Reference is a central topic in philosophy of language, and has been the main focus of discussion about how language relates to the world. R. M. Sainsbury sets out a new approach to the concept, which promises to bring to an end some long-standing debates in semantic theory. There is a single category of referring expressions, all of which deserve essentially the same kind of semantic treatment. Included in this category are both singular and plural referring expressions ('Aristotle', 'The Pleiades'), complex and non-complex referring expressions ('The President of the USA in 1970', 'Nixon'), and empty and non-empty referring expressions ('Vulcan', 'Neptune'). Referring expressions are to be described semantically by a reference condition, rather than by being associated with a referent. In arguing for these theses, Sainsbury's book promises to end the fruitless oscillation between Millian and descriptivist views. Millian views insist that every name has a referent, and find it hard to give a good account of names which appear not to have referents, or at least are not known to do so, like ones introduced through error ('Vulcan'), ones where it is disputed whether they have a bearer ('Patanjali') and ones used in fiction. Descriptivist theories require that each name be associated with some body of information. These theories fly in the face of the fact names are useful precisely because there is often no overlap of information among speakers and hearers. The alternative position for which the book argues is firmly non-descriptivist, though it also does not require a referent. A much broader view can be taken of which expressions are referring expressions: not just names and pronouns used demonstratively, but also some complex expressions and some anaphoric uses of pronouns. Sainsbury's approach brings reference into line with truth: no one would think that a semantic theory should associate a sentence with a truth value, but it is commonly held that a semantic theory should associate a sentence with a truth condition, a condition which an arbitrary state of the world would have to satisfy in order to make the sentence true. The right analogy is that a semantic theory should associate a referring expression with a reference condition, a condition which an arbitrary object would have to satisfy in order to be the expression's referent. Lucid and accessible, and written with a minimum of technicality, Sainsbury's book also includes a useful historical survey. It will be of interest to those working in logic, mind, and metaphysics as well as essential reading for philosophers of language.
评分
评分
评分
评分
从装帧和排版来看,这本书的设计风格是极其简约和功能化的,几乎没有多余的装饰,这与其冰冷、抽离的文本内容形成了完美的统一。它的索引部分异常详尽,这在某种程度上是对其复杂性的妥协,为那些在阅读中迷失方向的读者提供了一个必要的导航工具。尽管阅读过程充满了艰辛和困惑,但我必须承认,它成功地打开了我对语言本质理解的一个全新维度。它不是一本能让你带着清晰的答案离开的书,而是一本能让你带着更多、更深刻的问题进入下一阶段思考的书。如果你对那些试图在世界的表象之下挖掘出结构性矛盾的学术作品抱有浓厚的兴趣,并且不畏惧面对那些需要反复推敲才能领悟的精妙论证,那么《Reference Without Referents》无疑是一次值得投入精力的智力冒险。它更像是一把手术刀,精准地切割着我们对世界认知的固有框架。
评分《Reference Without Referents》这本书的标题本身就充满了哲学思辨的张力,仿佛在邀请读者进入一个关于语言、符号和实在之间复杂关系的迷宫。我是在一位资深文史学者的推荐下翻开它的。初读之下,这本书展现出一种近乎冰冷的学术严谨性,作者似乎并不在意用华丽的辞藻去吸引那些寻求轻松阅读体验的读者。相反,他采用了一种极其结构化的论证方式,将西方哲学史上对“指称”(reference)这个核心概念的争论梳理得井井有条。尤其让我印象深刻的是他对早期维特根斯坦与蒯因观点的交叉对比,作者似乎试图在二者之间搭建一座桥梁,探讨在缺乏明确、可验证的外部“指称对象”时,语言系统内部的自洽性是否能够独立支撑意义的产生。这种分析的深度,要求读者必须具备一定的哲学背景知识,否则很容易在那些密集的术语和复杂的逻辑推演中迷失方向。它不是一本用来消磨时间的读物,更像是一场智力上的高强度训练,迫使你重新审视那些你习以为常的词语是如何获得其力量的。
评分与其他探讨语言哲学的书籍相比,《Reference Without Referents》的独特之处在于它对“实践”的强调,尽管这种实践被描述得极其抽象。它并非仅仅停留在思辨层面,而是深入探讨了在法律文件、科学理论乃至日常交流中,当指称关系模糊或失效时,语言系统如何通过自我修正和内部关联来维持其功能。我注意到作者在论证中大量引用了符号学和信息论的观点,试图用一种更系统化的模型来解释这种“无参照的指涉”。这种跨学科的融合令人耳目一新,但同时也带来了阅读上的不连贯感,仿佛这本书是由几个不同领域的专家在不同的时间点共同完成的。例如,前一页还在分析罗素的摹状理论,后一页就跳跃到了对数字代码的结构分析,这种跳跃性要求读者必须具备极强的思维适应能力,才能将这些看似不相关的碎片拼凑成作者预设的宏大蓝图。
评分这本书的语言风格可以说是极具挑战性的,充满了后现代主义的晦涩和结构主义的精确,这使得它在阅读体验上更像是在解构一座巴别塔,而不是攀登一座知识的高峰。我个人在阅读过程中,常常需要频繁地查阅名词解释和上下文关联,因为作者似乎故意避开了传统叙事和清晰的例子,转而沉浸在纯粹的理论构建之中。书中关于“空指称项”(empty names)的章节,尤其令人费解,它探讨了那些在经验世界中找不到对应物的概念,例如“独角兽”或者某些纯粹的数学实体,是如何在我们的认知框架中发挥作用的。作者的论述充满了对传统实在论的颠覆,他似乎在暗示,意义的生成可能更多地依赖于语言社群内部的惯例和约定,而非对外部世界的忠实摹写。这种视角无疑是深刻的,但它的表达方式,使得每次翻页都像是在穿越一片思想的浓雾,需要极大的耐心和毅力去捕捉那些稍纵即逝的洞见。
评分这本书带给我最大的冲击,是它对“确定性”的彻底瓦解。读完之后,我发现自己对于那些看似坚不可摧的词汇——比如“真理”、“存在”、“我”——的把握变得异常松动。作者巧妙地运用了大量的反例和思想实验,展示了在不同语境下,同一个词语的指涉范围是如何发生漂移和断裂的。我尤其喜欢其中关于“历史叙事”的部分,作者认为历史著作的权威性,并非建立在对“过去事实”的绝对还原上,而是建立在历史学家群体对“可接受的指称链条”的集体建构之上。这种观点,对任何从事文本分析工作的人来说,都是一次思想上的地震。然而,这种彻底的相对主义倾向也带来了一种令人不安的虚无感,仿佛一切的意义最终都导向了语言内部的无限循环,让人不禁怀疑:如果我们所说的“实在”本身就是一场精心编排的语言游戏,那么我们追求知识的努力,其最终的价值又在哪里?
评分 评分 评分 评分 评分本站所有内容均为互联网搜索引擎提供的公开搜索信息,本站不存储任何数据与内容,任何内容与数据均与本站无关,如有需要请联系相关搜索引擎包括但不限于百度,google,bing,sogou 等
© 2026 book.wenda123.org All Rights Reserved. 图书目录大全 版权所有