{"title":"的意思。修辞学的工具对研究这个问题有用吗?","authors":"J. Lichański","doi":"10.18778/1505-9057.58.05","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The discussion centres around two issues: the issue of meaning, and the question whether the tools of rhetoric viewed as the basic tool in interpersonal communication (be it everyday or specialist communication) can be helpful in reading and interpreting meaning. The author understands meaning after G. Frege: […] let the following phraseology be established: A proper name (word, sign, sign combination, expression) expresses its sense, stands for or designates its reference. By means of a sign we express its sense and designate its reference. The purpose of the discussion is also to answer a much more general question: whether through rhetoric can one say something important about the world, so do they define a philosophical thesis or only, from various perspectives, one searches for the most probable answer to a hypothesis. \nThe presented assumption is a result of the suggestion of Willard van Orman Quine: Rhetoric is the literary technology of persuasion, for good or ill, and it entails something which Randal Marlin defined as referentially translucent expressions. \nTherefore, the hypothesis I shall try to prove is the following: can the sense of any expression be, using the tools of rhetoric, defined to such an extent so that it becomes a philosophical thesis and not a hypothesis? So that in terms of both the subject and the object the expression could be considered as true. Then and only then can one say that such an expression has/contains some (but not any) sense.","PeriodicalId":32744,"journal":{"name":"Acta Universitatis Lodziensis Folia Litteraria Polonica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Meaning. Are the tools of rhetoric useful in studying the matter?\",\"authors\":\"J. Lichański\",\"doi\":\"10.18778/1505-9057.58.05\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The discussion centres around two issues: the issue of meaning, and the question whether the tools of rhetoric viewed as the basic tool in interpersonal communication (be it everyday or specialist communication) can be helpful in reading and interpreting meaning. The author understands meaning after G. Frege: […] let the following phraseology be established: A proper name (word, sign, sign combination, expression) expresses its sense, stands for or designates its reference. By means of a sign we express its sense and designate its reference. The purpose of the discussion is also to answer a much more general question: whether through rhetoric can one say something important about the world, so do they define a philosophical thesis or only, from various perspectives, one searches for the most probable answer to a hypothesis. \\nThe presented assumption is a result of the suggestion of Willard van Orman Quine: Rhetoric is the literary technology of persuasion, for good or ill, and it entails something which Randal Marlin defined as referentially translucent expressions. \\nTherefore, the hypothesis I shall try to prove is the following: can the sense of any expression be, using the tools of rhetoric, defined to such an extent so that it becomes a philosophical thesis and not a hypothesis? So that in terms of both the subject and the object the expression could be considered as true. Then and only then can one say that such an expression has/contains some (but not any) sense.\",\"PeriodicalId\":32744,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Universitatis Lodziensis Folia Litteraria Polonica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Universitatis Lodziensis Folia Litteraria Polonica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18778/1505-9057.58.05\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Universitatis Lodziensis Folia Litteraria Polonica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18778/1505-9057.58.05","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
讨论集中在两个问题上:意义问题,以及作为人际交流(无论是日常交流还是专业交流)的基本工具的修辞工具是否有助于阅读和解释意义。弗雷格(G. Frege):[…]让我们建立以下的语法学:专有名称(词、符号、符号组合、表达)表达其意义,代表或指定其所指。我们用符号来表达它的意义并指定它的指称。讨论的目的也是为了回答一个更普遍的问题:通过修辞学,一个人能否说出关于世界的重要事情,他们是否定义了一个哲学命题,或者只是从不同的角度,一个人寻找一个假设的最可能的答案。提出的假设是Willard van Orman Quine建议的结果:修辞学是说服的文学技术,无论是好是坏,它包含了Randal Marlin定义为参考透明表达的东西。因此,我将试图证明的假设如下:任何表达的意义,可以使用修辞学的工具,定义到这样的程度,使它成为一个哲学命题,而不是一个假设?因此,就主语和宾语而言,这个表达都可以被认为是真的。那时,也只有那时,人们才能说这样的表达有一些(但不是任何)意义。
Meaning. Are the tools of rhetoric useful in studying the matter?
The discussion centres around two issues: the issue of meaning, and the question whether the tools of rhetoric viewed as the basic tool in interpersonal communication (be it everyday or specialist communication) can be helpful in reading and interpreting meaning. The author understands meaning after G. Frege: […] let the following phraseology be established: A proper name (word, sign, sign combination, expression) expresses its sense, stands for or designates its reference. By means of a sign we express its sense and designate its reference. The purpose of the discussion is also to answer a much more general question: whether through rhetoric can one say something important about the world, so do they define a philosophical thesis or only, from various perspectives, one searches for the most probable answer to a hypothesis.
The presented assumption is a result of the suggestion of Willard van Orman Quine: Rhetoric is the literary technology of persuasion, for good or ill, and it entails something which Randal Marlin defined as referentially translucent expressions.
Therefore, the hypothesis I shall try to prove is the following: can the sense of any expression be, using the tools of rhetoric, defined to such an extent so that it becomes a philosophical thesis and not a hypothesis? So that in terms of both the subject and the object the expression could be considered as true. Then and only then can one say that such an expression has/contains some (but not any) sense.