After the elimination of the independent existence of language it remains only its function in representation: remains its nature and properties inherent in the quality of the discourse, which is nothing more than the view itself presented verbal signs. Ho what is the in this case, the specificity of these characters and their strange ability that allows them to better, than all other marks, locking performance, to degrade it and reconnect? What feature distinguishes language among all other systems of signs? At first glance the words can be determined through their arbitrary or collective nature. At its source language, says Hobbes, is a system of marks, selected individuals primarily for herself: through these markers, they can cause the representation to bind them to divide and to manipulate them. It notes imposed community agreement, or violence<$F Hobbes. Logique, lo. cit., p. 607-608.>; but in any case the meaning of the words belongs only to the representation of each individual, and how much he accepted all, he has no existence, except in the thinking of individuals, taken one by one: "Words are signs of ideas of the speaker, says Locke, -- and no can not use them directly as symbols for something other than the ideas that he has in mind
After the elimination of the independent existence of language
ReplyDeleteit remains only its function in representation: remains
its nature and properties inherent in the quality of the discourse,
which is nothing more than the view itself presented
verbal signs. Ho what is the in this case, the specificity of these
characters and their strange ability that allows them to better,
than all other marks, locking performance, to degrade
it and reconnect? What feature distinguishes language among all
other systems of signs?
At first glance the words can be determined through their
arbitrary or collective nature. At its source
language, says Hobbes, is a system of marks,
selected individuals primarily for herself: through
these markers, they can cause the representation to bind them
to divide and to manipulate them. It notes imposed
community agreement, or violence<$F Hobbes. Logique,
lo. cit., p. 607-608.>; but in any case the meaning of the words
belongs only to the representation of each individual, and how much
he accepted all, he has no existence,
except in the thinking of individuals, taken one by one: "Words
are signs of ideas of the speaker, says Locke, -- and no
can not use them directly as symbols for something
other than the ideas that he has in mind