Share This Article:

An Antidote to Use—From Semantics to Human Rights and Back

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:142KB) PP. 50-60
DOI: 10.4236/ojpp.2012.21008    3,127 Downloads   4,962 Views  

ABSTRACT

I unpack the contents of the motto that “meaning is use” in fivefold fashion and point to the elements it contains, which are open to an ideological exploitation, the main reason for its strong appeal among intellectual circles. I indicate how the sense of it, “where there is use, there is meaning”, has encouraged equalitarian accounts of meaning and truth (In this case, of truth as coherence). I then present and discuss Austin’s distinction between the Sentence and the Statement, which entails the presence of meaning preceding the use, and directing it, and offer a new proof that Sentences are impossible to eliminate in any semantic scheme of things. Austin’s distinction, as explained and defended, refutes the contention that “meaning is (just) use”. I proceed to his doctrine of Locution and Illocution, reflecting the previous, indicating by a series of examples, that illocutionary varieties, which are varieties but not variances (i.e. se- mantic mutations), can never extend beyond the se-mantic scope generically contained in the original, content; that is to say, the Sentence. Those that do, and they are several, violate the rules of sense. I enumerate his vast differences with Wittgenstein, and proceed to defend Austin’s noted conservatism against the novelties endorsed by the former and his disciples. Charging Wittgenstein’s private language attack as circular, I conclude by marking their further contrast on the actual foundations of meaning and truth.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Antonopoulos, C. (2012). An Antidote to Use—From Semantics to Human Rights and Back. Open Journal of Philosophy, 2, 50-60. doi: 10.4236/ojpp.2012.21008.

References

[1] Angluin, D. J. (1974). Austin’s mistake about “real”. Philosophy, 49.
[2] Antonopoulos, C. (1997). The new ideological semantics and its ahistoric alternative. Explorations in Knowledge, 14.
[3] Austin, J. L. (1950). Intelligent behaviour. A critical review of the concept of mind. The Times Literary Supplement.
[4] Austin, J. L. (1964). Sense and sensibilia. Cambridge, MA: Oxford University Press.
[5] Austin, J. L. (1976). Philosophical papers. Cambridge, MA: Oxford University Press.
[6] Austin, J. L. (1986). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Oxford University Press.
[7] Baker, G. P. (1986). Criteria: A new foundation for semantics. Ludwig Wittgenstein: Critical Assessments, 2. In St. Shanker, Ed., London: Croom Helm.
[8] Bloor, D. (1983). Wittgenstein: A social theory of knowledge. London: McMillan.
[9] Cerf, W. (1969). Critical review of how to do things with words. In K. T. Fann (Ed.), Symposium on J. L. Austin, 2. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
[10] Downing, G. F. (1972). Games, families, the public and religion. Philosophy, 47.
[11] Dretske, F. (1972). Contrastive statements. The Philosophical Review, 81.
[12] Epstein, L. (1987). Correlations in separated quantum systems: A consistent history analysis of the EPR problem. American Journal Of Physics, 55, 11. doi:10.1119/1.14965
[13] Feyerabend, P. K. (1971). How to be a good empiricist. In P. H. Nidditch (Ed.), The Philosophy of Science, Cambridge, MA: Oxford University Press.
[14] Van Flandern, Th. (1994). Did the universe have a beginning? Meta Research Bulletin, 3, 3.
[15] Findlay, J. N. (1976). Use, usage and meaning. In G. H. R. Parkinson (Ed.), The Theory of Meaning.
[16] Flew, Ant. (1975). The presumption of atheism.
[17] Genova, J. (1986). A map of the philosophical investigations. Ludwig Wittgenstein: Critical Assessments, Croom Helm.
[18] Graham, K. (1977). J. L. Austin: A critique of ordinary language philosophy. Brighton: Harvester Press.
[19] Harrison, E. (1993). The redshift-distance and velocity-distance laws. Astrophysical Journal, 403.
[20] Holdcroft, D. (1976). Meaning and illocutionary acts. In G. H. R. Parkinson (Ed.), The theory of meaning, Oxford.
[21] Katz, J. J. (1979) Semantics and conceptual change. The Philosophical Review, 88.
[22] Lear, J. (1983). Ethics, mathematics and relativism. Mind, 13.
[23] Midgley, M. (1974) The game. Philosophy, 49.
[24] Lucie-Smith, E. (1977) Art today. Oxford.
[25] Lynton, N. (1980). The story of modern art. Oxford.
[26] Nielsen, K. (1985). On finding one’s feet in philosophy: From Wittgenstein to Marx. Metaphilosophy, 16, 1. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9973.1985.tb00147.x
[27] Nielsen, K. (1987). Can there be progress in philosophy? Metaphilosophy, 18, 1. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9973.1987.tb00184.x
[28] Odenwald, S., & Fienberg, R. T. (1993). Galaxy redshifts reconsidered. Sky and Telescope.
[29] Pears, D. (1969). An original philosopher. Symposium on J. L. Austin, 1.
[30] Shanker, S. G. (1986). Sceptical confusions about rule-following. Ludwig Wittgenstein: Critical Assessments, Croom Helm.
[31] Sherry, P. (1972). Truth and the religious language game. Philosophy, 87.
[32] Shiner, R. (1974). Wittgenstein And Heraclitus: Two river images. Philosophy, 49.
[33] Urmson, J. O. (1969). Austin’ philosophy. Symposium on J. L. Austin, 1.
[34] Warnock, G. J. (1969). John Langshaw Austin, A biographical sketch. Symposium on J. L. Austin, 1.
[35] Weinzeig, M. (1977). Ordinary language philosophy. Metaphilosophy, 8.
[36] Weinstein, M. (1988). Reason and critical thinking. Informal Logic, 10.
[37] Wittgenstein. L. (1968). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
[38] Wittgstenein, L. (1977). On certainty. Oxford: Blackwell.
[39] Wittgenstein, L. (1978). The blue and the brown books. Oxford: Blackwell.

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2018 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.