Jakub Mácha

This introductory chapter presents the reader with various ways of approaching the topic ‘Wittgenstein and the creativity of language’. It is argued that any serious account of the questions arising from this joint consideration of, on the one hand, this great genius of philosophy and, on the other, the varieties of speech, text, action and beauty which go under the heading ‘the creativity of language’ will have to appreciate the potential of both, in terms of breadth as well as depth. First, the chapter points out a way of understanding Wittgenstein’s discussion of rules and rule-following in relation to meaning and normativity which, in virtue of respecting Wittgenstein’s own creativity as a writer, does not fall prey to a widespread source of misunderstanding. Next, Wittgenstein’s uses of language receive some additional attention (i.e. his use of analogies, metaphors, punctuation and other literary and rhetorical devices), before a glimpse is offered of an unravelling of the knot that is Wittgenstein and the creativity of language. The multiple interrelated threads here lead into areas of human concern ranging from the philosophy of language and logic through to ethics, aesthetics and politics. Finally, the chapter offers an overview of the contents of the book from the perspective of its editors.

The main aim of this essay is to show that, for Stevens, the concept of reality is very fluctuating. The essay begins with addressing the relationship between poetry and philosophy. I argue, contra Critchley, that Stevens’ poetic work can elucidate, or at least help us to understand better, the ideas of philosophers that are usually considered obscure. The main “obscure” philosophical work introduced in and discussed throughout the essay is Schelling’s System of Transcendental Idealism. Both a (shellingian) philosopher and a (stevensian) poet search for reality. In order to understand Stevens’ poetry better, I distingush several concepts of reality: initial reality (the external world of the common sense), imagined reality (a fiction, a product of one’s mind), final reality (the object of a philosopher’s and a poet’s search) and total reality (the sum of all realities, Being). These determinations are fixed by reason (in the present essay), whereas in Stevens’ poetic works, they are made fluid by the imagination. This fluidity leads the concept of reality from its initial stage through the imagined stage to its final stage. Throughout this process, imagined reality must be distinguished from both a mere fancy and its products. Final reality is, however, nothing transcendent. It is rather a general transpersonal order of reality created by poetry/the imagination. The main peculiarity of final reality is that it is a dynamic order. It is provisional at each moment. Stevens (and Schelling too) characterizes this order as that of a work of art which is a finite object, but has an infinite meaning. Stevens calls this order “the central poem” or the “endlessly elaborating poem”. If ultimate reality is a poem created by the imagination, one may ask who is the imagining subject. I argue that this agent is best to be thought as total reality, that is, as Being. Stevens, however, maintains that if there were such an agency, it would be an inhuman agency, “an inhuman meditation”. The essay concludes, in a Derridian manner, with the claim that this agency cannot have any name; it is the “unnamed creator of an unknown sphere, / Unknown as yet, unknowable, / Uncertain certainty” (OP: 127). It is best thought as an X, as an unknown variable. Being has no name.

Conceptual Metaphor Theory makes some strong claims against so-called Classical Theory which spans the accounts of metaphors from Aristotle to Davidson. Most of these theories, because of their traditional literal-metaphorical distinction, fail to take into account the phenomenon of conceptual metaphor. I argue that the underlying mechanism for explaining metaphor bears some striking resemblances among all of these theories. A mapping between two structures is always expressed. Conceptual Metaphor Theory insists, however, that the literal-metaphorical distinction of Classical Theories is empirically wrong. I claim that this criticism is based rather on terminological decisions than on empirical issues. Conceptual Metaphor Theory focusses primarily on conventional metaphors and struggles to extend its mechanism to novel metaphors, whereas Classical Theories focus on novel metaphors and struggle to extend their mechanisms to conventional metaphors. Since all of these theories study metaphors from the synchronic point of view, they are unable to take into account any semantic change. A diachronic perspective is what we need here, one which would allow us to explain the role of metaphor in semantic change and the development of language in general.

This volume is devoted to investigating the relationships and correspondences that hold between the poetry of Wallace Stevens and philosophy. Stevens used the aesthetically enhanced language of his poems to create inquiries into the nature of reality that parallel those conducted by philosophers. He also maintained poetry’s independence from philosophy. The first part of the volume contains articles that pursue various aspects of these parallels. Here, the authors explore the relations between Stevens’ poems and specific philosophical concepts or the thought of individual philosophers. The articles contained in the second part narrow down the scope to the issues within the philosophy of language. This section concentrates on the role of metaphor and figurativeness in Stevens’ poetry.

The only encounter of the Czech philosopher and Communist official Arnošt Kolman with Bertrand Russell at the Tenth International Congress of Philosophy in Amsterdam in 1948 was unfortunate. Kolman’s paper, “The Tasks of Contemporary Philosophy in the Struggle for New Humanism”, aroused a vitriolic rejoinder by Russell. However, the text of the paper as published in the congress Proceedings has a conciliatory tone. This version could not have aroused such a reaction. There is, however, an article, with a similar title, published in Czech in 1948, stating that this is Kolman’s paper from the congress. I argue that this article more likely reflects what Kolman actually said at the Congress. Finally, I provide an English translation of this article.

The notion of ontology originates in philosophy. It has been recently employed in computer science and information technology for representing knowledge. In the first part of the paper, I argue that there is a significant overlap in these notions of ontology. Utilizing this overlap, I show in the second part that ontologies can be used for developing a new powerful heuristic method for resolving verbal disputes in philosophy. Verbal disputes can be defined in terms of ontologies: A dispute over two texts P and S is verbal if and only if both of them can be mapped into the same ontology. In the appendix, I analyze the dispute over logical pluralism and indicate how my method of resolving verbal disputes can be employed.

In his paper "What Metaphors Mean", Donald Davidson attacks various theories of the metaphorical meaning. His radical thesis is that the metaphor has except the literal meaning no other (metaphorical or secondary) meaning. He refuses primarily the idea that the metaphor is some sort of communication-the speaker puts a hidden message in it and the recipient have to decode it. Davidson supported this negative attitude with a number of more or less conclusive arguments. I would like to discuss some of them in this essay. My interpretation of Davidson's argumentation can be summed up as that the idea of the metaphorical meaning is not nonsensical, but it is unsuitable for explaining the intricate role of metaphors in our language. A positive theory of metaphor was only suggested by Davidson, but not properly elaborated. This was a task of his followers, in the first place of Richard Rorty. He emphasized, however, the causal character of a metaphorical effect, which radicalizes Davidson's account. As opposed to Rorty, Davidson shared with his predecessors an opinion that in a metaphor one thing is seen as another thing. None of the authors was able to explain this metaphorical definition of the metaphor.

The problem of metaphor has come to a noteworthy revival in the analytical philosophy of today. Despite all progress that has been made, the majority of important studies consider the function of metaphor as an analogue to visual perception. Such comparison may be conceived as metaphor as well. In his late philosophy, Wittgenstein spent a lot of effort to explain the use of the expression "seeing as". I argue that his explanations can be transposed to the explanation of the function of metaphor. Firstly, it is shown that all earlier attempts to do that are not satisfying. The occurrence of the expression "to see as" in everyday language led Wittgenstein to the elaboration of the notion of "aspect". Primarily these ideas should be employed in order to explain metaphors in everyday or even poetic language. My conclusion is that an internal relation can be perceived and thought of in the metaphor.

This paper investigates the issue whether metaphors have a metaphorical or secondary meaning and how this question is related to the borderline between philosophy and linguistics. On examples by V. Woolf and H. W. Auden, it will be shown that metaphor accomplishes something more than its literal meaning expresses and this “more” cannot be captured by any secondary meaning. What is essential in the metaphor is not a secondary meaning but an internal relation between a metaphorical proposition and a description of its effects. In order to understand metaphors, we have to share an ability to construe metaphorical meanings at once. The aim of this ability is to uncover an internal relation, which lies behind a particular metaphor.

The main aim of this paper is to survey and evaluate Searle’s account of metaphor (1979) in the light of Davidson’s arguments against the idea of metaphorical meaning, which appeared at roughly the same time. Since this paper is intended for a festschrift celebrating Searle’s respectable anniversary, I will mostly refrain from critical remarks and rather focus on the positive aspects of his account. I am going to show that Searle’s theory of metaphor is for the most part immune to Davidson’s arguments.

In this paper I discuss the idea of a semantic code in the contemporary debate between contextualism and minimalism. First, I identify historical sources of these positions in Grice’s pragmatics and in Davidson’s theory of meaning in order to sketch the role of a semantic code there. Then I argue that contextualism is committed to the idea of an ad hoc code, while minimalism involves a persistent code. However, the latter approach to a code requires disambiguation which must be carried out in the early stages of speech act processing. I raise a concern that primary pragmatic processes may be active here, especially in the case of disambiguating polysemous expressions, which could be problematic or even devastating for the minimalist program. At the end I evaluate a possible minimalist way out by examining the minimalist account of metaphor, which lies at the root of polysemy. If a code robust enough to deal with polysemy could be created, minimalist conceptions would present a new impetus to understand language as a code. Without such a code, very little would be left of the notion of a persistent code and hence of minimalism itself.

Zusammenfassung: In Kants Schriften kommt das Wort ‚Metapher‘ nur spärlich vor. Das heißt jedoch keineswegs, dass er das Vorkommen von Metaphern ignoriert und nicht problematisiert hat. In diesem Beitrag habe ich vor, mich mit zwei Schlüsselbegriffen der kantischen Ästhetik zu befassen, nämlich mit der ästhetischen Idee und der symbolischen Darstellung. Hinter beiden verbergen sich Strukturen, die sich als Explikationen der Funktionsweise von Metaphern verstehen lassen. In der analytischen Philosophie des vorigen Jahrhunderts ist die Metapher zum Gegenstand von mancherlei Studien und konkurrierender Theorien geworden. Darunter befinden sich – freilich in einem durchaus unterschiedlichen Begriffsapparat formuliert – auch die beiden Theorien aus der Kritik der Urteilskraft. Trotz allem Konsens gehen sie in der Schlüsselfrage der Existenz der metaphorischen Bedeutung auseinander. Während Max Black seine Auffassung auf der Idee der metaphorischen Bedeutung aufbaute, argumentierte Donald Davidson hingegen, dass diese Idee die Funktionsweise der Metapher nicht zu erläutern vermöge. Diese bis heute unentschiedene Streitsache ist im Rückgang auf Kants Ästhetik aufzuspüren, und zwar in der Form der (heutzutage gleichfalls aktuellen) Frage, ob sich die Funktion von ästhetischen Ideen auf die symbolische Darstellung von sittlichen Vernunftideen reduzieren lässt. Abstract: The term "metaphor" is rare to the writings of Kant. However, it doesn't imply that he ignored or did not question the ubiquity of metaphors. In the present paper, I want to discuss two cardinal concepts of Kant's aesthetics viz., the aesthetic idea and the symbolic presentation. Behind both are contained structures which can be seen as explications of the function of the metaphor. The problem of metaphor has come to a noteworthy revival and to the subject of many competing studies in analytical philosophy. Among them can be found - formulated surely in very different concepts - the two theories from The Critique of Judgement. Despite a considerable amount of agreement, these theories diverge in the key issue of the usefulness of the notion of the metaphorical meaning. While Max Black's account is based on the idea of the metaphorical meaning, Donald Davidson on the other hand argued that such an idea cannot explain the function of the metaphor. This undecided issue can be transposed back into the aesthetical theory of Kant as the issue, whether the function of aesthetical ideas can be reduced to a symbolic presentation of moral ideas of reason