Formas lógicas y formas de vida: La distinción entre proposiciones lógicas y empíricas y la distinción mostrar-decir en Sobre la Certeza

IF 0.5 0 PHILOSOPHY
G. Reinoso
{"title":"Formas lógicas y formas de vida: La distinción entre proposiciones lógicas y empíricas y la distinción mostrar-decir en Sobre la Certeza","authors":"G. Reinoso","doi":"10.36446/AF.2020.428","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the conference “Las logicas y las cosas “ (2014), Alberto Moretti argues that approaches that focus on the phenomenon of interpretation to account for the problem of meaning have a problem, namely, they do not support the transcendental conditions that make significance possible. Thus, in the context of interpretation, distinguishing others as speakers involves the possibility of distinguishing others as related objects in the (non-linguistic) world. Not only is this distinction possible because specific logical principles expose the basic structure for discourse and thought but they also expose the elementary structure of the world or reality (Moretti, 2016, p.1). In other words, the logical forms or the logical principles that structure our language are also principles of things (cf. Moretti: 1:23:14). This argument can be considered a transcendental argument as it establishes, through pointing out certain necessary conditions, the intimate world-language connection that accounts for significance, and as it insinuates itself as a response to the problem of the external world (cf. Moretti, 2014: 1:39:13).I propose discussing the scope of this argument from the idea of language autonomy that Wittgenstein develops in On Certainty, which entails an alternative dissolutional strategy against the skeptical challenge. To account for this strategy, I will focus on the distinction between logical and empirical propositions. I will also analyze the distinction show-say that, in its relation with the notion of “forms of life”, allows for illuminating aspects of its praxiological focus on language. Thus, I will defend an approach that does not omit but rejects the possibility of an external (transcendental) point of view both to account for language and to respond to the skeptic.","PeriodicalId":40940,"journal":{"name":"Analisis Filosofico","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analisis Filosofico","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36446/AF.2020.428","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the conference “Las logicas y las cosas “ (2014), Alberto Moretti argues that approaches that focus on the phenomenon of interpretation to account for the problem of meaning have a problem, namely, they do not support the transcendental conditions that make significance possible. Thus, in the context of interpretation, distinguishing others as speakers involves the possibility of distinguishing others as related objects in the (non-linguistic) world. Not only is this distinction possible because specific logical principles expose the basic structure for discourse and thought but they also expose the elementary structure of the world or reality (Moretti, 2016, p.1). In other words, the logical forms or the logical principles that structure our language are also principles of things (cf. Moretti: 1:23:14). This argument can be considered a transcendental argument as it establishes, through pointing out certain necessary conditions, the intimate world-language connection that accounts for significance, and as it insinuates itself as a response to the problem of the external world (cf. Moretti, 2014: 1:39:13).I propose discussing the scope of this argument from the idea of language autonomy that Wittgenstein develops in On Certainty, which entails an alternative dissolutional strategy against the skeptical challenge. To account for this strategy, I will focus on the distinction between logical and empirical propositions. I will also analyze the distinction show-say that, in its relation with the notion of “forms of life”, allows for illuminating aspects of its praxiological focus on language. Thus, I will defend an approach that does not omit but rejects the possibility of an external (transcendental) point of view both to account for language and to respond to the skeptic.
逻辑形式和生命形式:逻辑命题和经验命题之间的区别以及关于确定性的显示-说明的区别
在会议“Las logicas y Las cosas”(2014),Alberto Moretti认为,专注于解释现象来解释意义问题的方法有一个问题,即它们不支持使意义成为可能的先验条件。因此,在解释的背景下,将他人区分为说话者涉及到将他人在(非语言)世界中区分为相关对象的可能性。这种区别不仅是可能的,因为特定的逻辑原则揭示了话语和思想的基本结构,而且也揭示了世界或现实的基本结构(Moretti,2016,p.1)。换句话说,构成我们语言的逻辑形式或逻辑原则也是事物的原则(参见Moretti:1:23:14)。这一论点可以被视为一种先验论点,因为它通过指出某些必要条件,建立了解释意义的亲密世界语言联系,以及它暗示自己是对外部世界问题的回应(参见Moretti,2014:1:39:13)。为了解释这种策略,我将重点讨论逻辑命题和经验命题之间的区别。我还将分析这种区别,比如说,在它与“生命形式”概念的关系中,它可以阐明其对语言的实践学关注。因此,我将捍卫一种方法,这种方法不会省略但拒绝外部(先验)观点的可能性,既可以解释语言,也可以回应怀疑论者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Analisis Filosofico
Analisis Filosofico PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Análisis Filosófico is an open access scientific journal issued by the Argentine Society of Philosophical Analysis (SADAF). Since 1981, it offers original and unpublished papers on theoretical and practical philosophy, discussions, critical studies and reviews –in Spanish, English and Portuguese– that contribute to the development of philosophical analysis. Essential conditions for publication are conceptual accuracy, precision and novelty. Its refereeing policy is based on double-blind reviews and external assessment. It is launched twice a year on May and November.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信