Truth in grammar in the realist tradition as a universal way of perception and understanding the world in the analytical philosophy of language

Author(s):  
Ekaterina V. Grigorenko
Author(s):  
Ruth Garrett Millikan

This book weaves together themes from natural ontology, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language and information, areas of inquiry that have not recently been treated together. The sprawling topic is Kant’s how is knowledge possible? but viewed from a contemporary naturalist standpoint. The assumption is that we are evolved creatures that use cognition as a guide in dealing with the natural world, and that the natural world is roughly as natural science has tried to describe it. Very unlike Kant, then, we must begin with ontology, with a rough understanding of what the world is like prior to cognition, only later developing theories about the nature of cognition within that world and how it manages to reflect the rest of nature. And in trying to get from ontology to cognition we must traverse another non-Kantian domain: questions about the transmission of information both through natural signs and through purposeful signs including, especially, language. Novelties are the introduction of unitrackers and unicepts whose job is to recognize the same again as manifested through the jargon of experience, a direct reference theory for common nouns and other extensional terms, a naturalist sketch of uniceptual—roughly conceptual— development, a theory of natural information and of language function that shows how properly functioning language carries natural information, a novel description of the semantics/pragmatics distinction, a discussion of perception as translation from natural informational signs, new descriptions of indexicals and demonstratives and of intensional contexts and a new analysis of the reference of incomplete descriptions.


Author(s):  
Joshua Rust

John Rogers Searle (born July 31, 1932) is the Slusser Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley. This analytic philosopher has made major contributions to the fields of the philosophy of mind, the philosophy of language, and social ontology. He is best known for his Chinese room argument, which aims to demonstrate that the formally described systems of computer functionalism cannot give rise to intentional understanding. Searle’s early work focused on the philosophy of language, where, in Speech Acts (1969), he explores the hypothesis that speaking a language is a rule-governed form of behavior. Just as one must follow certain rules in order to be considered to be playing chess, rules determine whether a speaker is making a promise, giving a command, asking a question, making a statement, and so forth. The kind of speech act that an utterance is depends on, among other conditions, its propositional content and illocutionary force. The content depicts the world as being a certain way, and the force specifies what a speaker is trying to do with that content. For example, for an utterance to qualify as a promise a speaker must describe a future act (content) and intend that the utterance place him or herself under an obligation to do that act (force). In Intentionality (1983), Searle argues that the structure of language not only mirrors but is derivative of the structure of intentional thought, so that core elements of his analysis of speech acts can be used as the basis for a theory of intentionality. Just as we can only promise by bringing certain propositional contents under a certain illocutionary force, intentional states such as belief, desire, fear, and joy can only be about the world in virtue of a representative content and a psychological mode. A theory of intentionality does not explain how intentionality is possible, given the basic facts of the world as identified by the natural sciences. Much of Searle’s work in the philosophy of mind, as found in Minds, Brains, and Science (1984) and The Rediscovery of the Mind (1992), is dedicated to the question of how mental facts, including but not limited to intentional facts, can be reconciled with basic, natural facts. Searle’s Chinese room argument is formulated in the service of rejecting computer functionalism, a prominent attempt at such reconciliation. Searle’s positive view, which he describes as "biological naturalism," is that mental facts are both caused by and features of underlying neurophysiological processes. In Speech Acts (1969), Searle claims that using language is akin to playing chess, in that both activities are made possible by participants following what he describes as "constitutive rules," rules that must be followed in order for someone to be considered to be undertaking those activities. Other institutional facts, such as money or the U.S. presidency, are also created and maintained in virtue of our following certain constitutive rules. For example, someone can only count as a U.S. president if that person is, among other conditions, a U.S. citizen who receives a majority of electoral votes. This thought is extended and explored in Searle’s two book-length contributions to the field of social ontology, The Construction of Social Reality (1995) and Making the Social World (2010). In addition to the philosophy of language and social ontology, Searle has made book-length contributions to the philosophy of action (Rationality in Action (2001)) and the philosophy of perception (Seeing Things as They Are: A Theory of Perception (2015)). He also famously engaged Jacques Derrida’s critique of J. L. Austin’s discussion of illocutionary acts ("Reiterating the Differences: A Reply to Derrida" (1977)). Searle has summarized his various positions in Mind, Language, and Society: Philosophy in the Real World (1998) and Mind: A Brief Introduction (2004).


Author(s):  
A.W. Moore

It is argued that the use/mention distinction, if it is to be a clear-cut one, cannot have the significance that it is usually thought to have. For that significance attaches to the distinction between employing an expression in order to draw attention to, or to talk about, some aspect of the world, as determined by the expression’s meaning, and employing it in order to draw attention to, or to talk about, the expression itself—and this distinction is not a clear-cut one. In the final section of the essay this argument is extended to cast doubt on a rather glib appeal to the use/mention distinction that is frequently made in the philosophy of language.


Author(s):  
Kenneth L. Pearce

Berkeley holds that the perceived world is “a most coherent, entertaining and instructive discourse” which is ‘spoken’ by God. Berkeley intends this claim literally and holds that this discourse exhibits linguistic structure: it has a lexicography, a syntax, and a semantics. Interpreting Berkeley’s claims about the world as a divine discourse in light of Berkeley’s own philosophy of language produces compelling solutions to a number of difficulties in Berkeley’s metaphysics and epistemology. Most notably, this chapter argues that our body talk, in both plain language and physics, aims to capture the grammatical structure of the divine discourse. This grammar aims to assist us in interpretation and the interpretation of the discourse brings us into appropriate relationship with God and other minds. Understanding our role as interpreters and grammarians and God’s role as ‘speaker’ also provides a solution to pressing problems about divine and human roles in object construction.


Author(s):  
Ingvar Johansson

Some kinds of utterances which have an indicative grammatical form seem, for different reasons, to be unable to say something true of the world. Logical contradictions are only the prime example of something the author baptizes impossible descriptions. So-called performative contradictions (e.g., "I do not exist") make up another kind, but there are at least two more such kinds: negating affirmations and performatives which cannot be explained within the philosophy of language. Only philosophical anthropology can explain their feature of "impossibleness," and a distinction between unreflective and reflective consciousness is central to the explanation. Particularly important here is G. H. Mead's distinction between two aspects of the self: the "I" and the "me." Each of the four kinds of impossible descriptions distinguished has its own contrary opposite. These are, in turn, logical tautologies, performative tautologies, affirming negations, and omissive performatives. The last three types as types have not received the philosophical recognition that they deserve. All four fit a general characterization which is given as a definition of the concept of superfluous description.


Legal Studies ◽  
1986 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendan Edgeworth

Some years ago, a state-of-play review of the study of Law and Society in Britain by Colin Campbell and Paul Wiles contained the almost rueful comment that ‘analytical jurisprudence and legal positivism… have proved of intimidating endurance as archetypes. As another commentator, Peter Goodrich, has noted recently, Neil MacCormick, one leading authority in the field, rejoined that ‘to confirm or confute these accounts it is necessary to take up some position in analytical philosophy and the philosophy of language. Goodrich's review of linguistics and contemporary legal philosophy indicated that this gauntlet has not been systematically taken up either by legal philosophers or even by those sociologists of law who have been most critical of the general features of legal positivism and the substantive theories legal positivists have themselves proposed.


2014 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 169-178
Author(s):  
David Holdcroft

As its title, Semantics: Meaning in Language, indicates the focus of this book is on context-less meaning (“narrow semantics”), for all that the intention is to throw light on issues of language use. Two main approaches are discussed in detail. The first has its origin in the philosophy of language, and is concerned with the extra-linguistic relations between units of language and items in the world; key concepts are reference, denotation and truth. The second originates in linguistics and concentrates on intra-linguistic relations such as antonymy and synonymy. However, at many points the question arises whether these approaches to narrow semantics need to be supplemented by pragmatics.


Phainomenon ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 18-19 (1) ◽  
pp. 157-174
Author(s):  
Emmanuel Alloa

Abstract Philosophical speech is required to reach the core of the things themselves, often at the risk of subsuming the individual thing under the law of a general concept and ruining its singularity. Is another approach available to philosophy at all ? The question of the violence of the discourse has been raised by many thinkers in the 20th century. Just as Wittgenstein, Husserl demanded for a replacement of deduction by description which would let the things appear in their own light. Merleau-Ponty has rephrased the task of a maieutic phenomenology in terms of”letting see through words” (faire voir par les mots), whereas the direct, exhaustive thematization is given up for an indirect speech, letting the world speak in its own “prose”. While the “indirect ontology” in Merleau-Ponty’s last works has received wide attention these last years, little case has been made of the linguistic implications of the figure of its philosophical operator, the “indirect speech”. What is the status of the “ logos” in Merleau-Ponty’s phenomeno-”logy”? By relating Merleau-Ponty’s reflections on the language of philosophy (rather than on philosophy of language) to the linguistic discussion on free indirect speech (Tobler, Kalepky, Bakhtin) as well as to its use in literature, from Dostoyevsky to Claude Simon, a new perspective opens up of an “indirect ethics”, which implies that whoever speaks in the name of the Other is already spoken by him or by her.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document