论文部分内容阅读
1.Introduction
“The concept of inter-subjectivity has become a familiar problem in the larger Husserlian program of a transcendental phenomenology” (Gadamer 275). It is a philosophical and aesthetic concept arose gradually in the 20th century. As M. B. Ligorio et al. pointed out:
Inter-subjectivity has been studied from different perspectives and it is strongly rooted in philosophy. Husserl (1931), albeit within the extreme reductionist approach, acknowledged that it was not possible to know the world without shifting to a different perspective from one’s own. (358)
To acquire an accurate and thorough cognition of the world, one should turn to a different conception for help by standing in the others’ shoes. “A leading definition of inter-subjectivity comes from Piaget”, as introduced by M. B. Ligorio et al, “he considers inter-subjectivity to be mainly due to perspective-taking and decentration of individual processes working on socially-derived information” (360).
2.Main Ideas of Inter-subjectivity
“Life world”, a crucial concept should be drawn into focus when inter-subjectivity is meditated, which was proposed by Husserl first and developed by his critical follower Alfred Schutz who brought it into the development of sociology, “is a storage vault of skills, abilities and knowledge built up by common members of the society in order to live the daily life smoothly by negotiation, interact with other people and finally set up and maintain the social relationship” (Edgar 101).
Then, in “Habermas: The Key Concepts”, it is clear that “Habermas’ consideration of language has been placed in a broader scale of ‘communicative ability’ which is possessed by people: the ability not only to share meaningful information, but also set up the social relevance and realize the social interaction” (Edgar 90). Therefore, a fundamental connection between inter-subjectivity and communication has been somewhat established through language. And “basically speaking, the transfer which from subjective philosophy to inter-subjective philosophy stands for that from monologue to dialogue, single culture or cultural centrism to an open, interactive and equal dialogue or communicative theory” (Yang 42). Habermas stated that four behavior patterns are involved in communicative action: they are specifically purpose action pattern, standard action pattern, play action pattern and communicative action pattern.
3.Inter-subjective Elements within Habermas’ Underst
anding
“Only communicative action pattern considers language as a medium which leads to a complete communication and in the course of the communication, the speaker and the listener start from their ‘life world’ and proceed interaction with the objective world, the social world and the subjective world in an attempt to enter a common language environment” (Habermas 95).
In the following, Habermas (100) successively gave three famous requirements for the effectiveness of a doer who intends to seek communication and expression: first, “the statement should be true (even the premise of a sentence that incidentally mentioned must be satisfied in practice)” (ibid.). The premise refers to the significance of the statement and the truthfulness expands from the objective fact to the relevant relationship of the fact; second, “the speech performance related to a standard language environment should be right (even the standard language itself which should be satisfied must possess validity)”. The recognized social standards and customs that are the same as “the ready-made standards which are similar to the real existing situation” (ibid. 91) should be accepted by the majority of the people; third, “the speaker’s intention should be in accordance with his or her heartfelt wishes” (whether the combination of the wishes and affection is in line with each other should be considered as the criteria). Also he held that when a doer itself is seeking common view to judge the three values, namely truthfulness, rightfulness and sincerity, meanwhile, they are to be judged in line with the speech performance and fit-misfit of the three worlds established by the doer through expression. This kind of relationship respectively lies in the expression among the following three worlds: first, objective world (serve as the totality of all the substance and make the truthful expression possible); second, social world (serve as the totality of all the right interpersonal relationship); third, subjective world (serve as the experienced totality that only the speaker is permitted to enter). Although there is always a core position for a standard requirement in any language action, they are wholly all along to be the main topic. The three standard requirements are unified in the contents expressed by the speaker, and the connection between the values and the three worlds should be grasped as a whole concept.
4.Conclusion
From the above description, it is clear that till now, inter-subjectivity mainly concentrates on the interactive and communicative ability and behavior of a group of people who possess similar field of horizon, knowledge, life experience and other concepts for maintaining everyday life in a harmonious way. Among these elements, language is an effective medium that conveys mutual understanding for all the participants involved.
【參考文献】
［１］哈贝马斯.安德鲁·埃德加(Andrew Edgar)著,杨礼银,朱松峰,译.关键概念Habermas: The Key Concepts1st Edition(第1版)[英].江苏人民出版社,2009,3.
［２］杨柳.交互主体性VS主体性：全球化语境下的译本整合形态Foreign Languages and Their Teaching,2003,No.9 Serial No.174:39-43.
［３］尤尔根·哈贝马斯.交往行为理论.Trans. 曹卫东. 哈贝马斯文集. Ed.曹卫东.2004ed.Vol.4. 6vols.上海:人民出版社,1984.
“The concept of inter-subjectivity has become a familiar problem in the larger Husserlian program of a transcendental phenomenology” (Gadamer 275). It is a philosophical and aesthetic concept arose gradually in the 20th century. As M. B. Ligorio et al. pointed out:
Inter-subjectivity has been studied from different perspectives and it is strongly rooted in philosophy. Husserl (1931), albeit within the extreme reductionist approach, acknowledged that it was not possible to know the world without shifting to a different perspective from one’s own. (358)
To acquire an accurate and thorough cognition of the world, one should turn to a different conception for help by standing in the others’ shoes. “A leading definition of inter-subjectivity comes from Piaget”, as introduced by M. B. Ligorio et al, “he considers inter-subjectivity to be mainly due to perspective-taking and decentration of individual processes working on socially-derived information” (360).
2.Main Ideas of Inter-subjectivity
“Life world”, a crucial concept should be drawn into focus when inter-subjectivity is meditated, which was proposed by Husserl first and developed by his critical follower Alfred Schutz who brought it into the development of sociology, “is a storage vault of skills, abilities and knowledge built up by common members of the society in order to live the daily life smoothly by negotiation, interact with other people and finally set up and maintain the social relationship” (Edgar 101).
Then, in “Habermas: The Key Concepts”, it is clear that “Habermas’ consideration of language has been placed in a broader scale of ‘communicative ability’ which is possessed by people: the ability not only to share meaningful information, but also set up the social relevance and realize the social interaction” (Edgar 90). Therefore, a fundamental connection between inter-subjectivity and communication has been somewhat established through language. And “basically speaking, the transfer which from subjective philosophy to inter-subjective philosophy stands for that from monologue to dialogue, single culture or cultural centrism to an open, interactive and equal dialogue or communicative theory” (Yang 42). Habermas stated that four behavior patterns are involved in communicative action: they are specifically purpose action pattern, standard action pattern, play action pattern and communicative action pattern.
3.Inter-subjective Elements within Habermas’ Underst
anding
“Only communicative action pattern considers language as a medium which leads to a complete communication and in the course of the communication, the speaker and the listener start from their ‘life world’ and proceed interaction with the objective world, the social world and the subjective world in an attempt to enter a common language environment” (Habermas 95).
In the following, Habermas (100) successively gave three famous requirements for the effectiveness of a doer who intends to seek communication and expression: first, “the statement should be true (even the premise of a sentence that incidentally mentioned must be satisfied in practice)” (ibid.). The premise refers to the significance of the statement and the truthfulness expands from the objective fact to the relevant relationship of the fact; second, “the speech performance related to a standard language environment should be right (even the standard language itself which should be satisfied must possess validity)”. The recognized social standards and customs that are the same as “the ready-made standards which are similar to the real existing situation” (ibid. 91) should be accepted by the majority of the people; third, “the speaker’s intention should be in accordance with his or her heartfelt wishes” (whether the combination of the wishes and affection is in line with each other should be considered as the criteria). Also he held that when a doer itself is seeking common view to judge the three values, namely truthfulness, rightfulness and sincerity, meanwhile, they are to be judged in line with the speech performance and fit-misfit of the three worlds established by the doer through expression. This kind of relationship respectively lies in the expression among the following three worlds: first, objective world (serve as the totality of all the substance and make the truthful expression possible); second, social world (serve as the totality of all the right interpersonal relationship); third, subjective world (serve as the experienced totality that only the speaker is permitted to enter). Although there is always a core position for a standard requirement in any language action, they are wholly all along to be the main topic. The three standard requirements are unified in the contents expressed by the speaker, and the connection between the values and the three worlds should be grasped as a whole concept.
4.Conclusion
From the above description, it is clear that till now, inter-subjectivity mainly concentrates on the interactive and communicative ability and behavior of a group of people who possess similar field of horizon, knowledge, life experience and other concepts for maintaining everyday life in a harmonious way. Among these elements, language is an effective medium that conveys mutual understanding for all the participants involved.
【參考文献】
［１］哈贝马斯.安德鲁·埃德加(Andrew Edgar)著,杨礼银,朱松峰,译.关键概念Habermas: The Key Concepts1st Edition(第1版)[英].江苏人民出版社,2009,3.
［２］杨柳.交互主体性VS主体性：全球化语境下的译本整合形态Foreign Languages and Their Teaching,2003,No.9 Serial No.174:39-43.
［３］尤尔根·哈贝马斯.交往行为理论.Trans. 曹卫东. 哈贝马斯文集. Ed.曹卫东.2004ed.Vol.4. 6vols.上海:人民出版社,1984.