Abstrakt
DOI: https://doi.org/10.26333/sts.xxxvi2.06
Regardless of the form it may take, the process of translation still tends to be viewed as a technical activity, a cumbersome yet necessary operation to be performed in pursuit of higher goals. Yet as a phenomenon, with its profoundness it seems to be calling for closer attention. Thus the following work aims to prove how relevant the notion of translation is for the philosophical debate—specifically, for the enquiry into the nature of truth as considered from the pragmatic perspective. Firstly then, theories of the two fathers of pragmatism, Charles Sanders Peirce’s and William James’s, will be briefly recalled. Subsequently, the analysis will expose the role of translation process in each account. Recognition of the translative element will shed a new light on Peirce’s and James’s dispersed remarks concerning truth and offer an interesting ground on which they may be consolidated. Finally, the study yields a broader perspective on the idea of translation process as such, underscoring its philosophical potential.
Bibliografia
Burch, R. (2018). Charles Sanders Peirce. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/peirce/
Capps, J. (2019). The Pragmatic Theory of Truth. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/truth-pragmatic/
Chisholm, R. M. (1992). William James’s Theory of Truth. The Monist, 75(4), 569–579.
Field, H. (1982). Realism and Relativism, Journal of Philosophy, 79(10), 553–567.
Gale, R. M. (1999). The Divided Self of William James. Cambridge: CUP.
Haack, S. (1984). Can James’s Theory of Truth Be Made More Satisfactory? Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 20(3), 269–278.
Hartama-Heinonen, R. (2008). Abductive Translation Studies: The Art of Marshalling Signs. University of Helsinki, Imatra, Finland: International Semiotics Institute.
Horwich, P. (1990). Truth. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Hu, X. (2016). A Few Puzzles About William James’ Theory of Truth. Kriterion, 57(135). doi:10.1590/0100-512X2016n13511xh
James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology. Blackmask Online.
James, W. (1912). Essays in Radical Empiricism, Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
James, W. (1909). The Meaning of Truth: A Sequel to “Pragmatism”, New York, London: Longmans, Green & Co. Retrieved from: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5117/5117-h/5117-h.htm
Kirkham, R. L. (2001). Theories of Truth. A Critical Introduction. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Legg, C. (2014). Charles Peirce’s Limit Concept of Truth. Philosophy Compass, 9(3), 204–213.
Peirce, C. S. (1905). What Pragmatism is. Monist, 15(2), 161–181.
Peirce, C. S. (1994). The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Harvard: HUP.
Peirce, C. S. (1878). How to Make Our Ideas Clear. Popular Science Monthly, 12, 286–302.
Putnam, H. (1995). Pragmatism. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers.
Robinson, D. (2015). The Icosis of Semiosis as Abduction as Translation. Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/4791696/The_Icosis_of_Semiosis_as_ Abduction_as_Translation
Rorty, R. (1991). Solidarity or Objectivity? In R. Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth (Philosophical Papers: Volume 1, pp. 21–34), New York: CUP.
Russell, B. (1939). Dewey’s New Logic. In P. A. Schilpp (Ed.), The Philosophy of John Dewey (pp. 135–156). Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.
Stanford, P. K. (2015). Instrumentalism. Global, Local, Scientific. In P. Humphreys (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Science (pp. 318–336). doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199368815.013.19
Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and Object. New York: MIT Press.