Linguistic pragmatism

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru

Linguistic pragmatism

Leonid Mozhovyi

Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Professor, Professor the Department of Philosophy, History and Social-Humanitarian Disciplines, SHEI “Donbas State Pedagogical University”

VIKTORIIA SLABOUZ

Candidate of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Foreign

Languages, SHEI “Donbas State Pedagogical University”

NATALIA MOHYLIOVA

Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Candidate of Phycological Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of the Speech Therapy and Special Phycology SHEI “Donbas State Pedagogical University”

ЛЕОНІД МОЗГОВИЙ

доктор філософських наук, професор, професор кафедри філософії, історії та соціально-гуманітарних дисциплін Донбаський державний педагогічний університет (м.

Слов'янськ, Україна)

ВІКТОРІЯ СЛАБОУЗ

кандидат філологічних наук, доцент, доцент кафедри іноземних мов, Донбаський державний педагогічний університет (м.

Слов'янськ, Україна)

НАТАЛІЯ МОГИЛЬОВА доктор філософських наук, кандидат психологічних наук, доцент кафедри логопедії та спеціальної психології, Донбаський державний педагогічний університет (м.

Слов'янськ, Україна)

ЛІНГВІСТИЧНИЙ ПРАГМАТИЗМ

Анотація

У статті аналізується так званий «лінгвістичний прагматизм» другої половини XX - початку XXI століття, витоком якого стала філософія У. Селларса. Основні ідеї прагматизму були висловлені американським філософом, логіком і натуралістом Ч. С. Пірсом в 1860-1870-і рр., Але тільки на початку 20-го століття завдяки роботам У. Джеймса, а потім Дж. Дьюї він здобув популярність і визнання в філософському співтоваристві, вплинув на духовне життя США. У статті представлені головним чином ідеї Р. Рорті, Х. Патнема, Р. Брендома і деяких інших авторів щодо феномену лінгвістичного прагматизму. Автори звертають увагу читачів на те, що ідеї Ч. С. Пірса щодо прагматизму, заново відкриті в середині 20-го століття, стали одним з джерел сучасного неопрагматізму. Багато вчених пов'язують перспективи американської філософії в доступному для огляду майбутньому з прагматизмом в його різних утіленнях і поєднаннях з іншими філософськими підходами.

Ключові слова: дискурс, досвід, фаллібілізм, інференціалізм, мова, лінгвістичний прагматизм, прагматизм.

ЛЕОНИД МОЗГОВОЙ

доктор философских наук, профессор, профессор кафедры философии, истории и социальногуманитарных дисциплин Донбасский государственный педагогический университет (Славянск, Украина)

ВИКТОРИЯ СЛАБОУЗ кандидат филологических наук, доцент, доцент кафедры иностранных языков Донбасский государственный педагогический университет (Славянск, Украина)

НАТАЛЬЯ МОГИЛЕВА доктор философских наук, кандидат психологических наук, доцент кафедры логопедии и специальной психологии, Донбасский государственный педагогический университет (Славянск, Украина)

ЛИНГВИСТИЧЕСКИЙ ПРАГМАТИЗМ

Аннотация

В статье анализируется так называемый «лингвистический прагматизм» второй половины XX - начала XXI века, истоком которого стала философия У. Селларса. Основные идеи прагматизма были высказаны американским философом, логиком и естествоиспытателем Ч. С. Пирсом в 1860-1870-е гг., но только в начале 20-го века благодаря работам У. Джеймса, а затем Дж. Дьюи он получил известность и признание в философском сообществе, оказавши сильное влияние на духовную жизнь США. В статье представлены в основном идеи Р. Рорти, Х. Патнэма, Р. Брэндома и некоторых других авторов относительно феномена лингвистического прагматизма. Авторы обращают внимание читателей на то, что идеи Ч. С. Пирса касательно прагматизма, заново открытые в середине 20-го века, стали одним из источников современного неопрагматизма. Многие ученые связывают перспективы американской философии в обозримом будущем с прагматизмом в его различных воплощениях и сочетаниях с другими философскими подходами.

Ключевые слова: дискурс, опыт, фаллибилизм,

инференциализм, язык, лингвистический прагматизм, прагматизм.

Abstract

The article analyzes the so-called “linguistic pragmatism” of the second half of the 20th century - the beginning of the 21st century, the origin of which was the philosophy of W. Sellars. The main ideas of pragmatism were expressed by the American philosopher, logician, and naturalist Ch. S. Pierce in the 1860s - 1870s, but only at the beginning of the 20th century thanks to the works by W. James, and later J. Dewey, it gained fame and recognition in the philosophical community, having a strong influence on the spiritual life of the USA. The article mainly presents the ideas of R. Rorty, H. Putnam, R. Brandom, and some other authors concerning the phenomenon of linguistic pragmatism. The authors draw the readers' attention to the fact that the ideas of Ch. S. Pierce as to pragmatism, rediscovered in the mid-20th century, became one of the sources of contemporary neo-pragmatism. Many scholars associate the perspectives of American philosophy in foreseeable future with pragmatism in its various incarnations and combinations with other philosophical approaches.

Keywords: discourse, experience, fallibilism,

inferentialism, language, linguistic pragmatism, pragmatism.

linguistic pragmatism sellars

Introduction

Pragmatism (Gr. pragma - deed, action) is the name of a philosophical view that sees the most vivid manifestation of human essence in action, and the value or lack of value of thinking depends on whether it is an action, a life practice. Pragmatism has had an incomparable impact on the intellectual life of the United States. The philosophy of pragmatism expresses the interests, sentiments, and, in general, the worldview of American society in the best possible way. Considering this direction of philosophical thought, it should be noted its deep relationship with the traditions of Western philosophy, carefully developed its own conceptual system, a wide range of specific problems. The main categories for pragmatism are “action”, “practice”, “experience”.

The main ideas of pragmatism were expressed by the American philosopher, logician, and naturalist Ch. S. Pierce in the 1860s - 1870s, but only at the beginning of the 20th century thanks to the works by W. James, and later J. Dewey, it gained fame and recognition in the philosophical community, having a strong influence on the spiritual life of the country. In addition to the United States, pragmatism had supporters in Great Britain (F. K. S. Schiller, V. Welby), Italy (G. Papini, M. Calderoni,

Prezzolini), France (E. Le Roy), Germany (H. Veihinger), Spain (E. d'Ors), Czech Republic (K. Capek), China (Hu Shih), Uruguay (C. Vas Ferreira) and other countries.

The purpose of the study. It is an attempt to analyze the so-called “linguistic pragmatism” of the second half of the 20th century - the beginning of the 21st century, the origin of which was the philosophy of W. Sellars (“Empiricism and Philosophy of Mind”, 1956) in the study presented.

Statement of the main material. The main thesis of Sellars' philosophy is that there is no knowledge that is not logically determined by previous knowledge. According to naive empiricism, the foundation and starting point of cognition are the primary data of sensations - non-verbal “episodes” and mental states that have a non-inferential character. Sensual givenness as such (for example, visual perception of a red triangle or green circle) is declared to be the ultimate foundation of cognitive experience and analysis. However, Sellars argues, without first formulating the concepts and mastering the language, it is impossible even to establish that a certain object is “red” or “green”, “triangle” or “circle”. Perceptions become the “given” only when they are interpreted in some language and conceptual system, the learning of which is a necessary prerequisite for observation. Reality itself, outside of propositional structures, is inaccessible to us. The directly Given is a Myth (Sellars, 1997, pp. 85-88).

W. Sellars' ideas are developed by R. Rorty, H. Putnam, R. Brandom, and a number of other authors and are called “linguistic pragmatism” (since the 1980s). Rorty criticized “foundationalism”, by which he understood the belief, characteristic of prelinguistic philosophy, that all phenomena, including spiritual ones, have some kind of metaphysical foundations. From Rorty's point of view, there are no such foundations (“first principles'). Truth is an empty concept, a “compliment” that we reward hypotheses and ideas that help us “cope” with reality and interact with other people. “Justification of knowledge is not an issue of a special relationship between ideas (or words) and objects but exclusively a matter of conversation, social practice” (Rorty, 1979, p. 170). The difference between “necessary” and “accidental” truths corresponds to the difference in the degree of easiness with which one can object to certain statements put forward in the course of a conversation. The result of the research is therefore collective knowledge, not objective -knowledge based on mutual trust and consent of the interlocutors (Rorty, 1982, p. 166). Rorty calls this approach socio-ethnocentric and contrasts it with the fundamentalism of Descartes, Locke, Russell, and the neo-positivists. Rorty considers the “linguistic turn” of the 1950s to be a turning point in the history of American pragmatism. Modern pragmatists, he explains, “speak about language, not consciousness, reason or experience”, this is one of the main differences between the “new” pragmatism from the “old” one (Rorty, 1999, p. 95). According to Rorty, there is no experience that is not mediated by language; “people are embodied dictionaries” (Rorty, 1989, p. 88); “language is omnipresent” (Rorty, 1982, p. xxxv). Under a “doubtful situation,” he understands a “moment of uncertainty” when “it is not clear which vocabulary of description is better to use” (Rorty, 1985, p. 43); instead of “experience”, the key concept of early pragmatism, he introduces the concept of “discourse” (Rorty, 2006, p. 20). However, since Rorty does not deny the existence of a world causally independent of human consciousness, he cannot be considered an anti-realist (metaphysical) or an idealist (linguistic). According to Rorty, the new (post-analytical) pragmatism differs from the classical one in two respects, “First, we speak of language instead of experience, consciousness or reason; the second, we are suspicious of the “scientific method”” (Rorty, 1999, p. 95). Therefore, everything that is “below the level” of linguistic practice, the “non-propositional, non- discursive dimension” of experience is outside the focus of Rorty and those who share his approach (Shusterman, 2013, p. 169). There is no place in their vocabulary for the concept of “experience”, which is key to Pierce, James, and Dewey; instead, the concept of “discourse” is introduced (Peirce, 1998, p. 259; Dewey, 1981, p. 372; James, 1977, p. 131).

Putnam, the main opponent of R. Rorty from the circle of thinkers who call themselves pragmatists, rejects his relativistic version of pragmatism, insisting on the irreducibility of truth to the agreement, and objectivity to “solidarity”. According to Putnam, relativism inevitably leads to solipsism, but if traditional metaphysical solipsism emphasizes the individual “I”, modern culture-relativists operate with the category “We” (Putnam, 1992, pp. 71-76). This position, Putnam is convinced, fundamentally contradicts the fallibilist stance of pragmatism - a willingness to revise critically generally accepted ideas and “axioms” of experience. However, fallibilism “does not mean the need to doubt everything at once but implies the determination to question any judgment or belief if there are sufficient grounds” (Putnam, 1995, p. 21). Doubts need justification just as much as beliefs. It is possible, therefore, to be a fallibilist and an anti-skeptic at the same time; this realization Putnam considers the “main intuition” of pragmatism (Putnam, 1994, p. 152).

The concept of R. Brandom, his “analytical pragmatism” (otherwise “inferentialism”) caused widespread discussion in the philosophical community in the 2000s. Brandom focuses on the problem of the relationship between semantics and pragmatics, “knowledge what” and “knowledge how”. What a person sees (the content of his images-representations) depends on how he looks at the world (normative socio-linguistic practices). The quintessence of discursive rationality, according to Brandom, is what he calls the game of giving and asking for reasons. To play with reasons means to say something, to affirm or deny something. Propositionally meaningful utterances form a class of speech acts that function as conclusions or premises in conclusions - “the concept of asserting and the concept of inferring are essentially related” (Brandom, 2008, p. 111). Participation in a language game requires understanding the meaning of statements and terms - their normative validity, role, and place in the network of inferential connections (the expression “this is red” is incompatible with the expression “this is green”; “red” means “has color”, therefore, precedes the derivative “painted”, etc.). A discursive practice that “legitimizes” the use of words and their combinations in a particular meaning is not fundamentally reducible to individual experience, Brandom notes. Reasons are requested (from someone by someone) and presented (by someone to someone). This is a game that cannot be played alone (cf. Ch. S. Peirce's idea of scientific research as a collective enterprise, L. Wittgenstein's argumentation against “private language” and R. Rorty's socio-ethnocentrism). After analyzing various directions and concepts of pragmatism (from Ch. S. Pierce and W. James to H. Price and J. Habermas), Brandom made their detailed classification, highlighting the “naturalistic”, “rationalistic”, “semantic”, “linguistic”, “historicist”, “instrumental” pragmatisms (Brandom, 2011, pp. 56-82).

The writings by R. Rorty, his polemic with H. Putnam and

R. Brandom had a significant resonance, which stimulated interest in the “new” pragmatism, including outside the United States. In 2005, the International Pragmatist Society was created, in 2012 - the European Association of Pragmatism. Regular Central European Pragmatist Forums (CEPF) have been held since 2000. The journals “Contemporary Pragmatism”, “European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy”, “Pragmatism Today” (electronic), etc. are published. As a direction of philosophy, pragmatism is represented today by the concepts of N. Rescher (“pragmatist idealism”), J. Margolis (“constructivist pragmatism”), S. Rosenthal (“speculative pragmatism”), H. Price (“expressivism”), C. West (“prophetic pragmatism”), Ph. Kitcher (“pragmatist naturalism”),

S. Mailloux (“rhetorical pragmatism”), S. Haak (“foundgerentism”), R. Shusterman (“somaesthetic pragmatism”), R. K. Neville (“paleopragmatism”), С. Koopman (“transitional pragmatism”), etc. Many modern researchers associate the prospects for the development of American philosophy in the coming decades with pragmatism in its various versions and synthesis with analytical philosophy.

Conclusions. If the progress of philosophy is assessed not by the monolithic views of adherents of this or that direction or school but by the intensity and openness of professional debates, criticism of accepted research models, the rivalry of various programs and theories, then the current state of pragmatism, characterized by an expanding multilateral dialogue and conceptual innovations, should be considered as evidence of its vitality and inner strength. Today, in the context of the intellectual polarization of the Anglo-American and continental traditions, the philosophy of pragmatism (perhaps unexpectedly for the pragmatists themselves) turns out to be in demand as a positive alternative to analysis, on the one hand, and deconstructivism, on the other. In contrast to European postmodernism and related modern currents a pragmatic version of criticism of “meta-narratives”, essentialism and fundamentalism allows getting away from abstract theorizing and scholasticism without falling into the opposite extreme of relativistic arbitrariness and nihilism. Pragmatism, its current supporters are convinced, could introduce a decisive contribution to the convergence and mutual enrichment of analytical and continental philosophy, to overcoming the “split” between two traditions.

References

Brandom, R. (2008). Between Saying and Doing: Towards an Analytic Pragmatism. Oxford: Oxford University Press [In English].

Brandom, R. (2011). Perspectives on Pragmatism: Classical, Recent, and Contemporary. Cambridge (Massachusetts): Harvard University Press [In English].

Dewey, J. (1981). Experience and Nature. The Later Works. Vol. 1. Ed. by J. A. Boydston. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press [In English].

James, W. (1977). A Pluralistic Universe. Cambridge: Harvard University Press [In English].

Peirce, Ch. S. (1998). An Outline Classification of the Sciences. The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings. Vol. 2. Ed. By Peirce Edition Project. Bloomington: Indiana University Press [In English].

Putnam, H. (1992). Renewing Philosophy. Cambridge (Massachusetts): Harvard University Press [In English].

Putnam, H. (1994). Words and Life. Cambridge (Massachusetts): Harvard University Press [In English].

Putnam, H. (1995). Pragmatism: An Open Question. Oxford: Blackwell [In English].

Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton: Princeton University Pres [In English].

Rorty, R. (1982). Consequences of Pragmatism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press [In English].

Rorty, R. (1985). Comments on Sleeper and Edel. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society. Vol. 21. No 1. P. 40-48 [In English].

Rorty, R. (1999). Philosophy and Social Hope. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books [In English].

Rorty, R. (2006). From Philosophy to Postphilosophy. Take Care of Freedom and Truth Will Take Care of Itself: Interviews with Richard Rorty. Ed. by E. Mendieta. Stanford: Stanford University Press. P. 18-27 [In English].

Sellars, W. (1997). Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind. An introduction by R. Rorty; a study guide by R. Brandom. Boston: Harvard University Press [In English].

Shusterman, R. (2013). Pragmatism and Cultural

Politics: Variations on a Rortyan Theme. Richard Rorty: From Pragmatist Philosophy to Cultural Politics. Ed. by A. Groschner, C. Koopman, M. Sandbothe. London:Bloomsbury [In English].

Список використаних джерел

Brandom, R. Between Saying and Doing: Towards an Analytic Pragmatism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. 288 p.

Brandom, R. Perspectives on Pragmatism: Classical, Recent, and Contemporary. Cambridge (Massachusetts): Harvard University Press, 2011. 256 p.

Dewey, J. Experience and Nature. The Later Works. Vol. 1. Ed. by J. A. Boydston. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1981. 464 p.

James, W. A Pluralistic Universe. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977. 522 p.

Peirce, Ch. S. An Outline Classification of the Sciences. The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings. Vol. 2. Ed. By Peirce Edition Project. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998. 625 p.

Putnam, H. Renewing Philosophy. Cambridge (Massachusetts): Harvard University Press, 1992. 234 p.

Putnam, H. Words and Life. Cambridge (Massachusetts): Harvard University Press, 1994. 531 p.

Putnam, H. Pragmatism: An Open Question. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995. 120 p.

Rorty, R. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979. 401 p.

Rorty, R. Consequences of Pragmatism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982. 237 p.

Rorty, R. Comments on Sleeper and Edel. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society. 1985. Vol. 21. № 1. P. 40-48.

Rorty, R. Philosophy and Social Hope. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1999. 288 p.

Rorty, R. From Philosophy to Postphilosophy. Take Care of Freedom and Truth Will Take Care of Itself: Interviews with Richard Rorty. Ed. by E. Mendieta. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006. P. 18-27.

Sellars, W. Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind. An introduction by R. Rorty; a study guide by R. Brandom. Boston: Harvard University Press, 1997. 192 p.

Shusterman, R. Pragmatism and Cultural Politics: Variations on a Rortyan Theme. Richard Rorty: From Pragmatist Philosophy to Cultural Politics. Ed. by A. Groschner, C. Koopman, M. Sandbothe. London: Bloomsbury, 2013. 215 p.

Размещено на Allbest.ru