Lexicon of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 


[german]  

Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.

The author or concept searched is found in the following 6 entries.
Disputed term/author/ism Author
Entry
Reference
Consciousness Dummett
 
Books on Amazon
I 116
Content of consciousness/Dummett: private: fragrance, melody, name "idea" (no background is necessary) - but not private: concepts, thoughts, sense (public). ( VsBritish empiricists: concepts are no "Ideas").
I 117
British Empiricism: identifies concepts with ideas - DummettVsSaussure: imitates this by describing sound transmissions mechanistically - > speech as code.

Du I
M. Dummett
Ursprünge der analytischen Philosophie Frankfurt 1992

Du III
M. Dummett
Wahrheit Stuttgart 1982

Consciousness Saussure
 
Books on Amazon
Dum I 117
Content of consciousness: private: fragrance, melody, name, "idea" (no background necessary) -but not: concepts, thoughts, sense (public) (VsBritish empiricists: concepts no "ideas") British Empiricism: equates concepts with imagination - DummettVsSaussure: mimics this by mechanistically describing the transmission of sound - language as code
I 118
Meaning/Grasping/DummettVsSaussure: too simple explanation, like periodic pain - we would then also need an explanation of what it means to use this concept - e.g. if someone knows nothing about trees, it does not help to say that every time he heard the word concept would enter his mind - I 120 thoughts can only be grasped as a complex - >holism - what someone thinks about an object must be able to apply to other objects - >Universality Condition/Evans: the object must also be able to have other predicates
F. de Saussure
I Peter Prechtl Saussure zur Einführung Hamburg 1994 (Junius)
Imagination Dummett
 
Books on Amazon
I 117
DummettVsSaussure: This representation of the communication process is obviously untenable. It imitates the equation of idea and concept by the British empiricists. (Vs) Concepts are represented as mental images (ideas).
I 117ff
DummettVsFrege: (consciousness subjective - thoughts objective): Dummett: categorial difference: mental images (ideas)/thoughts.
I 127
DummettVsFrege: all thoughts and ideas can be communicated because they are used only in a certain way - by this determination they can be communicated.

Du I
M. Dummett
Ursprünge der analytischen Philosophie Frankfurt 1992

Du III
M. Dummett
Wahrheit Stuttgart 1982

Incommensurability Putnam
 
Books on Amazon
III 161f
Incommensurability/Putnam: even before Kuhn in Saussure: basic units of language cannot be determined from the sounds -> Whorf: if individual languages have many quite different color predicates, then the meaning is reserved for individual languages . -> Idiolect > DerridaVsWhorf: the meanings are not only individual languages but reserved for the individual texts. -> Deconstruction - DerridaVsSaussure: the concept of the sign can be completely forgotten. PutnamVsDerrida: he misunderstands Saussure's project of a theory of meaning.
---
III 165
Solution/Putnam: maintaining concept of meaning equality, but realizing that it may not be understood as in the sense of self-identity of objects and signified. PutnamVsDerrida (How VsFodor): "meaning equality" is interest relative, and presupposes a normative judgment on rationality in a situation.
---
V 157
Incommensurabilityy/PutnamVsFeyerabend: it is contradictory to state, Galileo's concepts are incommensurable and then to describe them in detail afterwards. - One must also understand the old language to be able to say that the predictions are identical.

Pu I
H. Putnam
Von einem Realistischen Standpunkt Frankfurt 1993

Pu II
H. Putnam
Repräsentation und Realität Frankfurt 1999

Pu III
H. Putnam
Für eine Erneuerung der Philosophie Stuttgart 1997

Pu IV
H. Putnam
Pragmatismus Eine offene Frage Frankfurt 1995

Pu V
H. Putnam
Vernunft, Wahrheit und Geschichte Frankfurt 1990

Linguistics Saussure
 
Books on Amazon
Gabriele Röttger-Denker Barthes zur Einführung Hamburg 1989
I 26
Linguistik/Saussure: Postulat: die Linguistik ist in der Semiologie enthalten.
I 27
BarthesVsSaussure: das muss umgekehrt werden! Alle Zeichen sind sprachlich verfasst!
F. de Saussure
I Peter Prechtl Saussure zur Einführung Hamburg 1994 (Junius)
Linguistics Barthes
 
Books on Amazon
Gabriele Röttger-Denker Barthes zur Einführung Hamburg 1989

I 26
Linguistics/Saussure: Postulate: the linguistics is contained in the semiology. ---
I 27
BarthesVsSaussure: that must be reversed! All characters are linguistically written!

Barth I
R. Barthes
Mythologies: The Complete Edition, in a New Translation New York 2013


The author or concept searched is found in the following 9 controversies.
Disputed term/author/ism Author Vs Author
Entry
Reference
Derrida, J. Putnam Vs Derrida, J.
 
Books on Amazon
III 96 ff
However, the typical representatives of relativism paradoxically believe they had made something like a metaphysical discovery. Deconstructivism/Derrida/Putnam: he completes step from relativism to nihillism. This concept of truth is incoherent and belongs to a "metaphysics of presence" (Derrida). Derrida, allegedly: "the concept of truth is inconsistent, but absolutely essential!"
PutnamVsDerrida: What do you mean, every use of the word "true" contains a contradiction?
III 97
The failure of a number of mutually exclusive philosophical explanations of the concept of truth is something completely different from the failure of the concept of truth itself! LL Wittgenstein: the failure of a number of philosophical analyses of certainty is something other than the failure of the normal concept of certainty. - - -
PutnamVsDerrida: but the collapse of a particular worldview is far from being a collapse of the concepts of representation and truth. Because if we equate this metaphysical tradition with our lives and our language, we would be giving metaphysics an entirely exaggerated importance.
- - -
DerridaVsSaussure: approves this, he criticized Saussure only in that he did not go further and abandoned the concept of the character altogether.
III 163
PutnamVsDerrida: Derrida overlooks here that Saussure's way of thinking was based on a utopian project. It had been hoped that a a stringent scientific explanation of the concept of meaning could be given. This hope has failed, but we are not forced to the absurd view that nobody could understand a language other than their own idiolect. Even Derrida himself does not go that far. He recognizes the indispensability of translations indeed.
III 164
Solution/Putnam: the alternative to Saussure's view is that retaining the concept of "meaning equality", while realizing that it must not be interpreted in the sense of self-identity of objects called "meaning" or "significate".
III 165
Can it be that Derrida makes the same mistake as Jerry Fodor? He does not even consider the possibility that the kind of "meaning equality" aimed at in translation could be an interest-relative (but still very real) relationship, which presupposes a normative judgment, i.e. a judgment about what is reasonable in the individual case.
III 168
Derrida/Putnam: his attitude is much harder to pin down. (DerridaVsLogocentrism.) Derrida himself emphasizes that the logocentric quandary was no "pathology" for which he had a cure to offer. We must fall into this quandary by fate.
By his leftist supporters Derrida has often been interpreted as if this justified even a consistent rejection of the idea of ​​the rational justification.
Forgery/Bernstein: "You cannot falsify just anything."
Richard BernsteinVsDerrida: what do the texts by Derrida have about them that permits, or even demands this double interpretation? It is ultimately true that "not just anything can be falsified".
III 171
PutnamVsDerrida: Derrida's quandary is one in which those fall who, albeit not wanting to be "irresponsible", also want to "problematize" the concepts of reason and truth by teaching that these concepts have failed. His steps amount to the fact that the concepts "rationale", "strong reason", "justification", etc. correspond to repressive practices more than anything. And this view is dangerous indeed, because it offers help and comfort to all sorts of left and right extremists.
I 22
PutnamVsDerrida: its criticism of "logocentrism" is not only wrong, but dangerous. - - -
I 266
Deconstruction/PutnamVsDerrida: is right in that a certain philosophical tradition (for example, binary logic) is simply bankrupt. But identifying this tradition with our lives and our language is to give metaphysics a completely exaggerated importance. Meaning Equality/PutnamVsDerrida: is actually an interest-relative one! It contains a judgment about what is reasonable in each case.
I 273
PutnamVsDerrida: deconstruction without reconstruction is irresponsibility.

Pu I
H. Putnam
Von einem Realistischen Standpunkt Frankfurt 1993

Pu II
H. Putnam
Repräsentation und Realität Frankfurt 1999

Pu III
H. Putnam
Für eine Erneuerung der Philosophie Stuttgart 1997

Pu IV
H. Putnam
Pragmatismus Eine offene Frage Frankfurt 1995

Pu V
H. Putnam
Vernunft, Wahrheit und Geschichte Frankfurt 1990
Empiricism Dummett Vs Empiricism
 
Books on Amazon
DummettVsEmpiricism, British:
Saussure:.. "... A term triggers in the brain a particular sound. This is a psychological phenomenon which in turn is followed by a physiological process, the brain initiates a pulse on to the vocal organs, then the sound waves to the ear of the other to be transmitted, a purely physical process.
I 117
DummettVsSaussure: This representation of the understanding process is obviously untenable. It mimics the equation of the British empiricists of idea and concept. (Vs). Terms are represented as mental images (ideas). Content of consciousness: private: fragrance, melody, name "idea" (no background necessary) - But not: ideas, thoughts, sense (public) - (VsBritish Empiricists: "ideas" are not terms).

Du I
M. Dummett
Ursprünge der analytischen Philosophie Frankfurt 1992

Du III
M. Dummett
Wahrheit Stuttgart 1982
Saussure, F. de Barthes Vs Saussure, F. de
 
Books on Amazon
Saussure: Postulate: linguistics is included in the semiology.
I 27
BarthesVsSaussure: this has to be reversed! All signs are linguistic.

Barth I
R. Barthes
Mythologies: The Complete Edition, in a New Translation New York 2013
Saussure, F. de Derrida Vs Saussure, F. de
 
Books on Amazon
Saussure I 81
DerridaVsSaussure: bewahrt noch Restmomente des kritisierten Dualismus: hat dem Moment der Bedeutung immer noch Vorrang eingeräumt. (Wegen Saussure: „die Bedeutung einer Sache bleibt unverändert, auch wenn sich die Werte verschieben würden“. DerridaVsSaussure: Ablehnung der Zeitlosigkeit. (Trifft Saussure nicht).

De I
J. Derrida
Grammatologie Frankfurt 1993
Saussure, F. de Dummett Vs Saussure, F. de
 
Books on Amazon
Saussure: ... a term triggers the image of a particular sound in the brain. This is a psychic phenomenon, which in turn is followed by a physiological process. The brain sends a pulse to the vocal organs, then the sound waves are transmitted to the ear of the other, a purely physical process.
I 117
DummettVsSaussure: This representation of the understanding process is obviously untenable.It imitates the equating of the British empiricists of idea and concept. (DummettVsEmpirists) terms are represented as mental images (ideas).

Du I
M. Dummett
Ursprünge der analytischen Philosophie Frankfurt 1992

Du III
M. Dummett
Wahrheit Stuttgart 1982
Saussure, F. de Luhmann Vs Saussure, F. de
 
Books on Amazon
AU Cass 12
Sprache/Luhmann: Sprache ist strukturelle Kopplung. Das ist ihre Aufgabe, ihre Funktion. Das bedeutet: Sprache ist kein System!
Sprachtheorie/Tradition/Luhmann: traditionelle Theorien: Saussure: Sprache ist ein System! Luhmann: aber sein Systembegriff ist nicht auf Operation bezogen! Sondern auf Strukturen, Differenzen usw.
LuhmannVsSaussure: bei seiner Unterscheidung zwischen gesprochenem Wort und Sprache bleibt empirisch noch unklar, was eigentlich die basale Operation ist. Es sei denn, daß man sich auf Kommunikation bezieht. Aber das würde erzwingen, stärker zwischen psychischen und sozialen Systemen zu unterscheiden, als das in der Linguistik üblich ist.
Sprache/Luhmann: 1. Sie ist kein System. 2. Sprache hat keine eigene Operationsweise. Also keine sprachliche Operation, die nicht Kommunikation oder nichtsprachliches Denken wäre. ((s) Eine genuin sprachliche Operation müßte also selber nichtsprachlich sein.) Luhmann: das hängt mit der tiefen Lagerung des Begriffs der Operation zusammen und mit der Genauigkeit mit der man empirisch fragt, was ausgeschlossen werden soll.
Saussure/Luhmann: das Zeichen bedeutet den Sinn des Gegenstands.
Saussure/Luhmann: oder das Zeichen bedeutet das, was der Sprecher gedacht hat.
LuhmannVsSaussure: und damit verliert seine Theorie die Eindeutigkeit! Dann bezeichnet das Zeichen nicht mehr den Gegenstand, sondern den inneren Zustand des Sprechers. Doppelte Referenz auf Subjekt und Objekt des Zeichens.

AU I
N. Luhmann
Einführung in die Systemtheorie Heidelberg 1992

Lu I
N. Luhmann
Die Kunst der Gesellschaft Frankfurt 1997
Saussure, F. de Putnam Vs Saussure, F. de
 
Books on Amazon
Putnam III 162
Saussure assumed that the idea of a system of differences should be transferred as a whole by the individual elements to the language . (to semantics). But in fact it is so that different languages do not have the same semantic opposites available. A language might only have four basic colors, another 7. Such a way out leads quite quickly to the conclusion that meanings are reserved to specific individual languages. And from here it is not far to the thought that they are reserved for different "texts".
According to this thesis two languages never express the same meanings.
So even the concept of the meaning that can release itself from the sign, collapses.
DerridaVsSaussure: is that good, he criticized Saussure only that he did not go further, and that he dropped the concept of the sign completely.
---
I 276
Definition signifié/Putnam: this signified is in the French semiology the meaning of the signified, the intension, not the extension. ---
I 266/269
PutnamVsSaussure: the alternative to his view is to maintain the concept of "meaning equality", while one recognizes that it must not be interpreted as the self-identity of objects, which are called "meaning" or "signified". There is no question of a mathematically clean equivalence or non-equivalence of contrast systems, when two uses of a word can be seen as "same" or "not the same".

Pu V
H. Putnam
Vernunft, Wahrheit und Geschichte Frankfurt 1990
Saussure, F. de Wittgenstein Vs Saussure, F. de
 
Books on Amazon
I 162
Definition Name/Tractatus/Wittgenstein/Hintikka: in no sense an image of its object. However, it can reflect its object in the sense that the possibilities of the connection of the name correspond with other names of the possibilities of the connection of its object with the appropriate objects. (Therefore, the choice of names according to Wittgenstein is in important respects not arbitrary.) (VsSaussure).

W II
L. Wittgenstein
Vorlesungen 1930-35 Frankfurt 1989

W III
L. Wittgenstein
Das Blaue Buch - Eine Philosophische Betrachtung Frankfurt 1984

W IV
L. Wittgenstein
Tractatus Logico Philosophicus Frankfurt/M 1960
Saussure, F. de Verschiedene Vs Saussure, F. de Saussure I 66
VsSaussure: von seinen Kritikern ist er oft falsch interpretiert worden: Funktionalismus ohne Beteiligung von Subjekten. Das stimmt aber nicht, für Saussure geht es immer um die Kommunikationsstruktur mindestens zweier Individuen. der Schritt zur Strukturierung ergibt sich aus den Bedürfnissen einer Sprachgemeinschaft.