Preview

Concept: philosophy, religion, culture

Advanced search

Name-strategies and antropoiesis discourse in the history of philosophy

https://doi.org/10.24833/2541-8831-2020-2-14-7-16

Abstract

Onomapoiesis strategies actualize the distinctive sphere of human practice, which is a direct continuation of autopoiesis and anthropoiesis. They atomize and ontologize the Self by restricting it to definite structure-morphologic clusters of language expressions, such as personal name and pronoun. As a result, we have two completely different tactics: naming tactics and pronoun tactics, or ego-strategies. These practices refer to diverse complexes and can’t be considered within one species, each of them constitutes the autonomous entity. Any self-naming, self-calling, and indication through the name or pronoun, correlates with the innate eager and desire of a person to express himself, the world, and other(s). Thus, the anthropology of naming turns out to be the part of philosophical discourse, implicitly passing through the entire history of thought. Primarily, the philosophy of Stoics belongs to this kind of boundary marks, within the framework of which the distinction between the name and the pronoun was made for the first time. Plus, the discovery of deixis belongs to them. In the context of the modern era of philosophy, the doctrine of Rene Descartes is a kind of counterpoint when the Self, the Ego, first reveals itself to consciousness. Further, there is a fission inside the indicated complexes: I and not-I, My and not-My, I and You, We and They, I and the Other, I and Others manifest themselves inside the pronoun practices of naming. Their contents and meanings become the subject of philosophy and linguistic, as well as interdisciplinary studies. There are two conceptually framed strategies within one complex, which illustrates the praxeological character of the study: the Heideggerian Dasein and the polyphonic Ego presented by Bakhtin M.M. The first one unfolds as a monologue and first-person speech; the latter in turn, as a dialog, which expresses the subject’s being as a complicity in the polyphony of voices of the Other(s).

About the Author

S. G. Selivanova
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation

Svetlana G. Selivanova — PhD student, Department of Philosophical anthropology

119991, Moscow, GSP-1, Lomonosovsky prospekt, 27-4



References

1. Anscombe G.E.M. 1975. The first person. Mind and language. Wolfson College Lectures 1974. Ed. Guttenplan S. Oxford: Clarendon Press. P.45-65.

2. Crowell S. 2001. Subjectivity: Locating the first-person in Being and Time. Inquiry. Vol. 44(4). P.433-454. DOI: 10.1080/002017401753263243.

3. Denker A. 2010. Historical Dictionary of Heidegger’s Philosophy. 2 nd ed. Lanham, Toronto, Plymouth, UK: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. 462 p.

4. Kachersky L., Carnevale M. 2015. Effects of pronoun brand name perspective and positioning on brand attitude. Journal of Product & Brand Management. Vol. 24 (2). P. 157-164. DOI: 10.1108/JPBM-02-2014-0495.

5. Kachersky L. 2013. How personal pronouns influence brand name preference. Journal of Brand Management. 20 (7). P. 558-570. DOI: 10.1057/bm.2012.61.

6. Rosch E. 1973. Natural Categories. Cognitive Psychology. 4 (3). P. 328-350. DOI: 10.1016/00100285(73)900-17-0.

7. Rosch E. 1978. Principles of Categorization. Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. P. 27-48. Available at: tamaraberg.com/teaching/Fall_13/papers/Cognition&Categorization.pdf (accessed: 14.04.2020).

8. Searle J.R. 1958. Proper Names. Mind, New Series. 67 (266). P. 166-173.

9. Uexkull J. von. 1926. Theoretical biology. New York: Harcourt, Brace&Company, Inc. 362 p.

10. Bakhtin M.M. 2000. Problema tvorchestva Dostoevskogo [Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics]. Sobranie sochinenii. T.2. Moscow: Russkie slovari. P. 5-175 (In Russian).

11. Descartes R. 1995. Razmishlenija o pervonachal’noi filosofii [Meditations on first philosophy]. Saint-Petersburg: Abris-Kniga. 192 p. (In Russian).

12. Fragmenty rannih stoikov [Fragments of The Early Stoa]. 1999. T. 2. Khrisipp iz Sol [Chrysippus of Sol]. Moscow: Greko-latinskii kabinet «Shichalina Iu.A.». 280 p. (In Russian).

13. Heidegger M. 1967. Sein und Zeit. 11te Auflage. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. 450 s. (In German) (Russ. ed.: Heidegger M. 2006. Bytie i vremia. Per. s nem. V.V. Bibikhina. 3-e izd. Saint-Petersburg. 452 p.)

14. Kant I. 1968. Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Berlin:Suhrkamp Verlag. 340 s. (Russ.ed.: Kant I. 2006. Kritika chistogo razuma. Moscow: Eksmo. 736 p.).

15. Lakoff G. 2004. Zhenshchiny, ogon’ i opasnye veshchi: chto kategorii yasyka govoryt nam o myshlenii [Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind]. Trans. I.V. Shatunovskogo. Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury. 792 p. (In Russian).

16. Luman N. 2007. Sozialnye sistemy [Social systems]. Saint-Petersburg: Nauka. 642 p. (In Russian).

17. Maturana U., Varela, F. 2019. Drevo poznaniia: Biologicheskie korni chelovecheskogo ponimaniia [The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding]. Moscow: URSS, LENAND. 320 p. (In Russian).

18. Plato. 1990. Kratil [Kratilus]. Sobranie sochinenii v 4 t. T. 1 [Works in four volumes. Vol. 1]. Moscow: Mysl’. P. 613-681 (In Russian).

19. Smirnov S.A. 2013. Antropoetika: vvedenie v predmet [Antropoesis: introduction to the subject]. Idei i ideally. Vol. 1. 2 (16). P. 63-77 (In Russian).

20. Stepanov Y.S. 1985. V trehmernom prostranstve yazyka [Three-dimensional space of the language]. Moscow: Nauka. 336 p. (In Russian).

21. Stepanova A.S. 2005. Dejksis i semantika zhesta v uchenii Stoi [Deixis and semantics of gesture in the teachings of Stoа]. Vestnik Sankt-Petersburgskogo Universiteta. Ser. 9. Vyp. 1. P. 88-92 (In Russian).

22. Stepanova A.S. 1995. Filosofia Drevnei Stoi [Philosophy of the Ancient Stoa]. Saint-Petersburg: KN. 272 p. (In Russian).

23. Stolyarov A.A. 1995. Stoya i stoitsizm [Stoa and stoicism]. Moscow: AO Kami Grup. 444 p. (In Russian).


Review

For citations:


Selivanova S.G. Name-strategies and antropoiesis discourse in the history of philosophy. Concept: philosophy, religion, culture. 2020;4(2):7-16. https://doi.org/10.24833/2541-8831-2020-2-14-7-16

Views: 916


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2541-8831 (Print)
ISSN 2619-0540 (Online)