“约定”视域下的意义整体论与认识论的还原论之争
|
摘要
以奎因的理论为代表的意义整体论和以卡尔纳普的理论为代表的认识论的还原论之间存在着论争。从表面上看,双方的分歧在于应当从内涵性还是外延性的角度对语言系统进行分析,然而之所以产生这种差异,是由于两者所采取的"约定"策略不同。研究约定视域下的意义整体论与认识论的还原论之争,有利于更加深入地理解人类的语言与认识之间的关系。
There is a controversy between Meaning Holism represented by Quine's theory and Epistemological Reductionism represented by Carnap's theory. On the surface,the difference between the two sides is that the language system should be analyzed from the perspective of connotation or extension.However,the reason for this difference is due to the " convention" strategies adopted by both. Researching the controversy between Meaning Holism and Epistemological Reductionism is conducive to a deeper understanding of the relationship between human language and cognition.
There is a controversy between Meaning Holism represented by Quine's theory and Epistemological Reductionism represented by Carnap's theory. On the surface,the difference between the two sides is that the language system should be analyzed from the perspective of connotation or extension.However,the reason for this difference is due to the " convention" strategies adopted by both. Researching the controversy between Meaning Holism and Epistemological Reductionism is conducive to a deeper understanding of the relationship between human language and cognition.
引文
[1]刘劲杨.论整体论与还原论之争[J].中国人民大学学报,2014(3):63-71.
[2]Almeder,Robert.Carnap and Quine on Empiricism[J].History of Philosophy Quarterly,1997,14(3):349-364.
[3]周北海.从卡尔纳普的逻辑真概念到奎因的两个教条批判[J].北京大学学报,1991(1):70-78.
[4]孙和平.万能的“语境”---劳纳对“奎卡之争”的解决方案及其语言哲学特点述评[J].自然辩证法通讯,1998(3):1-8.
[5]Carnap,Rudolf.Logische Syntax der Sprache[M].Vienna:J.Springer,1934:23,79.
[6]Quine W.V.Truth by Convention[M]//Herbert Feigl,Wilfrid Sellars(eds).Readings in Philosophical Analysis.New York:Appleton-Century-Crofts,1949.
[7][日]丹治信春.蒯因=Quine整体论哲学[M].张明国,湛贵成,译.石家庄:河北教育出版社,2001:54.
[8]Frege,G.,Geach,P.,&Black,M.On Concept and Object[J].Mind,1951,60(238):170.
[9]Carnap,Rudolf.Modalities and Quantification[J].The Journal of Symbolic Logic,1946,11(2):35,64.
[10][美]欧内斯特·内格尔.科学的结构[M].徐向东,译.上海:上海译文出版社,2002:422-424.
[11]Quine,W.V.O.Carnap and Logical Truth[J].Synthese,1960,12(4):350-374.
[12]Hempel,C.G.Problems and Changes in the Empiricist Criterion of Meaning[J].Revue Internationale de Philosophie,1950,4(11):59.
[13]Quine,W.V.O.Two Dogmas of Empricism[M]//Harding S.G.(eds).Can Theories be Refuted?.Dordrecht:D.Reidel Publishing Company,1976:41.
[14][德]M·石里克.普通认识论[M].李步楼,译.北京:商务印书馆,2005:408.
[15][美]威拉德·蒯因.从逻辑的观点看[M].陈启伟,江天骥,等译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007.
[16][美]W.V.O.蒯因.语词和对象[M].陈启伟,朱锐,张学广,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2012.
[17]Carnap,Rudolf.Meaning and Synonymy in Natural Languages[J].Philosophical Studies,1955,6(3):38.
[18]Quine.W.V.O.Identity,Ostension,and Hypostasis[J].The Journal of Philosophy,1950,47(22):633.
[19]王浩.超越分析哲学---尽显我们所知领域的本相[M].徐英瑾,译.杭州:浙江大学出版社,2010:187.
[20]美国不列颠百科全书公司,不列颠百科全书编辑部,编著.不列颠百科全书国际中文版=Encyclopedia Britannica International Chinese Edition(14)[M].北京:中国大百科全书出版社,2007:195.
[21]Quine,W.V.O.From a Logical Point of View[M].Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1953:43.
[22]涂纪亮,陈波主编.蒯因著作集⑤[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007:350.
[23][德]鲁道夫·卡尔纳普.世界的逻辑构造[M].陈启伟,译.上海:上海译文出版社,1999:11.
[24]Carnap,Rudolf.Meaning Postulates[J].Philosophical Studies,1952,3(5):66.
[25]Fairweather,Abrol.Duhem-Quine Virtue Epistemology[J].Synthese,2012,187(2):673.
[26]Grünbaum,Adolf.The Falsifiability of Theories:Total or Partial?A Contemporary Evaluation of the Duhem-Quine Thesis[J].Synthese,1962,14(1):33.
[27]Topey,Brett.Linguistic Convention and Worldly Fact[M]//Philosophical Studies.Online:Springer Netherlands,2018:3.
[28]Okasha,S.Holism about Meaning and about Evidence:In Defence of W.V.Quine[J].Erkenntnis,2000,52(1):58-59.
[29]Roger F.,Gibson Jr.Quine on Naturalism and Epistemology[J].Erkenntnis,1987,27(1):57-78.
[30]Moulines,C.The Ways of Holism[J].Nos.1986,20(3):313-330.
(1)奎因的认识论的整体论与迪昂的确证整体论之间构成了科学哲学中的迪昂-奎因论题(Duhem-Quine thesis),这一论题包括两个方面:无论在科学理论还是在人类的自然语言中,与经验相对应的语言都不能够还原为独立的陈述;当某一陈述被认为是正确时,与其相关联的的陈述也是正确的。
[2]Almeder,Robert.Carnap and Quine on Empiricism[J].History of Philosophy Quarterly,1997,14(3):349-364.
[3]周北海.从卡尔纳普的逻辑真概念到奎因的两个教条批判[J].北京大学学报,1991(1):70-78.
[4]孙和平.万能的“语境”---劳纳对“奎卡之争”的解决方案及其语言哲学特点述评[J].自然辩证法通讯,1998(3):1-8.
[5]Carnap,Rudolf.Logische Syntax der Sprache[M].Vienna:J.Springer,1934:23,79.
[6]Quine W.V.Truth by Convention[M]//Herbert Feigl,Wilfrid Sellars(eds).Readings in Philosophical Analysis.New York:Appleton-Century-Crofts,1949.
[7][日]丹治信春.蒯因=Quine整体论哲学[M].张明国,湛贵成,译.石家庄:河北教育出版社,2001:54.
[8]Frege,G.,Geach,P.,&Black,M.On Concept and Object[J].Mind,1951,60(238):170.
[9]Carnap,Rudolf.Modalities and Quantification[J].The Journal of Symbolic Logic,1946,11(2):35,64.
[10][美]欧内斯特·内格尔.科学的结构[M].徐向东,译.上海:上海译文出版社,2002:422-424.
[11]Quine,W.V.O.Carnap and Logical Truth[J].Synthese,1960,12(4):350-374.
[12]Hempel,C.G.Problems and Changes in the Empiricist Criterion of Meaning[J].Revue Internationale de Philosophie,1950,4(11):59.
[13]Quine,W.V.O.Two Dogmas of Empricism[M]//Harding S.G.(eds).Can Theories be Refuted?.Dordrecht:D.Reidel Publishing Company,1976:41.
[14][德]M·石里克.普通认识论[M].李步楼,译.北京:商务印书馆,2005:408.
[15][美]威拉德·蒯因.从逻辑的观点看[M].陈启伟,江天骥,等译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007.
[16][美]W.V.O.蒯因.语词和对象[M].陈启伟,朱锐,张学广,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2012.
[17]Carnap,Rudolf.Meaning and Synonymy in Natural Languages[J].Philosophical Studies,1955,6(3):38.
[18]Quine.W.V.O.Identity,Ostension,and Hypostasis[J].The Journal of Philosophy,1950,47(22):633.
[19]王浩.超越分析哲学---尽显我们所知领域的本相[M].徐英瑾,译.杭州:浙江大学出版社,2010:187.
[20]美国不列颠百科全书公司,不列颠百科全书编辑部,编著.不列颠百科全书国际中文版=Encyclopedia Britannica International Chinese Edition(14)[M].北京:中国大百科全书出版社,2007:195.
[21]Quine,W.V.O.From a Logical Point of View[M].Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1953:43.
[22]涂纪亮,陈波主编.蒯因著作集⑤[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007:350.
[23][德]鲁道夫·卡尔纳普.世界的逻辑构造[M].陈启伟,译.上海:上海译文出版社,1999:11.
[24]Carnap,Rudolf.Meaning Postulates[J].Philosophical Studies,1952,3(5):66.
[25]Fairweather,Abrol.Duhem-Quine Virtue Epistemology[J].Synthese,2012,187(2):673.
[26]Grünbaum,Adolf.The Falsifiability of Theories:Total or Partial?A Contemporary Evaluation of the Duhem-Quine Thesis[J].Synthese,1962,14(1):33.
[27]Topey,Brett.Linguistic Convention and Worldly Fact[M]//Philosophical Studies.Online:Springer Netherlands,2018:3.
[28]Okasha,S.Holism about Meaning and about Evidence:In Defence of W.V.Quine[J].Erkenntnis,2000,52(1):58-59.
[29]Roger F.,Gibson Jr.Quine on Naturalism and Epistemology[J].Erkenntnis,1987,27(1):57-78.
[30]Moulines,C.The Ways of Holism[J].Nos.1986,20(3):313-330.
(1)奎因的认识论的整体论与迪昂的确证整体论之间构成了科学哲学中的迪昂-奎因论题(Duhem-Quine thesis),这一论题包括两个方面:无论在科学理论还是在人类的自然语言中,与经验相对应的语言都不能够还原为独立的陈述;当某一陈述被认为是正确时,与其相关联的的陈述也是正确的。