چکیده:
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 کوشیده‌ایم ضمن مقایسه دیدگاه این دو فیلسوف معاصر، نقاط اشتراک و افتراق معناشناختی دو متفکر را مورد بررسی قرار داده و راه را برای شکل‌گیری دانش‌های میان رشته‌ای میان فلسفه تحلیلی و علم اصول فقه بگشاییم.
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 of
the meaning of the text. Determining the meaning of the text has been
proposed with regard to the many meanings that determination has in terms
of ontology, semantics, epistemology and methodology, and among them,
the determination of the meaning of the text in the sense of "discovering the
meaning of the speaker" has been discussed in the light of semantic
foundations.
Methodology: Determining the meaning of the text is defined in the triad
of "possibility, probability, and determination" and this matching has been
done by emphasizing the views of Searle and Shahid Sadr with library and
analytical methods and sometimes using hybrid methods and linguistic
philosophy.
Findings: John Searle has explained the meaning of the text by relying
on basics such as the theory of speech act, Intentionality, and collective
Intentionality, and by emphasizing methods such as concentration and
linguistic descriptions, classification of speech acts and rules, and by
emphasizing the anatomy of the brain, and in other words, He has achieved
the explanation of the organization of the institutional communication of
meaning; And on the other hand, Martyr Shahid Sadr, relying on the issues
of status (vaze) and Strict conjugation (qarn akid), the theory of usage
(Istimal), the authority of emergence (hojat) and the linguistic system, and a
special effort in the social understanding of the text (nas), relying on the
method of manifestation and possibilities, in a kind of natural definition of
determining their meaning in the light Social understanding is achieved.
Conclusion: The findings of this research show that the two researchers
have a point in common in "no reference to extra-language", "regularity of
language", "authenticity of appearance and rules", "contextualism" and in
"confusion between the definite article and the spoken verb", "linguistic
communication unit", "criterion of meaningfulness and provability",
"institutional explanation of meaning", "theory of implication", "meaning
and intention" and "theory of application and use" have been distinguished
from each other. Therefore, the intellectual difference between the two
intellectual traditions in the issue of determining meaning can be seen as
arising 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 of
consistency in Searle's view and his reliance on institutional realities and
Shahid Sadr's emphasis on linguistic concentration and authenticity arising
from the degree of truth and probability is more rooted in two intellectual
paradigms, institutional and proof of meaning, and it should be examined in
the context of meaning; Searle's reliance on individual Intentionality and his
rejection of it in terms of collective Intentionality are seen very faintly in the
Shahid Sadr view’s, perhaps if it were not for the fallacy of confusion
between validity and truth and the science of the principles of jurisprudence
did not find its language in philosophy and theoretical sciences, the attempt
The theoretical approaches to connect the layer of probability to
determination, or the layer of suspicion to certainty in the science of the
principles of jurisprudence, do not remain incomplete. The efforts of
analytical philosophy in the analysis of intention in the subjective and
universal layers and his deep investigations on issues based on intention in
the science of principles and the intellectual system of Shahid Sadr are
effective and can change them.
(
, 
, 
)
