Archive for the ‘acte de vorbire’ Category

Ce sunt gandurile?

Friday, January 22nd, 2010

Eu cred ca sunt acte de vorbire, bineinteles. 🙂 Problema, din punctul meu de vedere, e daca teoria actelor de vorbire trebuie sa fie extinsa intr-un mod semnificativ, pentru a da seama si de ganduri. Cand gandesc ma exprim de multe ori eliptic si folosesc o multime de prescurtari (inclusiv prescurtari ad hoc), dar asta nu-mi arata ca in gandire realizez acte de vorbire noi.

Pot avea dificultati cu unele formulari: “Daca as fi fost de fata la locul faptei, atunci as fi depus marturie la politie.” – este asta o predictie privitoare la comportamentul meu viitor (intr-o situatie similara), o promisiune, expresia unui angajament mai slab (“as fi fost dispus sa depun marturie daca mi se cerea”), expresia atasamentului meu fata de un anumit mod de a reactiona in anumite situatii sau este altceva?

Se adauga dificultati suplimentare la astfel de dificultati, atunci cand e vorba despre ganduri? Inca nu stiu ce sa spun.

As vrea sa stiu ce spune Dewey despre relatia dintre uneltele agricole si conectorii logici

Thursday, December 31st, 2009

Referinta e aici, iar asta ar fi un punct de pornire pentru o cautare, dar nu am acum timp sa ma ocup de treburile astea.

(more…)

Cat conteaza scopul?

Tuesday, December 15th, 2009

“Cand spui ca rationalitatea succesiunilor de actiuni depinde de scopul acestora”, spune un oponent imaginar, “introduci in logica un lucru care nu are nici o legatura cu logica. Ramanand la acte de vorbire, a-l felicita pe X pentru actiunea A si a-ti exprima regretele cu privire la faptul ca X a facut A sunt actiuni care se contrazic, indiferent care e scopul urmarit.”

Alte probleme

Sunday, November 15th, 2009

E interesant de discutat despre statutul / rolul evaluarilor morale (“E rau sa furi.”). Pe de o parte, fiindca obiectul evaluarilor morale sunt de obicei actiunile. Pe de alta parte, fiindca daca privesti “afirmatiile morale” ca acte de vorbire, s-ar putea sa descoperi lucruri interesante.

Din perspectiva asta, cognitivistii morali poate ar spune ca e vorba despre acte de vorbire constatative, in timp ce emotivistii ar spune, probabil, ca este vorba despre expresive. Iar prescriptivistii ar putea spune ca este vorba despre directive.

(more…)

Continut universal?

Monday, September 14th, 2009

“Dar Aristotel spune ca actiunile pot fi doar particulare, nu universale, in timp ce judecatile pot fi universale? Care ar fi, la nivelul actiunilor, echivalentul unei judecati universale?”
– Daca e vorba de faptul ca o actiune are loc la un anumit moment dat, intr-un anumit context, ca are o anumita durata, ca afecteaza anumite obiecte s.a.m.d., intr-adevar, nu exista decat actiuni particulare. Dar si atunci cand o persoana rosteste o “judecata universala”, realizeaza tot o actiune particulara.

“Universal” e continutul actului de vorbire realizat de persoana respectiva (partea locutionara a acestuia).

(more…)

In ultima vreme…

Monday, August 24th, 2009

Lucrez la asta.

Cum se opun actiunile?

Monday, August 10th, 2009

Am stabilit ca nu pot exista actiuni negative si nici acte de vorbire cu forta ilocutionara negativa (v. a nega vs. a nu spune nimic). Pe de alta parte, unele actiuni par sa se opuna altor actiuni. In ce fel?

(more…)

My approach to negative actions

Monday, June 1st, 2009

Iata un rezumat in engleza al textului despre care vorbeam aici:

In this paper I try to use the conceptual framework of the speech act
theory to clarify a few points regarding the philosophical debate
about the existence of negative actions.

For this, I start by looking at some of the most popular candidates to
this title: failing to do X, omitting to do X, avoiding to do X and
refraining from doing X, where X is some action.

In the second part of my paper I consider some examples of verbal
actions and try to investigate how would the property of ‘being
negative’ apply to them, concluding that we could only say about the
locutionary content of a speech act that it is positive or negative.
It is meaningless to speak of ‘negative illocutionary force’ and since
the force gives us the kind of verbal action performed in uttering a
certain sentence, I argue, we can safely conclude that speaking of
negative verbal actions in general is a categorial mistake.

Next, I try to show how this result can be extended to non-verbal
actions as well, by pointing out how the force-content distinction can
be applied to such cases. At the end of the paper I propose that an
analysis of the situations in which some actions seem to contradict
each other should replace the misleading problem of negative actions.

Atitudinile propozitionale ca acte de vorbire

Tuesday, May 5th, 2009

Am lucrat mai demult la asta, acum cateva zile am revazut un text mai vechi si l-am trimis pentru publicare. Rezumatul textului arata cam asa:

I try to suggest, in my paper, that cognitive propositional attitude verbs, when uttered in first person, can be regarded as expressing the illocutionary force of an explicit speech act. For this, I first show how a sentence of the form ‘I believe that p’ can pass Austin’s ‘hereby test’.

Secondly, I emphasize two different uses of the first person propositional attitude utterances and point to the relation between these uses and two kinds of speech acts – expressives (or behavitives) and assertives, respectively. In the second part of the
paper I try to indicate how my approach could be used to solve some of the problems traditionally related to propositional attitude statements, including Frege’s puzzle of substitutivity.

For this, I suggest that sentences of the form ‘X believes that p’ should be regarded as reporting on speech acts which X has (or could have) done. In the end of my paper I hint at a few ways in which my pragmatic approach of propositional attitudes could be further developed.

Iar textul e aici.