Graduate studies at Western
Phronesis 51 (3):230-251 (2006)
|Abstract||Aristotle begins "On Interpretation" with an analysis of the existence of linguistic entities as both physical and meaningful. Two things have been lacking for a full appreciation of this analysis: a more literal translation of the passage and an ample understanding of the distinction between symbols and signs. In this article, therefore, I first offer a translation of this opening passage (16a1-9) that allows the import of Aristotle's thinking to strike the reader. Then I articulate the distinction between symbol and sign so crucial to understanding this passage. Aristotle employs this distinction, I argue, in order to show how the linguistic entities he defines later in "On Interpretation" (that is, name, verb, denial, affirmation, declaration, and articulation) are both conventional and natural, owing to their being both symbols and signs, respectively. Finally, I suggest why Aristotle's analysis of how linguistic entities exist as both physical and meaningful is fitting, since man himself, "the animal that has speech," lives at the boundary between nature and intelligence|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Matthew D. Walz (2006). The Opening of "On Interpretation": Toward a More Literal Reading. Phronesis 51 (3):230 - 251.
Christopher G. Framarin (2005). Taking Desirelessness () Seriously. Asian Philosophy 15 (2):143 – 155.
Nat Hansen (2012). J. L. Austin and Literal Meaning. European Journal of Philosophy 20 (4).
C. J. L. Talmage (1994). Literal Meaning, Conventional Meaning and First Meaning. Erkenntnis 40 (2):213 - 225.
Lars Hertzberg (2011). “It Says What It Says”. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 85 (4):589-603.
Margaret Morrison (1988). Reduction and Realism. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:286 - 293.
José L. Zalabardo (2009). One Strand in the Rule-Following Considerations. Synthese 171 (3):509 - 519.
Ross Cameron (2005). A Note on Kripke's Footnote 56 Argument for the Essentiality of Origin. Ratio 18 (3):262-275.
Stephen L. Daniel (1986). The Patient as Text: A Model of Clinical Hermeneutics. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 7 (2).
Gualtiero Piccinini (2000). Turing's Rules for the Imitation Game. Minds and Machines 10 (4):573-582.
Stephen Houlgate (2009). Phenomenology and de Re Interpretation: A Critique of Brandom's Reading of Hegel. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 17 (1):29 – 47.
John Michael McGuire (2007). Malapropisms and Davidson's Theories of Literal Meaning. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 6:93-97.
Stefano Predelli (2006). The Automatic and the Incomplete. Remarks on Recanati's Literal Meaning (Lo Automático y Lo Incompleto. Comentarios a Literal Meaning de Recanati). Crítica 38 (112):21 - 33.
Daniel Dohrn (2011). Are There a Posteriori Conceptual Necessities? Philosophical Studies 155 (2):181-197.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2010-08-31
Total downloads1 ( #293,975 of 750,480 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?