The Editor of knows that he (himself) is a millionaire. この例において ，雑誌『魂』の編集長に自己知識を帰属する三人称代名詞「彼(自身) ... more The Editor of knows that he (himself) is a millionaire. この例において ，雑誌『魂』の編集長に自己知識を帰属する三人称代名詞「彼(自身) ，he 2 ) アンソニーは，私が富豪であることを知っている． Anthony knows that I am a millionaire. は ，どちらもプリヴァトゥスによって発話されたものとしよう． ( 2 )における指標詞「私」 は ，プリヴァトゥスによってなされた彼自身に対する指示であるのに対して ， ( 1 )の指標 的な指示「彼 ＊ 」は ，プリヴァトゥスによってなされたものではない( ( 1 )のトークン 「彼 ＊ 」を使用したのはもちろんプリヴァトゥスであるが) ． (ii) 「彼 ＊ 」は間接話法( )に現れる． ( iii ) 「彼 ＊ 」には ，それが前方照応する(refer back)先行詞 ， 「雑誌 『魂』の編集長」 ，がある． ( iv )その先行詞は， 「彼 ＊ 」を含む間接話法の外に位置する． ( v)
Despite persistent attempts to defend Kripke's argument (Kripke 1982), analyses of this argument ... more Despite persistent attempts to defend Kripke's argument (Kripke 1982), analyses of this argument seem to be reaching a consensus that it is characterized by fatal flaws in both its interpretation of Wittgenstein and its argument of meaning independent of interpretation. Most scholars who do not agree with Kripke's view have directly contrasted his understanding of Wittgenstein (KW) with Wittgenstein's own perspective (LW) in or after Philosophical Investigations (PI). However, I believe that those who have closely read both PI and Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language with out any preconceptions have a different impression from the one that is gen erally accepted: that KW does not directly oppose LW. Indeed, KW seems to present one aspect of LW with precision, although the impression that KW deviates from LW in some respects remains unavoidable. In this paper, I will attempt to elucidate the underpinnings of this impression by formulating the paradoxes presented by Wittgenstein and Kripke and revealing the complicated relation between the two forms of semantic par adoxes. I will then not only propose a new interpretation of the argument about meaning contained in PI but also suggest a schema or condition for semantics that I think holds by itself, independent from exegetical matters.
The Editor of knows that he (himself) is a millionaire. この例において ，雑誌『魂』の編集長に自己知識を帰属する三人称代名詞「彼(自身) ... more The Editor of knows that he (himself) is a millionaire. この例において ，雑誌『魂』の編集長に自己知識を帰属する三人称代名詞「彼(自身) ，he 2 ) アンソニーは，私が富豪であることを知っている． Anthony knows that I am a millionaire. は ，どちらもプリヴァトゥスによって発話されたものとしよう． ( 2 )における指標詞「私」 は ，プリヴァトゥスによってなされた彼自身に対する指示であるのに対して ， ( 1 )の指標 的な指示「彼 ＊ 」は ，プリヴァトゥスによってなされたものではない( ( 1 )のトークン 「彼 ＊ 」を使用したのはもちろんプリヴァトゥスであるが) ． (ii) 「彼 ＊ 」は間接話法( )に現れる． ( iii ) 「彼 ＊ 」には ，それが前方照応する(refer back)先行詞 ， 「雑誌 『魂』の編集長」 ，がある． ( iv )その先行詞は， 「彼 ＊ 」を含む間接話法の外に位置する． ( v)
Despite persistent attempts to defend Kripke's argument (Kripke 1982), analyses of this argument ... more Despite persistent attempts to defend Kripke's argument (Kripke 1982), analyses of this argument seem to be reaching a consensus that it is characterized by fatal flaws in both its interpretation of Wittgenstein and its argument of meaning independent of interpretation. Most scholars who do not agree with Kripke's view have directly contrasted his understanding of Wittgenstein (KW) with Wittgenstein's own perspective (LW) in or after Philosophical Investigations (PI). However, I believe that those who have closely read both PI and Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language with out any preconceptions have a different impression from the one that is gen erally accepted: that KW does not directly oppose LW. Indeed, KW seems to present one aspect of LW with precision, although the impression that KW deviates from LW in some respects remains unavoidable. In this paper, I will attempt to elucidate the underpinnings of this impression by formulating the paradoxes presented by Wittgenstein and Kripke and revealing the complicated relation between the two forms of semantic par adoxes. I will then not only propose a new interpretation of the argument about meaning contained in PI but also suggest a schema or condition for semantics that I think holds by itself, independent from exegetical matters.
Uploads
Papers by Ken SHIGETA