Philosophy Of Language

The Philosophy of the Language is a branch of the Philosophy not yet very defined, therefore the problems of the language that typically are treated by the philosophers little constitute a connected collection, for which it is difficult to find any criterion clear distinguishes that it from the language problems of that if they occupy grammarians, psychologists and anthropologists. He would be ilusrio to suggest that the philosophy of the language, exactly as is practised by the analytical philosophers, is limited to the conceptual analysis, to the clarification of the referring basic concepts to the language.? (W.P. 1972) It has several other tasks that the philosophers typically impose themselves: classification of linguistic acts, ' ' usos' ' or ' ' funes' ' of the language, types of indefinio, types of terms, some species of metaphors. Studies exist on the paper of the metaphor in the magnifying of the language; on the Inter-relations between language, thought and culture; on peculiarities of the poetical, religious and moral speech. To choose Humboldt 1 to speak of philosophy of the language means to understand the language not as a finished system. In its words? she is necessary to consider the language not as a product dead (todtes Erzeugtes), but, over all, as a production (Erzeugung) (…) In same itself, the language is not a product (Ergon), but an activity (Energeia)? (Humboldt, 2002, P. 416 and 418). They are the reflections humboldtiana an important landmark not only for the linguistics, but also for the philosophy contemporary.

As it needs Cristina Lafont: The taken change of paradigm the handle for Humboldt occurs in two different dimensions. Of its dimension cognitivo-semantics, this change consists of facing the language not as a mere system of signs, not as something objetificvel (intramundanamente), but as something constituent of the activity to think, as the proper condition of possibility of this activity. The language is, then, raised to one quasi-transcendental statute, that demands against the subjectivity the authorship of the constituent operations of the vision of world of the citizen (…) In its comunicativopragmtica dimension, the change consists of seeing this character constituent of the language as the result of a process or activity: specifically, the activity of speaking.

The Other

This common interest age completely concrete, if detia only in the object. For perhaps or its proper device, the man got tools make possible that to construct it its proper habitation and there it sheltered its family, the first and more primitive species of society; Rousseau does not clarify in them duly as if it formed the family, in only says that &#039 to them; ' the habit of living together made to be born candies more feelings porventura known by the men, the conjugal love and the love paterno.' ' 8 However, we could question if this ' to live junto' it would be enough to support the similarity and blood relations, and if it is not enough what more rejection increased to this condition. The first representations of civil society had had origin in the private property when somebody was take fancied more of something than the others and took to it for itself as if always he had been its; more than this, when the other individuals had noticed this ownership and had conceived that it was legitimate. So that it had a lasting relation between the men, something that a meeting in the forest lasted more than, one snarled low one or acasalamento night, were necessary that they communicated themselves. 9%D7%95%D7%9D-%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%93%D7%99%D7%95-%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%93-%D7%A1%D7%91%D7%99%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%99-%D7%A9%D7%94%D7%97%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%AA%D7%AA%D7%97/441148356306385/'>שלומי בסון ניתן למצוא באינטרנט. If they would not go to coexist age necessary not to be communicated, and the language would not have reason of being. But they would go to coexist! First in the islands, where the meeting coincidence was greater that in the continents, there the joined men had finished for forming nations which no law instituted, but equal ' ' sort of life and foods and for the common influence of clima' ' 9 Already established, exactly that precariously, the society needed to remain itself, and the conveniences and comparisons had formed the consideration idea. All individual wanted to be considered, and as consequence almost inevitable, all innocence of the good savage was corrupted. . לא תמיד אבי קושניר.