Search narrowed by:

Narrow search

By category:

By publication type:

By language:

By journals:

By document type:

Displaying: 1-10 of 431 documents

0.074 sec

1. ProtoSociology: Volume > 1
Gerhard Preyer Protosoziologie: Problemebenen, Foki, Rekonstruktionshypothesen
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Understanding human action is framed in a picture of the rational person. Protosociology identifies - in a hypothetical approach - generalized presuppositions (Vorverständnis) of the "objects" and "experience" of social science. Protosociology studies society (-ies) and human action from the basis of the following levels: Decentralisation and universalisation of world- picturing; Lifeworld-background and systemprocesses; Properties of structural evolution of societies; Interpersonality, structure of communicative acting and collective identity and Personality.Theorizing on these levels means mapping pictures of structural dimension of action process and the limitation of agency through culturalsocial, personal, and natural resources. So it is recognition, that no absolute disposition is given about the limitation of action and elementary social regulation, norms, and institutions. However, break-downs in these spheres can be identified.The basic-principle of Protosociology is that all creatures who have propositional attitudes and the ability to act intentionally (voluntarily) are examples of application of the standard (norm) of rationality. Hypothesizing about other persons viz. understanding their utterance and ascription of all attitudes are mediated, and given on the level of language behaviour and their utilitarized competences and abilities. The focus of mapping are such examples to whom to ascribe the procedure of any social intercourse.This level is the basis for methodical construction and reconstruction of Protosociology and the Frankfurt version of action (speech act) theory. This version starts from cognition, that the concept of meaning cannot be understood completely, independent of propositional truth, normative correctness and person as primitive concept. Beliefs, illocutionary acts (doings) and propositional structure of language (saying that ...) are fundamental features of the basic knowledge of this approach. But Protosociology does not claim that understanding social reality is committed to a sociologism or linguistic community semantic as overall viewpoint of agency, reasoning, and understanding.
2. ProtoSociology: Volume > 1
Alexander Ulfig Protosoziologie und Diskurstheorie
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
For Protosociology the "Diskurs "-theory has a special significance. Validity-dimensions of speech and their evaluation in the procedure of argumentation indicate generalized presuppositions of interactive processes. These validity-dimensions can be reconstructed in lingusitic characterisations of "normative language" (P.W. Taylor). Thus it is possible to make first steps to a theory of validity. Protosociology provides a special reconstruction of argumentative speech on the level "interpersonality, structure of communicative acting and collective identity". The aim of Protosociology within a context of problems of "Diskurs"-theory would have to establish normative values for an evaluation of such validity-dimensions. A logic of "Diskurs" would have to be developed as a kind of logic of "relevance".
3. ProtoSociology: Volume > 1
Frank Siebelt Zweierlei Holismus. Überlegungen zur Interpretationstheorie D. Davidsons
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
What make utterances and beliefs of other persons on the base of behaviour intelligible? D. Davidson gives us a possible answer in his analysis of the holistic nature of beliefs from the view point of radical interpretation. D. Davidsons argument is, that having propositional attitudes is a nesessary condition for understanding of (personal) utterances. In the context of his theory of radical interpretation will given an explication and a refutation of critics of the still not enough recipated thesis of D. Davidson.
4. ProtoSociology: Volume > 1
Louise Röska-Hardy Sprechen, Sprache und Handeln
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
The idea that saying it are doings is a platitude among speech act theorists.In the following I argue that the assimilations of the speakers intentions, belieft and desires to the linguistic meaning of expression types in J.R. Searles influential speech act theory precludes or explaining saying truely as doings, iE. speciftcly as linguistic actions.An adequate explanation of speech acts must treat linguistic meaning of expression type and the speakers intentions, beliefs and desires as seperate, but coordinate factors in the performance and understanding of linguistic acts.
5. ProtoSociology: Volume > 1
Peter W. Niesen Gemeinschaft, Normativität, Praxis: Debatte zu L. Wittgensteins Regelbegriff
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
This article surveys recent literature on Wittgenstein's "Rule-following considerations" most notably S. Kripke's, C. McGinn's, and G.P. Baker's and P.M.S. Hacker's contributions. I argue that the normativity requirement in rule-following is to be located not in transtemporal but interpersonal sameness of meaning, and that the community-view is false when viewed as a condition on correct rule-following, but true when viewed as providing criteria for the possibility of rule-following.
6. ProtoSociology: Volume > 1
Michael Kümmert Ökonomisches Handeln
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
This research is the attempt to introduce economic acting as a relevance of Protosociology. In the first step I will try to describe economic acting in terms of speechacttheory. It will take us from illocutionary and perlocutionary acts to a useful understanding of strategic acting. It will be shown that the assumption that economy has to deal with perfect markets can not be made in a context of strategic acting.
7. ProtoSociology: Volume > 1
Ralf Stoecker Bericht. D. Davidson Tagung, Bielefeld
8. ProtoSociology: Volume > 10
Herman Cappelen, Ernie Lepore Semantic Theory and Indirect Speech
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Much work in the philosophy of language assumes that a semantic theory T, for a language L should assign p as the semantic content of an utterance u, by A, of a sentence S in L, if and only if “A said that p” is true. This assumption is mistaken. More generally, the aim of semantics cannot be to capture the extension of English expressions such as “meaning” or “what was said”. This provides support for Davidson’s paratactic theory of indirect speech and for the view that a semantic theory should take the form of a truth-theory.
9. ProtoSociology: Volume > 10
Louise Röska-Hardy Language Acts and Action
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Speech act theorists agree unanimously that language or speech acts are a species of intentional action. I argue that J.R. Searle’s influential speech act theory actually precludes our explaining sayings truly as doings, i.e. as linguistic actions, because it assimilates speakers’ beliefs, desires and intentions to the linguistic meaning of expression types. An adequate explanation of speech acts as intentional performances must treat the meanings of expression types and speakers’ beliefs, desires and intentions as separate, but co-ordinate factors in the production, understanding and characterization of linguistic acts.
10. ProtoSociology: Volume > 10
Kirk Ludwig The Truth about Moods
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Assertoric sentences are sentences which admit of truth or falsity. Non-assertoric sentences, imperatives and interrogatives, have long been a source of difficulty for the view that a theory of truth for a natural language can serve as the core of a theory of meaning. The trouble for truth-theoretic semantics posed by non-assertoric sentences is that, prima facie, it does not make sense to say that imperatives, such as ‘Cut your hair’ or interrogatives such as ‘What time is it?’ are true or false. Thus, the vehicle for giving the meaning of a sentence by using an interpretive truth theory, the T-sentence, is apparently unavailable for non-assertoric sentences. This paper shows how to incorporate non-assertoric sentences into a theory of meaning that gives central place to an interpretive truth theory for the language, without, however, reducing the nonassertorics to assertorics or treating their utterances as semantically equivalent to one or more utterances of assertoric sentences. Four proposals for how to incorporate non-assertoric sentences into a broadly truth-theoretical semantics are reviewed. The proposals fall into two classes, those that attempt to explain the meaning of non-assertoric sentences solely by appeal to truth conditions, and those that attempt to explain the meaning of non-assertoric sentences by appeal to compliance conditions, which can be treated as one variety of fulfillment conditions for sentences of which truth conditions are another variety. The paper argues that none of the extant approaches is successful, but develops a version of the generalized fulfillment approach which avoids the difficulties of previous approaches and still exhibits a truth theory as the central component of a compositional meaning theory for all sentences of natural languages.