《哲学研究》讨论贴[讨论]

疯人院逃犯

回LEON：我想“用法”和“含义”这两种提法还有这样的区别：用法是可以被描述的，而含义只能被阐释。阐释和描述的差异更进一层。维强调“用法”与引入“描述”的方法是统一的。
（试回）

宇文光

规则

1，每周一发一段原文，从原著编号第一条起，每次暂贴3条（以后酌情增加）；
2，原著采用G.E.M. Anscombe的英译本，陈嘉映的中译本；在网上公布的文本暂定为英译本，可参见http://users.rcn.com/rathbone/lwtocc.htm（只有编号1－100）；讨论的官方语言为中文；
3，组成员必须跟一贴谈自己的理解，又必须至少回其它成员一贴（不是回每人一贴，任挑一人回即可），长短不限；
4，组成员若少于5人，则讨论组不建立，或解散；
5，每6周更新一次成员名单，这6周内成员若有两次或两次以上未做到（3）规定的义务（因特殊情况请假的除外），则视为自动退出讨论组；若更新后讨论组成员数少于5人，参见（4）；退出的成员12周后才能申请重新加入；


成员名单： leon, 王晨, 疯人院逃犯, 宇文光, 饥饿的石头, zen

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-7-26 13:24:47编辑过]

宇文光

第一周

编号1－3
1
"When they (my elders) named some object, and
accordingly moved towards something, I saw this
and I grasped that that the thing was called by the
sound they uttered when they meant to point it
out.  Their intention was shown by their bodily
movements, as it were the natural language of all
peoples; the expression of the face, the play of the
eyes, the movement of other parts of the body, and
the tone of the voice which expresses our state of
mind in seeking, having, rejecting, or avoiding
something.  Thus, as I heard words repeatedly
used in their proper places in various sentences, I
gradually learnt to understand what objects they
signified; and after I had trained my mouth to form
these signs, I used them to express my own
desires."

These words, it seems to me, give us a particular
picture of the essence of human language.  It is
this: the individual words in language name
objects--sentences are combinations of such
names.--In this picture of language we find the
roots of the following idea: Every word has a
meaning.  The meaning is correlated with the
word.  It is the object for which the word
stands.

Augustine does not speak of there being any
difference between kinds of word.  If you describe
the learning of language in this way you are, I
believe, thinking primarily of nouns like \'table\',
\'chair\', \'bread\', and of people\'s names, and only
secondarily of the names of certain actions and
properties; and of the remaining kinds of word as
something that will take care of itself.

Now think of the following use of language: I send
someone shopping.  I give him a slip marked \'five
red apples\'.  He takes the slip to the shopkeeper,
who opens the drawer marked \'apples\', then he
looks up the word \'red\' in a table and finds a colour
sample opposite it; then he says the series of
cardinal numbers--I assume that he knows them by
heart--up to the word \'five\' and for each number he
takes an apple of the same colour as the sample out
of the drawer.--It is in this and simlar ways that
one operates with words--"But how does he know
where and how he is to look up the word \'red\' and
what he is to do with the word \'five\'?" ---Well, I
assume that he \'acts\' as I have
described.  Explanations come to an end
somewhere.--But what is the meaning of the word
\'five\'? --No such thing was in question here, only
how the word \'five\' is used.


2
That philosophical concept of meaning has its
place in a primitive idea of the way language
functions.  But one can also say that it is the idea
of a language more primitive than ours.

Let us imagine a language ...The language is meant
to serve for communication between a builder A
and an assistant B.  A is building with
building-stones; there are blocks, pillars, slabs and
beams.  B has to pass the stones, and that in the
order in which A needs them.  For this purpose
they use a language consisting of the words \'block\',
\'pillar\', \'slab\', \'beam\'.  A calls them out; --B brings
the stone which he has learnt to bring at
such-and-such a call. -- Conceive this as a
complete primitive language.  


3
Augustine, we might say, does describe a system
of communication; only not everything that we call
language is this system.  And one has to say this
in many cases where the question arises \'Is this an
appropriate description or not?\'  The answer
is:  \'Yes, it is appropriate, but only for this
narrowly circumscribed region, not for the whole
of what you were claiming to describe."

It is as if someone were to say: "A game consists
in moving objects about on a surface according to
certain rules..." --and we replied: You seem to be
thinking of board games, but there are others.  You
can make your definition correct by expressly
restricting it to those games.

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-7-26 13:25:21编辑过]

文沁可人

偶搬个椅子坐着学习行不？

Zen

再加4和5吧，这两条不长，而且是维特根斯坦反驳的起首。

宇文光

ok

4
Imagine a script in which the letters were used
to stand for sounds, and also as signs of
emphasis and punctuation. (A script can be
conceived as a language for describing  
sound-patterns.) Now imagine someone interpreting
that script as if there were simple a correspondence
of letters to sounds and as if  the letters had
not also completely different functions.
Augustine\' conception of language is like such
an over-simple conception of the script.


5
If we look at the example in (1), we may
perhaps get an inkling how much this
general notion of the meaning of a word
surrounds the working of language with
a haze which makes clear vision impossible.
It disperses the fog to study the phenomena
of language in primitive kinds of application
in which one can command a clear view of
the aim and functioning of the words.  

   A child uses such primitive forms of
language when it learns to talk. Here the
teaching of  language is not explanation,
but training.

leon

语言的含义在于其用法，奥古斯丁图画是语言的一种原始用法（指称）的产物，这种用法只适合于名词，而没有顾及到其他词类，如果将语言的指称用法绝对化就会窒息语言。节3维将语言的这种用法所能够形成的交流系统限制在一个狭窄的范围，它并不能满足语言交流功能的多样性。这里涉及对语言的含义在于其用法这句话的理解，用法处于不断的变动之中，不同的用法产生出不同的含义， 所以含义也处于不断的变动之中，而不是固定不变的，这一点表达了维反本质主义的立场。用法是先于含义的。如果认为含义先于用法，就会造成含义掩盖了用法的结果。节5维用一个形象的比喻说明这一点“语词含义的通常概念形成了多浓的一团雾气，使我们无法看清楚语言是怎么起作用的”维接着所举的通过训练而不是解释或定义教孩子说话这是对用法先于含义这一观点的强调。
今天先想这些，有新想法在及时补充吧，先看看大家的~。如果不合规范，宇文兄及时指正！

王晨

已经开始了吗？

疯人院逃犯

开始啦~~~发言我还没想好~

leon

昨晚匆匆忙忙想了一点，太短，也不深入，还需补充。