Advertisement

Non-Objectifying Acts

  • Jocelyn Benoist
Part of the Phaenomenologica book series (PHAE, volume 164)

Abstract

As Frege remarked before Austin, and Aristotle before Frege: language is not made of descriptive sentences only. A task traditionally assigned to logicians is to explain how to distinguish those sentences from others.

Keywords

Logical Investigation Propositional Content Extreme Tension Descriptive Sentence Assertive Force 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    E. Husserl, Logische Untersuchungen I, Hua XVIII, Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff, 1975, Logische Untersuchungen II, Hua XIX/1–2, Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff, 1984.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Bolzano, Wissenschaftslehre,Aalen: Scientia, 1837/1981, §21, Bd.I, p.83.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B.Bolzano, Wissenschaftslehre §22, Bd.I, p.88. Bolzano mentions DESTUTT DE TRACY (Éléments d’Idéologie,Ile Partie, Grammaire,ch.2) as agreeing with this theory.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    See for instance FR. NEF, L ‘objet quelconque, Paris: Vrin, 1998, 175. For a more accurate account, see W. Konne, “Propositions in Bolzano and Frege”, in W. Konne, M. Siebel, M. Textor (eds.): Bolzano and Analytic Philosophy, Grazer Philosophische Studien 53, Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    For a study of this question, see B. SMITH, “Husserl, Language, and the Ontology of the Act”, in D. Buzzetti and M. Ferriani (eds.), Speculative Grammar, Universal Grammar, and Philosophical Analysis of Language, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1987, 205–227.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    See J. Benoist, Phénoménologie, sémantique, ontologie: Husserl et la tradition logique autrichienne,Paris: PUF, 1997, chap. 1.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    For this question, see U. Melle, “Objektivierende und nicht-objektivierende Akte”, in S. Usseling (ed.): Husserl-Ausgabe und Husserl-Forschung,Phaenomenologica 115, Dordrecht: Kluwer,1990, 35–49.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    As to the legacy of the problem through Reinach’s work, see H. Parret, Prolégomènes it la théorie de l’énonciation: de Husserl à la pragmatique, Bem-Paris: Peter Lang, 1987, and B. SMITH, “Towards a history of speech act theory”, in A. Burkhardt (ed.), Speech Acts, Meaning and Intentions. Critical Approaches to the Philosophy ofJohn R. Searle, Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1990, 29–61.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jocelyn Benoist
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Paris-I Panthéon-SorbonneFrance

Personalised recommendations