"Language is a means rather than the consciousness used to communicate with the world. There is a third instrument next to the sign and tool-also belong to the essential definition of man. The language is not a means or a tool. Because essentially means that master tool use, ie take in hand and once we have run their service. Not so when we take into the mouth the words of a language and let them after use in the general vocabulary at our disposal. That analogy is wrong because we never met before the world as an awareness that in a state-language, use the tool of consensus. The knowledge of ourselves and the world always involves language, our own. We grow, we know the world, we know the people and ultimately ourselves as we learn to talk. Learning to speak does not mean using an existing instrument to classify the family and known world, but means the acquisition of familiarity and knowledge of the world itself as we encounter.
process is enigmatic and deeply hidden. It is a true child prodigy who pronounce a word, a first word [...]. The truth is that we are so intimately embedded in the language and the world [...] In all our thinking and knowing, we are always already sustained by the linguistic interpretation of the world, whose assimilation is called growth, aging. In this sense language is the true mark of our finitude. We are always exceeded. Individual conscience is not the criterion to gauge their being. There is certainly no individual consciousness in which there is the language she speaks. How then there is language? It is true that there is no individual consciousness, but there is not merely a synthesis of many individual consciousnesses.
No individual, when he speaks, has a true awareness of language. There are exceptional situations where the memory is a word which we rely, that sounds strange or ridiculous and makes you ask: 'would you say that?'. There emerges for a moment the language we speak, for not doing theirs. What then is your thing? I think three elements must be distinguished here.
The first self-forgetfulness is the key that corresponds to the language. Its own structure, grammar, syntax, etc. All that thematized science, is unconscious to the living language [...] A second essential feature of being of language is, in my view, the absence of self. He who speaks a language that no one understands, in fact not talking. Talk is talk to someone. The word word is to be relevant, but this does not mean that I only represent myself as such, but do see the speaker. [...] In this connection see the third element I would call the universality of language . This is no speakable closed area that overlap other areas of the unspeakable, but that envelops everything. Nothing can escape act radically to 'say', because the reference alludes to something simple. The ability of speech progresses relentlessly with the universality of reason. So dialogue has always internal infinity and never ends. The dialogue is interrupted, either because partners have said enough or because there is nothing more to say. But this interruption keeps an internal reference to the resumption of dialogue. " [Man and Language (1965). VM, II, 147-151].
"This confirms what comprobábamos together before: in language itself represents the world. Linguistic experience of the world is "absolute." It goes beyond all relativity of 'put' to be, because it embraces all being in itself, is shown in relations (relative) is shown. Linguisticity of our experience of the world precedes all that can be recognized and interpreted as being. The fundamental relationship of language and world does not mean therefore that the world is made the subject of language. What is the object of knowledge and their statements on the other hand is always covered by the horizon of the world of language. Linguistics in the world of human experience does not entail the objectification of the world [...].
the world and is linguistically manifested itself or not is relative in the sense that they can be objects of science. Itself is not as utterly devoid of character object, and as that can never be given in experience for its ability to be an all encompassing. However, as the world is not can be regarded as a particular language. Well living in a world language, as is done when it is in a language community, it means being committed to an environment as are the animals in their life worlds. No one may want to look down the linguistic world as described before, since there is no place outside the linguistic experience of the world from which it could itself become the object [...]. Have language means just to have a way of being completely different from the relationship of animals to their environment. When men learn foreign languages \u200b\u200bdo not alter their relationship with the world as you would an aquatic animal that became Earth, but retain their own relationship with the world and extend and enrich the foreign language worlds. The language has 'has' world.
If we retain this, we can no longer confuse the objectivity of language with the objectivity of science. The distance inherent in the linguistic relationship with the world does not provide for itself and as such that other kind of objectivity that science produced by eliminating the subjective elements of knowledge "(VM, 539-543).
" Nobody deny that our language has an influence on our thinking. We think with words. Thinking means to think something. And think of something mean to say something. In this sense Plato knew perfectly the essence of thought when it defined as the internal dialogue of the soul with itself, a dialogue that transcended is a constant, self-reflection on one's judgments and opinions, in an attitude of doubt and objection. And if anything characterizes the thinking is precisely this endless dialogue with himself that never leads to anything permanent. This sets us apart from the ideal of an infinite spirit for which all that is true and everything appears in a single intuition. It is our linguistic experience, the inclusion in this internal dialogue with ourselves, which is both early dialogue with others and the input of others in dialogue with us, which opens and orders the world in all areas of experience. But this means we have no other way of order and orientation that has led from the data of experience to the schemes we know as the general concept or as the respective case makes his particular example [...].
What happens to us in language, it happens also in our own vital guidance, we are familiar with a harness and conventional world. The question is whether come so far in our own self-understanding as we get sometimes in those rare cases just described, where someone actually says what he means. But does that mean to go so far to understand what really is? Both, the full understanding and proper that are limiting cases of our orientation in the world, our endless dialogue with ourselves. And I think however that just because the dialogue is endless, because this objective guidance we are offered in shapes of the speech patterns constantly enters the spontaneous process of our understanding with others and with ourselves, all open to us and the infinity of what we understand, of what we can do spiritually. There is no border for dialogue the soul with itself. Such is the thesis that I am opposed to the suspicion of ideology thrown against the language.
is, therefore, the claim of universality of language that I will defend with reasons. We turn everything into language and we can try to agree on everything. It is true that we remain locked in the finitude of our own power and ability and that only an infinite dialogue could fully satisfy the claim. But that is obvious. The question is rather: is there a number of objections against the universality of our experience of the world mediated by language? Here is the thesis of the relativity of all worldviews linguistic thesis that Americans drawn from Humboldt and rich heritage with new reflections on empirical research, that the languages \u200b\u200bare ways of seeing and understanding the world, so it is impossible to get out of the respective world view, which involve the individual schemes. Nietzsche's aphorisms on the 'will to power' and include the observation that the real creative work of God is to have produced the grammar, ie installed us in these schemes of our domination of the world but we can not evade them " [To what extent the language preform thought? (1973), VM, II, 195-197].
Texts taken from (the excellent) Page
http://www.uma.es/gadamer/
Image taken from:
http://philosophy.tamu.edu/ ~ sdaniel/Images/gadamer3.jpg
0 comments:
Post a Comment