Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Philosophy in China

Front Phil Chin    2008, Vol. 3 Issue (4) : 595-606
research-article |
Representationalism and the linguistic question in early modern philosophy
YANG Dachun
Philosophy Department, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310028, China
Download: PDF(218 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

The view of language is greatly changed from early modern philosophy to later modern philosophy and to postmodern philosophy. The linguistic question in early modern philosophy, which is characterized by rationalism and empiricism, is discussed in this paper. Linguistic phenomena are not at the center of philosophical reflections in early modern philosophy. The subject of consciousness is at the center of the philosophy, which makes language serve purely as an instrument for representing thoughts. Locke, Leibniz and Descartes consider language from a representationalist point of view. To them, language itself is idealized and represents thought as if it were thought representing itself. Like the structural linguist Saussure, the founders of phenomenology and analytical philosophy give much attention to the logical or static structure of language, and stick up for the representationalism of early modern philosophy. However, their successors refuse to accept this attitude, meaning the final collapse of representationalism.

Keywords language      idea      representationalism      early modern philosophy     
Corresponding Authors: YANG Dachun,   
Issue Date: 05 December 2008
 Cite this article:   
YANG Dachun. Representationalism and the linguistic question in early modern philosophy[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2008, 3(4): 595-606.
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
Articles by authors
YANG Dachun
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] JIANG Wei. Is Pain Representation?[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(4): 648-665.
[2] Hye Young Kim. A Phenomenological Approach to the Korean “We”: A Study in Social Intentionality[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(4): 612-632.
[3] JIN Xiping. Heidegger’s Conception of Being-with (Mitsein ) and His Simple Designation of Social and Political Reality in the Black Notebooks[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 415-429.
[4] LIU Chuang. Invariance and Scientific Representation[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(4): 647-667.
[5] Roger T. Ames. “Bodyheartminding” (Xin 心): Reconceiving the Inner Self and the Outer World in the Language of Holographic Focus and Field[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(2): 167-180.
[6] Wai Wai Chiu. Goblet Words and Indeterminacy:A Writing Style that Is Free of Commitment[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(2): 255-272.
[7] MOU Bo. On the Double-Reference Character of “Hexagram” Names in the Yijing: Engaging Fregean&Kripkean Approaches to the Issue of How Reference Is Possible[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(4): 523-537.
[8] Byeong-uk Yi. Numeral Classifiers and the White Horse Paradox[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(4): 498-522.
[9] Marina F. Bykova. On the Philosophical Relevance of Marx’s Views Today[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(3): 370-380.
[10] Gerry Coulter. The Embrace of Radical Philosophical Emptiness as a Liberating Conceptualization of Thought in Roland Barthes and Jean Baudrillard[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(2): 194-212.
[11] Heinrich Geiger. Sign, Image and Language in The Book of Changes (Yijing 易经)[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2013, 8(4): 607-623.
[12] Jos de MUL. Horizons of Hermeneutics: Intercultural Hermeneutics in a Globalizing World[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2011, 6(4): 628-655.
[13] XIE Wenyu. The Concept of Junzi in the Zhongyong[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2011, 6(4): 501-520.
[14] WANG Zhongjiang. Ultimate Concern, Reflection of Civilization, and the Idea of “Man” in Yin Haiguang[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2011, 6(4): 565-584.
[15] PENG Chuanhua. A New Discourse on Xunzi’s Philosophy of Language[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2011, 6(2): 193-216.
Full text