7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Bentham’s Theory of Language : Its Structure, Originality, and Significance to his Political Radicalism

      Revue d’études benthamiennes
      OpenEdition

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references5

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The Place of Jeremy Bentham’s Theory of Fictions in Eighteenth-century Linguistic Thought

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Which comes first, Bentham’s chicken of utility, or his egg of truth?

            This paper argues that whilst Bentham’s logic, like all human activity, had pragmatic goals, so that all knowledge was subject to utilitarian evaluation, he clearly distinguished between utility and truth. § I presents the textual evidence that Bentham believed that truth was communicable in propositions relating to real entities, and discusses the limits to the information which true propositions could impart. It is argued further that the processes of phraseoplerosis and paraphrasis revealed which propositions relating to fictitious entities could be translated into propositions capable of bearing truth (i.e. relating to real entities). In § II an attempt is made to paraphrase ‘truth’, and the result indicates that Bentham did indeed interpret true as meaning ‘corresponds to the real’. In § III, it is argued that Bentham’s concept of truth combined both an objective element, according to which truth was understood as correspondence with reality, and a subjective element, according to which truth is simply an adjunct to subjective belief, while veracity relates to the accurate reporting of belief. The bridge between these elements was formed by the methods of Baconian induction, and the universal human ability to interpret the evidence arising from sensory data. Progress towards truth depended on the free exchange of the available empirical evidence, and of the inferences drawn therefrom. § IV discusses the relation between Bentham’s logic and pragmatism and fictionalism respectively, and argues that whilst Bentham’s thought anticipates central elements of both philosophies, it cannot consistently be characterized as either pragmatist or fictionalist, since ultimately, it is the rooting of the fictitious entity utility in the real entities of pleasure and pain which makes it the only viable moral principle. The value of true propositions is indeed to be subjected to utilitarian evaluation, but the very possibility of utilitarian evaluation itself depends on the existence of true propositions. § V investigates possible tensions between truth and utility, and asks where Bentham’s ultimate loyalty lies. It is argued that whilst the possibility of justified duplicity must, on any utilitarian view, remain on the table, Bentham’s recognition that the evidence of sense experience is available to all renders the probability of a successful perpetration of a utilitarian ‘noble lie’ vanishingly small.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              Essay on the Origin of Human Knowledge

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Revue d’études benthamiennes
                etudes-benthamiennes
                OpenEdition
                1760-7507
                December 15 2019
                December 15 2019
                : 16
                Article
                10.4000/etudes-benthamiennes.5856
                768ff0d2-c5db-4dce-ad1b-f93af8c84000
                © 2019
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article