This article considers questions of epistemology and ontology within the work of philosopher Richard Rorty from a hitherto unexplored perspective. In fact, it constitutes the present author’s attempt to come to terms with Rorty’s own brand of constructivism, termed “pragmatism”, by means of an integrational linguistic approach, as laid out by its founder Roy Harris. The paper aims at shedding light on how an integrational critique of Rortian constructivism differs epistemologically from a realist critique when it comes to the notions (...) of what constitutes knowledge, reality and truth. What emerges from the present intellectual endeavour to align these two important thinkers is a very complex picture of two positions with strong affinities but also with different points of emphasis. In this respect, the present paper is also an attempt at placing Harrisian integrationism in its proper context within the History of Idea. (shrink)

Integrating Rorty and (Social) Constructivism: A View from Harrisian Semiology. . ???aop.label???. doi: 10.1080/02691728.2013.782587.

In this article I critically engage with Robert Craig’s constitutive metamodel of communication theory from the vantage point of an integrational semiology, as developed by Oxford Professor Roy Harris in his book Signs, Language and Communication (1996). I argue that Harris’ dichotomy of a ‘segregational’ vs. an ‘integrational’ tradition of theorizing language and communication makes the metamodel redundant on the grounds that Craig’s communicational perspective on social reality is replaced by two semiologies sponsoring mutually exclusive ontologies and epistemologies.

The article critically engages with the posthumanist discourse on anthropocentrism and human exceptionalism. It adopts an “integrational” approach to signs, language, and communication, as outlined in the works of Oxford linguist Roy Harris. Integrational linguistics is committed to a demythologized view of “language,” which it considers to exist only as part of the experience of human individuals and human collectivities. From an integrational point of view, language is not an “object” of scientific inquiry, but a complex of human activities that (...) make such an inquiry possible in the first place. This paper argues that posthumanists falsely ascribe language to animals and to hypothetical extraterrestrials. Based on Harris’ concept of the supercategory, it is shown that the worldviews encapsulated in science, history, and religion only make sense because they are human worldviews. No other intelligent life could grasp the various supercategorical discourses, and how they relate to each other, the main reason being that language is a uniquely integrated mode of human communication. The article thus supports a radical anthropocentrism as the only intellectually viable philosophy on which to draw in our reflections on, and inquiries into both intraspecies and interspecies communication. (shrink)