Merleau-Ponty against the project of a universal gramar : logic and language
Abstract: Throughout a variety of texts, Merleau-Ponty criticized the Husserlian project which he alternatively called a “universal grammar” and an “eidetics of language”, and to which he associated a series of consequences: the claim that universal grammar entails (I) the prior knowability of universal “forms” with respect to natural languages; (II) the univocity with which words in natural languages would be related to their meanings, and the transparency which this univocal relation would present to consciousness; (III) the secondariness of language with respect to thought, and (IV) universal intertranslatability. The French author rejects these consequences and therefore questions the plausibility of the universalistic project in question. However, it is not clear that these alleged consequences are actually entailed by the proposal Merleau-Ponty is discussing, or that, if obtained, they take the specific form necessary for the criticism to succeed. We will try to show that such a criticism ultimately fails.
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Artículo biblioteca |
| Language: | eng |
| Published: |
Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras. Centro de Estudiantes de Filosofía
2024
|
| Subjects: | Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, 1908-1961, GRAMATICA, LENGUAJE, LOGICA, |
| Online Access: | https://repositorio.uca.edu.ar/handle/123456789/18470 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Abstract: Throughout a variety of texts, Merleau-Ponty criticized the Husserlian project which he alternatively called
a “universal grammar” and an “eidetics of language”, and to which he associated a series of consequences:
the claim that universal grammar entails (I) the prior knowability of universal “forms” with respect to natural
languages; (II) the univocity with which words in natural languages would be related to their meanings, and
the transparency which this univocal relation would present to consciousness; (III) the secondariness of
language with respect to thought, and (IV) universal intertranslatability. The French author rejects these
consequences and therefore questions the plausibility of the universalistic project in question. However, it is
not clear that these alleged consequences are actually entailed by the proposal Merleau-Ponty is discussing,
or that, if obtained, they take the specific form necessary for the criticism to succeed. We will try to show
that such a criticism ultimately fails. |
|---|