文献一覧: 槇野沙央理 (著者)

7 0 0 0 OA 比較対象としての後期ウィトゲンシュタイン ―ホワイトヘッドとは異なる言語の創造性へ

著者: 槇野沙央理
出版者: 日本ホワイトヘッド・プロセス学会
雑誌: プロセス思想 (ISSN:21853207)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.21, pp.34-52, 2021 (Released:2022-04-16)

ホワイトヘッドの哲学は、極めてユニークな言葉使いを駆使することで知られている。他方、ウィトゲンシュタインは、「日常言語」を尊重するよう促す哲学者として知られている。ここから私たちは、前者が、日常言語からの逸脱を、後者が、日常言語への回帰を目指すという対比を見出したくなる。本論は、この一見するともっともらしく見える対比を見直すため、後期ウィトゲンシュタイン哲学における「日常言語」とはどのようなことかを考察したい。簡単に言えば、後期ウィトゲンシュタイン哲学における「日常言語」とは、内部からラディカルな存在の声によって脅かされる動的なものである。もし私たちテクストの読者が、日常言語にラディカルな声を聴き取る方法を身につけることができれば、一見すると自明な仕方で意味が与えられているように見える場合にさえそこにその都度の意味生成のプロセスがあることを見て取れるようになる。ここに、ウィトゲンシュタイン哲学が日常言語を尊重しかつ創造的な思考を行うよう促すと言える契機がある。こうした本論の考察により、ホワイトヘッドの読み手が、日常言語と創造的な思考との関係について捉え直すきっかけとなることが期待される。

4 0 0 0 『哲学探究』の治療における対話形式の意義:なぜウィトゲンシュタインは「嚙み合わない対話」を見せるのか?

著者: 槇野沙央理
出版者: 日本倫理学会
雑誌: 倫理学年報
巻号頁・発行日: vol.66, 2017

Wittgenstein's <i>Philosophical Investigations</i>(hereafter PI)is known forits dialectic style. Wittgenstein, as a therapist, makes his interlocutor reflect onhis own wording. Several studies have been conducted regarding Wittgenstein'sinteractive style. However, little attention has been given to a conflict betweenWittgenstein and his interlocutor. They often talk past each other. Wittgensteingets irritated at his interlocutor's reaction. The interlocutor complains thatWittgenstein's advice is irrelevant. The question why Wittgenstein describes theconflict in a positive way remains unanswered.<br> The key to solving the problem is to consider the interlocutor's perspective. I will answer the question through an examination of the interlocutor's reactiontowards Wittgenstein's advice. First, I will examine in detail the therapyof PI §§191─195. In these sections, Wittgenstein not only points out that the interlocutor'sexpressions lack a concrete example and context in which we coulduse them, but also offers objects of comparison in which Wittgenstein makes hisinterlocutor reflect on his own wording. However, the interlocutor does not receiveWittgenstein's offering in a straightforward manner. Second, I will investigatethe interlocutor's reaction in PI §195. I suggest that the interlocutor seemsto realize the analogies between objects of comparison and his own expressionsbut refuses to admit such analogies are tenable. If my explanation is true, thequestion why Wittgenstein describes the conflict in a positive way can be answered.<br> Finally, I will reconsider the reason why Wittgenstein positively describesthe conflict by focusing on the readers' point of view. I assert that Wittgensteinencourages us to scrutinize our foundations of thought.

2022-01-27 19:42:33
4 + 13 Twitter

2 0 0 0 OA 『哲学探究』の治療における対話形式の意義なぜウィトゲンシュタインは「嚙み合わない対話」を見せるのか?

著者: 槇野沙央理
出版者: 日本倫理学会
雑誌: 倫理学年報 (ISSN:24344699)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.66, pp.129, 2017 (Released:2019-04-16)

Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations(hereafter PI)is known for its dialectic style. Wittgenstein, as a therapist, makes his interlocutor reflect on his own wording. Several studies have been conducted regarding Wittgenstein’s interactive style. However, little attention has been given to a conflict between Wittgenstein and his interlocutor. They often talk past each other. Wittgenstein gets irritated at his interlocutor’s reaction. The interlocutor complains that Wittgenstein’s advice is irrelevant. The question why Wittgenstein describes the conflict in a positive way remains unanswered. The key to solving the problem is to consider the interlocutor’s perspec tive. I will answer the question through an examination of the interlocutor’s reaction towards Wittgenstein’s advice. First, I will examine in detail the therapy of PI §§191─195. In these sections, Wittgenstein not only points out that the interlocutor’s expressions lack a concrete example and context in which we could use them, but also offers objects of comparison in which Wittgenstein makes his interlocutor reflect on his own wording. However, the interlocutor does not receive Wittgenstein’s offering in a straightforward manner. Second, I will investigate the interlocutor’s reaction in PI §195. I suggest that the interlocutor seems to realize the analogies between objects of comparison and his own expressions but refuses to admit such analogies are tenable. If my explanation is true, the question why Wittgenstein describes the conflict in a positive way can be answered. Finally, I will reconsider the reason why Wittgenstein positively describes the conflict by focusing on the readers’ point of view. I assert that Wittgenstein encourages us to scrutinize our foundations of thought.