康德的哲学语言哲学:哲学术语论

IF 0.2 0 PHILOSOPHY
Eric Sancho-Adamson
{"title":"康德的哲学语言哲学:哲学术语论","authors":"Eric Sancho-Adamson","doi":"10.1515/kantyb-2023-0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Among the passages which are suggestive of a philosophy of language in Kant’s writings are his remarks and arguments on appropriate terminology for philosophical concepts. I ask what it is for Kant that makes some words more suitable than others. I reconstruct the arguments from the Inquiry concerning the distinctness of the principles of natural theology and morality (1764) and the Critique of Pure Reason (1781/1787) that defend that there is no such thing as a proper, real definition for philosophical concepts (only nominal definition and exposition); in addition, philosophical concepts are only represented by terms in abstracto , not in concreto. On these grounds, in the Inquiry , Kant sustains that the reference of a term to a philosophical concept is ultimately sanctioned by the term’s ‘linguistic usage’ ( Redegebrauch ). I argue that this is the basis for Kant’s criterion in the Critique of Pure Reason of employing traditional terminology, words from ordinary language, or even words from extinct languages, to refer to philosophical concepts, and for his rejection of coining new terms – even for distinctly new philosophical thoughts.","PeriodicalId":41181,"journal":{"name":"Kant Yearbook","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Kant’s Philosophy of Language of Philosophy: On Philosophical Terminology\",\"authors\":\"Eric Sancho-Adamson\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/kantyb-2023-0007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Among the passages which are suggestive of a philosophy of language in Kant’s writings are his remarks and arguments on appropriate terminology for philosophical concepts. I ask what it is for Kant that makes some words more suitable than others. I reconstruct the arguments from the Inquiry concerning the distinctness of the principles of natural theology and morality (1764) and the Critique of Pure Reason (1781/1787) that defend that there is no such thing as a proper, real definition for philosophical concepts (only nominal definition and exposition); in addition, philosophical concepts are only represented by terms in abstracto , not in concreto. On these grounds, in the Inquiry , Kant sustains that the reference of a term to a philosophical concept is ultimately sanctioned by the term’s ‘linguistic usage’ ( Redegebrauch ). I argue that this is the basis for Kant’s criterion in the Critique of Pure Reason of employing traditional terminology, words from ordinary language, or even words from extinct languages, to refer to philosophical concepts, and for his rejection of coining new terms – even for distinctly new philosophical thoughts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41181,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Kant Yearbook\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Kant Yearbook\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/kantyb-2023-0007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kant Yearbook","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/kantyb-2023-0007","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

摘要

在康德的著作中,最能体现语言哲学思想的是他对哲学概念恰当术语的评论和论证。我问,对康德来说,是什么让一些词比另一些词更合适。我重新构造了关于自然神学和道德原则的区别性的调查(1764)和纯粹理性批判(1781/1787)的论点,这些论点捍卫了哲学概念没有适当的,真正的定义(只有名义上的定义和阐述);此外,哲学概念只能用抽象的术语来表示,而不能用具体的术语来表示。基于这些理由,康德在《研究》中坚持认为,一个术语对一个哲学概念的指称,最终是由该术语的“语言用法”(Redegebrauch)所认可的。我认为,这是康德在《纯粹理性批判》中使用传统术语、普通语言中的词汇,甚至是已经灭绝的语言中的词汇来指代哲学概念的标准的基础,也是他拒绝创造新术语的基础——即使是对于明显新的哲学思想。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Kant’s Philosophy of Language of Philosophy: On Philosophical Terminology
Abstract Among the passages which are suggestive of a philosophy of language in Kant’s writings are his remarks and arguments on appropriate terminology for philosophical concepts. I ask what it is for Kant that makes some words more suitable than others. I reconstruct the arguments from the Inquiry concerning the distinctness of the principles of natural theology and morality (1764) and the Critique of Pure Reason (1781/1787) that defend that there is no such thing as a proper, real definition for philosophical concepts (only nominal definition and exposition); in addition, philosophical concepts are only represented by terms in abstracto , not in concreto. On these grounds, in the Inquiry , Kant sustains that the reference of a term to a philosophical concept is ultimately sanctioned by the term’s ‘linguistic usage’ ( Redegebrauch ). I argue that this is the basis for Kant’s criterion in the Critique of Pure Reason of employing traditional terminology, words from ordinary language, or even words from extinct languages, to refer to philosophical concepts, and for his rejection of coining new terms – even for distinctly new philosophical thoughts.
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
Kant Yearbook
Kant Yearbook PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: The Kant Yearbook is an international journal that publishes articles, historical or systematic, on the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. It is the yearbook′s goal to intensify innovative research on Kant on the international scale. Articles are double-blind peer reviewed by an internationally renowned editorial board. Each issue is dedicated to a specific topic announced through a call for papers.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信