مبانی معناشناختی تعین معنای متن از دیدگاه جان سرل و شهید صدر

تعین معنای متن یکی از مسائل مهم فلسفه زبان معاصر است. هرمنوتیک فلسفی در پاسخ به این مسئله، قائل به عدم تعین معنای متن شده است. عدم تعین معنای متن هسته مرکزی معناشناسی‌های جدید و حاکی از نوعی عدم قطعیت در فلسفه معاصر است. این مقاله می‌کوشد تا این مسئله را به دو سنت فلسفه تحلیلی زبان متعارف به نمایندگی جان سرل و علم اصول فقه به نمایندگی شهید سید محمد باقر صدر عرضه کند. جان سرل، با تکیه بر مبانی همچون: افعال گفتاری، حیث التفاتی فردی و حیث التفاتی جمعی و مبتنی بر قواعد قوام بخش اجتماعی معنای متن را متعین می‌داند. از سوی دیگر شهید صدر نیز با تکیه بر مبانی همچون: قرن اکید و تعین دورنی معنا، تعین استعمالی معنا، تعین مبتنی بر ظهور معنا، تعین سیستمی و اجتماعی معنا، معنای حاصله از متن را متعین می‌داند. از این رو در این مقاله ضمنمقایسه دیدگاه این دو فیلسوف معاصر، راه برای تدوین دانش های میان رشته ای میان فلسفه تحلیلی و علم اصول فقه گشوده می شود.

the semantic fondations of determining themeaning of the text from the point view ofjohn searle and shahid sadr

introduction: determining the meaning of the text is one of the important issues of contemporary language philosophy. philosophical hermeneutics, in response to this problem, believes in the indeterminacy ofthe meaning of the text. determining the meaning of the text has beenproposed with regard to the many meanings that determination has in termsof ontology, semantics, epistemology and methodology, and among them,the determination of the meaning of the text in the sense of discovering themeaning of the speaker has been discussed in the light of semanticfoundations.methodology: determining the meaning of the text is defined in the triadof possibility, probability, and determination and this matching has beendone by emphasizing the views of searle and shahid sadr with library andanalytical methods and sometimes using hybrid methods and linguisticphilosophy.findings: john searle has explained the meaning of the text by relyingon basics such as the theory of speech act, intentionality, and collective intentionality, and by emphasizing methods such as concentration andlinguistic descriptions, classification of speech acts and rules, and byemphasizing the anatomy of the brain, and in other words, he has achievedthe explanation of the organization of the institutional communication ofmeaning; and on the other hand, martyr shahid sadr, relying on the issuesof status (vaze) and strict conjugation (qarn akid), the theory of usage(istimal), the authority of emergence (hojat) and the linguistic system, and aspecial effort in the social understanding of the text (nas), relying on themethod of manifestation and possibilities, in a kind of natural definition ofdetermining their meaning in the light social understanding is achieved.conclusion: the findings of this research show that the two researchershave a point in common in no reference to extra-language, regularity oflanguage, authenticity of appearance and rules, contextualism and inconfusion between the definite article and the spoken verb, linguisticcommunication unit, criterion of meaningfulness and provability,institutional explanation of meaning, theory of implication, meaningand intention and theory of application and use have been distinguishedfrom each other. therefore, the intellectual difference between the twointellectual traditions in the issue of determining meaning can be seen asarising from the intellectual paradigm of the two thinkers, on the other hand,it should be noted that the social rules of meaning and relying on the rules ofconsistency in searle's view and his reliance on institutional realities andshahid sadr's emphasis on linguistic concentration and authenticity arisingfrom the degree of truth and probability is more rooted in two intellectualparadigms, institutional and proof of meaning, and it should be examined inthe context of meaning; searle's reliance on individual intentionality and hisrejection of it in terms of collective intentionality are seen very faintly in theshahid sadr view’s, perhaps if it were not for the fallacy of confusionbetween validity and truth and the science of the principles of jurisprudencedid not find its language in philosophy and theoretical sciences, the attemptthe theoretical approaches to connect the layer of probability todetermination, or the layer of suspicion to certainty in the science of theprinciples of jurisprudence, do not remain incomplete. the efforts ofanalytical philosophy in the analysis of intention in the subjective anduniversal layers and his deep investigations on issues based on intention inthe science of principles and the intellectual system of shahid sadr areeffective and can change them.