcart, C. (2021). Reconstructing the evolution of IndoEuropean grammar. Language, 97(3), 561–598.
  8. Chalmers, A. (s. f.). El inductivismo; El problema de la inducción; La observación depende de la teoría; Introducción al falsacionismo. En ¿Qué es esa cosa llamada ciencia? Siglo XXI.
  9. Clackson, J. (2007). Indo-European linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
  10. Fahmi, M. I., & Nurhadi, A. R. (2022). Galley review: Positivism and its epistemological boundaries. Journal of Social Inquiry, 10(4), 112–120.
  11. Fahmi, M. I., Anam, A. M., Wiratmoko, D., Alwiyah, N., & Yaacob, N. H. (2025). Positivism and Ibn Khaldun’s thought: Bridging objectivity and social dynamics. Harmoni Sosial: Jurnal Pendidikan IPS, 12(1), 26–36.
  12. Flichman, E., & Pacífico, A. (1995). Una conmoción epistemológica: Las ideas de Thomas Kuhn. En Pensamiento científico: La polémica epistemológica actual. Pro-ciencia/Conicet.
  13. George, A. (2005). The Tower of Babel: Archaeology, history and cuneiform texts. Archiv für Orientforschung, 50, 75–95.
  14. Grestenberger, L. (2016). Deponency in Proto-Indo-European. Indo-European Linguistics, 4(1), 1–35.
  15. Heidegger, M. (1976). El principio de razón. En ¿Qué es filosofía? (pp. 71–91). Ediciones Narcea.
  16. Kaplan, J. R. H. (2021). Unravelling Babel: Mary LeCron Foster on the origins of language. BJHS Themes, 6, 25–48.
  17. Mallory, J. P., & Adams, D. Q. (2006). The Oxford introduction to Proto-IndoEuropean and the Proto-Indo-European world. Oxford University Press.
  18. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1985). La síntesis del cuerpo propio; El cuerpo como expresión y la palabra. En Fenomenología de la percepción. Planeta–De Agostini.
  19. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2003). El mundo percibido y el mundo de la ciencia. En El mundo de la percepción. Fondo de Cultura Económica.
  20. Moya, L. (2023). Epistemological pluralism in social sciences: A critical standpoint. Sociedad y Conocimiento, 18(2), 45–59.
  21. Oaks, D. D. (2015). The Tower of Babel account: A linguistic consideration. Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Science, 3(9), 37–45.
  22. Park, Y. S., Konge, L., & Artino, A. R., Jr. (2020). The positivism paradigm of research. Academic Medicine, 95(5), 690–694.
  23. Renfrew, C. (1987). Archaeology and language: The puzzle of Indo-European origins. Cambridge University Press.
  24. Romdenh-Romluc, K. (2011). Merleau-Ponty on the limits of scientific explanation. European Journal of Philosophy, 19(1), 1–19.
  25. Trask, R. L. (1996). Historical linguistics. Arnold.
  26. van Mazijk, C. (2019). Heidegger and Husserl on the technological-scientific worldview. Human Studies, 42, 519–541.
  27. Varela, L., Klimovsky, G., Boido, G., & Flichman, E. (1996). Módulo 1: Un caso histórico a modo de introducción; Módulo 3: Primeras reflexiones sobre las teorías científicas. En Pensamiento científico. Pro-ciencia/Conicet.
  28. Watkins, C. (2011). The American Heritage dictionary of Indo-European roots (2.ªed. rev.). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
  29. Weiss, M. (2018). The comparative method. Indo-European Linguistics, 6(1), 1–55.