|
The linguistic turn was a major development in Western philosophy during the early 20th century, the most important characteristic of which is the focusing of philosophy and the other humanities primarily on the relationship between philosophy and language. Very different intellectual movements were associated with the "linguistic turn", although the term itself is commonly thought to be popularised by Richard Rorty's 1967 anthology ''The Linguistic Turn'', in which it is taken to mean the turn towards linguistic philosophy. According to Rorty, who later dissociated himself from linguistic philosophy and analytic philosophy generally, the phrase "the linguistic turn" originated with philosopher Gustav Bergmann.〔Rorty, 'Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and the Reification of Language' in Essays on Heidegger and Others〕〔Neil Gross, 'Richard Rorty, The Making of an American Philosopher'〕 ==On the linguistic turn== In the tradition of analytical philosophy, according to Michael Dummett the linguistic movement first took shape in Gottlob Frege's 1884 work ''The Foundations on Arithmetic'', specifically paragraph 62 where Frege explores the identity of a numerical proposition.〔http://www.iep.utm.edu/lang-phi/#SH1b〕〔Dummett, "Frege: Philosophy of Mathematics"〕 This concern for the logic of propositions and their relationship to "facts" was later taken up by the notable analytical philosopher Bertrand Russell in "On Denoting", and played a weighty role in his early work in Logical Atomism.〔(The Philosophy of Physical Atomism ) p.178〕 Ludwig Wittgenstein, an associate of Russell, was one of the progenitors of the linguistic turn. This follows from his ideas in his ''Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus'' that philosophical problems arise from a misunderstanding of the logic of language, and from his remarks on language games in his later work. His later work (specifically ''Philosophical Investigations'') significantly departs from the common tenets of analytic philosophy and might be viewed as having some resonance in the poststructuralist tradition.〔Although Wittgenstein never used the term Linguistic turn. See (Analytic Philosophy: Beyond the Linguistic Turn and Back Again ) (St. Johns College website)〕 In analytic philosophy, one of the results of the linguistic turn was an increasing focus on philosophy of language and ordinary language philosophy. Later in the twentieth century, philosophers like Saul Kripke in ''Naming and Necessity'' drew metaphysical conclusions from closely analysing language. Decisive for the linguistic turn in the humanities were the works of yet another tradition, namely the structuralism of Ferdinand de Saussure and the ensuing movement of poststructuralism. Influential theorists include Judith Butler, Luce Irigaray, Julia Kristeva, Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida. The power of language, more specifically of certain rhetorical tropes, in historical discourse was explored by Hayden White. The fact that language is ''not'' a transparent medium of thought had been stressed by a very different form of philosophy of language which originated in the works of Johann Georg Hamann and Wilhelm von Humboldt.〔Introduction to Structuralism, Michael Lane, Basic Books University of Michigan, 1970.〕 These various movements often lead to the notion that language 'constitutes' reality, a position contrary to intuition and to most of the Western tradition of philosophy. The traditional view (what Derrida called the 'metaphysical' core of Western thought) saw words as functioning like labels attached to concepts. According to this view, there is something like 'the ''real'' chair', which exists in some external reality and corresponds roughly with a concept in human thought, ''chair'', to which the linguistic word "chair" refers. However, the founder of structuralism, Ferdinand de Saussure, held that definitions of concepts cannot exist independently from a linguistic system defined by difference, or, to put it differently, that a concept of something cannot exist without being named. Thus differences between meanings structure our perception; there is no ''real'' chair except insofar as we are manipulating symbolic systems. We would not even be able to recognize a chair ''as'' a chair without simultaneously recognising that a chair is ''not'' everything else - in other words a chair is defined as being a specific collection of characteristics which are themselves defined in certain ways, and so on, and all of this within the symbolic system of language. Thus, a large part of what we think of as ''reality'' is really a convention of naming and characterising, a convention which is itself called ''language''.〔The foregoing argument is regarded by many authorities as confused, invalid and unsound. (About Structuralism ) at the University of Central Florida website〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「linguistic turn」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|