2010-08-012024-05-18https://scholars.lib.ntu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/699887摘要：此三年期研究計畫針對表象、意義與語言。計畫包含三個部份，分別相應於我希 望採取的三種進入。這些進入分別為：分析哲學（A）、歐陸哲學（B）以及漢語 語言學及文化研究（C）。 (A) 首先，我將專注於Putnam 的論文〈「意義」的意義（The Meaning of ‘Meaning’）〉，以及文中所提出關於內在論與外在論之間對比的討論。我特別希望 討論Tyler Burge、Dennett、Searle 與其他學者在《雙生地球年代紀（ The Twin Earth Chronicles）》特輯中的觀點。我的論述會傾向於同情內在論，試圖找出我們可以 從中探求到怎樣的深度。此外，我將會進一步發展我先前對Wittgenstein 以及意 義的研究工作。同樣地，我將會站在內在論的立場上。特別是，我將會採用Kant 《判斷力批判（Critique of the Power of Judgment）》的概念架構，也從美學的角度 來開顯意義與規則依循的想法之意涵。 (B) Searle 與Putnam 之間關於內在論與外在論的爭論，我們也可以在Husserl 和 Frege 關於意義的爭論中找到雷同，而這樣的爭論已早在一百年前就發生了。 Husserl 如同其他的現象學者一般，可被視作內在論的意義理論之開發者。Husserl 與Merleau-Ponty 站在康德的基礎上，這即意謂著他們也將先驗哲學的觀點帶入 表象與意義的理解中。這就是我想要融入分析進入（A）中的歐陸材料。事實上， Wittgenstein 早已站在(A)與(B)中間了。 (C) 第三個往表象、意義與語言理論的進入坐落在前兩者的對角位。這個進入採 取Sapir-Whorf 假設為出發點，並以語言學與文化研究作為基礎。我想加入一些 經驗事實到這些在(A)與(B)裡難免太抽象的哲學討論中。在這個部份，並不就概 化的語言來談，而特別就特定語言來談，我將會把漢語分別與拉丁語及古希臘語 相提並論，期望在這之中能進一步開顯心智、表象與意義的普遍本質。 我也希望籌辦一場國際康德研討會，關注於康德的理想論及其現象與物自身之 間的對比想法。<br> Abstract: This three-year research plan is about representation, meaning, and language. It has three parts, corresponding to three approaches that I wish to take. These are approaches from analytic philosophy (A), continental philosophy (B), and Chinese linguistics and cultural studies (C). (A) Firstly, I will concentrate on Putnam’s essay “The Meaning of ‘Meaning’” and the discussions of internalism versus externalism that it has given rise to. In particular, I wish to discuss the views of Tyler Burge, Dennett, Searle, and others that can be found in the collection The Twin Earth Chronicles. I will tend to argue for the internalist side, trying to find out how far one can get with it. Secondly, I will further develop my work onWittgenstein and meaning. There, equally, I will take the internalist side. In particular, I will apply the conceptual framework of Kant’s Critique of the Power of Judgment to cast light on the notion of meaning and rule following also from the aesthetic side. (B) The Searle-Putnam dispute about internalism and externalism has parallels in the Husserl-Frege dispute about meaning that took place almost one hundred years ago. Husserl, and most other phenomenologists, can be seen as developing an internalist theory of meaning. Husserl and Merleau-Ponty have built on Kant, and this has led to aspects from transcendental philosophy being brought into conceptions of representation and meaning. This is the continental side that I wish to add to the analytic approach (A). Wittgenstein already is between (A) and (B). (C) The third approach to theories of representation, meaning, and language that I wish to take stands diagonal to the previous two. It takes the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis as a starting point and builds on linguistics and cultural studies. I want to add some empirical facts to the otherwise rather abstract philosophical discussions of (A) and (B). In this part it is not language in general, but particular languages, such as Chinese in contrast to Latin and Ancient Greek that I will focus on in order to cast light on the nature of mind, representation, and meaning in general. I also wish to organize an international Kant conference focusing on Kant’s idealism and its notion of appearance versus the thing in itself.