Kantian and Anti-Kantian Philosophy of Language

This paper examines two models of language philosophy. The first is the Kantian philosophy which sees language as an instrument of conveying mental content. I have selected Immanuel Kant and Edmund Husserl from amongst its numerous representatives. In this tradition, a language expression, i.e. an e...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Igor A. Mikhailov
Format: Article
Language:deu
Published: Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University 2024-01-01
Series:Кантовский сборник
Subjects:
Online Access:https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/15792/82047/
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1841545866563813376
author Igor A. Mikhailov
author_facet Igor A. Mikhailov
author_sort Igor A. Mikhailov
collection DOAJ
description This paper examines two models of language philosophy. The first is the Kantian philosophy which sees language as an instrument of conveying mental content. I have selected Immanuel Kant and Edmund Husserl from amongst its numerous representatives. In this tradition, a language expression, i.e. an expression that has meaning, is determined by the objectively ideal character of the meanings (“rules”) given through the subject’s intellectual acts. The main task is to fix with a maximum degree of accuracy what is “seen” in consciousness. This model inevitably considers words to be “markers” or “labels” which have no intrinsic power. The problem with this approach is, first, that it is impossible to determine the criteria by which this or that word should be considered adequate. Second, this approach leads to the creation of ever new philosophical languages which simultaneously challenge the tradition and yet claim to be a renewed version of it. It is shown that the fairly systematic critique of the Kant­ian approach by Johann Georg Hamann and Johann Gottfried Herder falls short of proposing an alternative philosophical system because, having a religious foundation, it does not offer a complete grounding of knowledge. In the wide range of anti-Kantian positions on the nature of language Gustav Shpet’s concept of language is singled out. It pursues the same task of creating a universal system of knowledge as Husserl’s phenomenology, but it proceeds from fundamentally different notions of philosophical knowledge. Unlike Husserl, whose thought is marked by revolutionary radicalism, for Shpet ideal knowledge is “positive”, “concrete”, “full” and “dynamic”. He considers philosophising to be dialectical and inherently dialogic. The result of philosophy meeting these ideals is the concept that our knowledge is centred on language and our experience has a sign-verbal character.
format Article
id doaj-art-eb5edc8c3a4641aea1a1451eae25f70b
institution Kabale University
issn 0207-6918
2310-3701
language deu
publishDate 2024-01-01
publisher Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University
record_format Article
series Кантовский сборник
spelling doaj-art-eb5edc8c3a4641aea1a1451eae25f70b2025-01-11T14:07:28ZdeuImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversityКантовский сборник0207-69182310-37012024-01-01433478010.5922/0207-6918-2024-3-4Kantian and Anti-Kantian Philosophy of LanguageIgor A. Mikhailov0Institute of Philosophy of Russian Academy of ScienceThis paper examines two models of language philosophy. The first is the Kantian philosophy which sees language as an instrument of conveying mental content. I have selected Immanuel Kant and Edmund Husserl from amongst its numerous representatives. In this tradition, a language expression, i.e. an expression that has meaning, is determined by the objectively ideal character of the meanings (“rules”) given through the subject’s intellectual acts. The main task is to fix with a maximum degree of accuracy what is “seen” in consciousness. This model inevitably considers words to be “markers” or “labels” which have no intrinsic power. The problem with this approach is, first, that it is impossible to determine the criteria by which this or that word should be considered adequate. Second, this approach leads to the creation of ever new philosophical languages which simultaneously challenge the tradition and yet claim to be a renewed version of it. It is shown that the fairly systematic critique of the Kant­ian approach by Johann Georg Hamann and Johann Gottfried Herder falls short of proposing an alternative philosophical system because, having a religious foundation, it does not offer a complete grounding of knowledge. In the wide range of anti-Kantian positions on the nature of language Gustav Shpet’s concept of language is singled out. It pursues the same task of creating a universal system of knowledge as Husserl’s phenomenology, but it proceeds from fundamentally different notions of philosophical knowledge. Unlike Husserl, whose thought is marked by revolutionary radicalism, for Shpet ideal knowledge is “positive”, “concrete”, “full” and “dynamic”. He considers philosophising to be dialectical and inherently dialogic. The result of philosophy meeting these ideals is the concept that our knowledge is centred on language and our experience has a sign-verbal character. https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/15792/82047/kanthusserlshpethamannlogicontologylanguagegrammarsemanticsdialecticsdialogue
spellingShingle Igor A. Mikhailov
Kantian and Anti-Kantian Philosophy of Language
Кантовский сборник
kant
husserl
shpet
hamann
logic
ontology
language
grammar
semantics
dialectics
dialogue
title Kantian and Anti-Kantian Philosophy of Language
title_full Kantian and Anti-Kantian Philosophy of Language
title_fullStr Kantian and Anti-Kantian Philosophy of Language
title_full_unstemmed Kantian and Anti-Kantian Philosophy of Language
title_short Kantian and Anti-Kantian Philosophy of Language
title_sort kantian and anti kantian philosophy of language
topic kant
husserl
shpet
hamann
logic
ontology
language
grammar
semantics
dialectics
dialogue
url https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/15792/82047/
work_keys_str_mv AT igoramikhailov kantianandantikantianphilosophyoflanguage