经验的表现与自我呈现——一些哲学案例

J. Marek
{"title":"经验的表现与自我呈现——一些哲学案例","authors":"J. Marek","doi":"10.1515/9783110330571.103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Intentional experiences — like all experiences (i.e. conscious mental occurrences, “Erlebnisse” in German) — “show themselves”, as Wittgenstein put it, or “present themselves”, as Alexius Meinong dubbed it. This kind of showing or self-presentation is not a saying; it does not need the intermediary of a representation of its own. In other words, we are conscious of our experiences without considering them, without observing them. Meinong saw a mark of the mental therein and similarly did Wittgenstein when he tried to characterize psychological verbs (“believe”, “see”, “pain”, “fear”, for example). For psychological verbs may express the mental state explicitly without expressing (assertive) information about it. Philosophical cases like the so-called Moore’s paradox (“I don’t believe it’s raining, but as a matter of fact it is”) can be interpreted in the light of the above-mentioned distinction between showing and saying and between selfpresentation and “other-presentation”, respectively. Moore’s paradox is not a paradox of the logic of propositions [Logik des Satzes], it is a paradox of the logic of assertions [Logik der Behauptung], already Wittgenstein said. Logical structure, deducibility, and consistency cannot be reduced solely to propositions. Not only propositions but also assertions, questions, imperatives, wishes and even feelings are accessible to logic. In this sense, the distinction between showing and saying also helps us to understand how value judgments work according to emotivism. Emotivists claim that value judgments can be interpreted as expressions of a complex of beliefs and — in the final analysis — of (collective) emotions. As there is not only a logic of propositions, the emotivists’ claim does not preclude that value judgments can figure in valid arguments.","PeriodicalId":317292,"journal":{"name":"From ontos verlag: Publications of the Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society - New Series","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Showing and Self-Presentation of Experiences – Some Philosophical Cases\",\"authors\":\"J. Marek\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/9783110330571.103\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Intentional experiences — like all experiences (i.e. conscious mental occurrences, “Erlebnisse” in German) — “show themselves”, as Wittgenstein put it, or “present themselves”, as Alexius Meinong dubbed it. This kind of showing or self-presentation is not a saying; it does not need the intermediary of a representation of its own. In other words, we are conscious of our experiences without considering them, without observing them. Meinong saw a mark of the mental therein and similarly did Wittgenstein when he tried to characterize psychological verbs (“believe”, “see”, “pain”, “fear”, for example). For psychological verbs may express the mental state explicitly without expressing (assertive) information about it. Philosophical cases like the so-called Moore’s paradox (“I don’t believe it’s raining, but as a matter of fact it is”) can be interpreted in the light of the above-mentioned distinction between showing and saying and between selfpresentation and “other-presentation”, respectively. Moore’s paradox is not a paradox of the logic of propositions [Logik des Satzes], it is a paradox of the logic of assertions [Logik der Behauptung], already Wittgenstein said. Logical structure, deducibility, and consistency cannot be reduced solely to propositions. Not only propositions but also assertions, questions, imperatives, wishes and even feelings are accessible to logic. In this sense, the distinction between showing and saying also helps us to understand how value judgments work according to emotivism. Emotivists claim that value judgments can be interpreted as expressions of a complex of beliefs and — in the final analysis — of (collective) emotions. As there is not only a logic of propositions, the emotivists’ claim does not preclude that value judgments can figure in valid arguments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":317292,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"From ontos verlag: Publications of the Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society - New Series\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-11-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"From ontos verlag: Publications of the Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society - New Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110330571.103\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"From ontos verlag: Publications of the Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society - New Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110330571.103","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

意向经验——像所有的经验一样(例如,有意识的心理事件,德语中的“Erlebnisse”)——正如维特根斯坦所说的那样,“展示自己”,或者像亚历克修斯·梅农所说的那样,“呈现自己”。这种展示或自我呈现不是一种说法;它不需要自己的代表作为中介。换句话说,我们意识到我们的经验,而不考虑它们,不观察它们。美农在其中看到了精神的印记,维特根斯坦在试图描述心理动词(例如,“相信”、“看到”、“痛苦”、“恐惧”)时也有类似的想法。因为心理动词可以明确地表达心理状态,而不表达有关心理状态的(自信的)信息。像所谓的摩尔悖论(“我不相信天在下雨,但事实上它在下雨”)这样的哲学案例,可以根据上面提到的展示和说、自我呈现和“他者呈现”之间的区别来解释。摩尔悖论不是命题逻辑的悖论,它是断言逻辑的悖论,维特根斯坦已经说过了。逻辑结构、可演绎性和一致性不能仅仅归结为命题。不仅命题,而且断言、问题、命令、愿望甚至感觉都可以用逻辑来解释。从这个意义上说,表现和说的区别也有助于我们理解价值判断是如何根据情感主义起作用的。情感主义者声称,价值判断可以被解释为一种复杂的信念的表达,并最终分析为(集体)情感的表达。由于不仅存在命题逻辑,情感主义者的主张并不排除价值判断可以体现在有效论证中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Showing and Self-Presentation of Experiences – Some Philosophical Cases
Intentional experiences — like all experiences (i.e. conscious mental occurrences, “Erlebnisse” in German) — “show themselves”, as Wittgenstein put it, or “present themselves”, as Alexius Meinong dubbed it. This kind of showing or self-presentation is not a saying; it does not need the intermediary of a representation of its own. In other words, we are conscious of our experiences without considering them, without observing them. Meinong saw a mark of the mental therein and similarly did Wittgenstein when he tried to characterize psychological verbs (“believe”, “see”, “pain”, “fear”, for example). For psychological verbs may express the mental state explicitly without expressing (assertive) information about it. Philosophical cases like the so-called Moore’s paradox (“I don’t believe it’s raining, but as a matter of fact it is”) can be interpreted in the light of the above-mentioned distinction between showing and saying and between selfpresentation and “other-presentation”, respectively. Moore’s paradox is not a paradox of the logic of propositions [Logik des Satzes], it is a paradox of the logic of assertions [Logik der Behauptung], already Wittgenstein said. Logical structure, deducibility, and consistency cannot be reduced solely to propositions. Not only propositions but also assertions, questions, imperatives, wishes and even feelings are accessible to logic. In this sense, the distinction between showing and saying also helps us to understand how value judgments work according to emotivism. Emotivists claim that value judgments can be interpreted as expressions of a complex of beliefs and — in the final analysis — of (collective) emotions. As there is not only a logic of propositions, the emotivists’ claim does not preclude that value judgments can figure in valid arguments.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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