Harris proposes a new theory of communication, beginning with the premise that the mental life of an individual should be conceived of as a continuous attempt to integrate the present with the past and future.

Saussure as a linguist and Wittgenstein as a philosopher of language are arguably the two most important figures in the development of twentieth-century ...

"This book re-examines the old debate about the relationship between rationality and literacy. Does writing 'restructure consciousness'? Do preliterate societies have a different 'mind-set' from literate societies? Is reason 'built in' to the way we think? How is literacy related to numeracy? Is the 'logical form' that Western philosophers recognize anything more than an extrapolation from the structure of the written sentence? Is logic, as developed formally in Western education, intrinsically beyond the reach of the preliterate mind? What light, if (...) any, do the findings of contemporary neuroscience throw on such issues? Roy Harris challenges the received mainstream opinion that reason is an intrinsic property of the human mind, and argues that the whole Western conception of rational thought, from Classical Greece down to modern symbolic logic, is a by-product of the way literacy developed in European cultures." --publisher's website. (shrink)

A study of Western philosophy of history in relation to Western philosophy of language.

Why is freedom of speech so seldom raised as an issue in philosophy of education? In assessing this question, it is important to distinguish (i) between a freedom and its exercise, and (ii) between different philosophies of education. Western philosophies of education may be broadly divided into classes derived from theories of knowledge first articulated in ancient Greece. Freedom of speech is in principle inimical to some of these, while being essential to the objectives of others.

Lectures delivered by the author at Indian Institute of Advanced Study in October 2002.

As hopes that generative linguistics might solve philosophical problems about the mind give way to disillusionment, old problems concerning the relationship between linguistics and philosophy survive unresolved. This collection surveys the historical engagement between the two, and opens up avenues for further reflection. In Part 1 two contrasting views are presented of the interface nowadays called 'philosophy of linguistics '. Part 2 gives a detailed historical survey of the engagement of analytic philosophy with linguistic problems during the present century, and (...) sees the imposition by philosophers of an 'exploratory' model of thinking as a major challenge to the discipline of linguistics. Part 3 poses the problem of whether linguistics is dedicated to describing independently existing linguistic structures or to imposing its own structures on linguistic phenomena. In Part 4 Harris points out some similarities in the way an eminent linguist and an eminent philosopher invoke the analogy between languages and games; while Taylor analyses the rationale of our metalinguistic claims and their relationship to linguistic theorizing. Providing a wide range of views and ideas this book will be of interest to all those interested and involved in the interface of philosophy and linguistics. (shrink)

In this... essay,... linguist Roy Harris reflects on the early nineteenth-century doctrine of 'art for art's sake'. Attacked by Proudhon and Nietzsche, but defended by Theophile Gautier and E. M. Forster, it influenced movements as diverse as futurism and Dada. Over the past two centuries, three main positions have emerged. The 'institutional' view declares art to be a status conferred upon certain works by the approval of influential institutions. The 'idiocentric' view gives absolute priority to the judgment of the individual. (...) The third is the 'conceptual' view of art, which insists that what counts is the idea that inspired a work, not the physical execution. But, as Harris shows, the tacit assumptions which once supported this debate and these positions have now collapsed. 'Art' as a coherent category has imploded, leaving behind a historical residue of empty questions that contemporary society can no longer answer." --book cover. (shrink)