Valodas ontoloģija un pirmspredikatīvā pieredze. Martina Heidegera valodas filozofija mūsdienu interpretāciju spogulī

Ontology of Language is an area of language philosophy that has particularly interested the philosophers of the 20th century. This interest has certainly been driven not only by the change in language (namely, linguistic turn), but also by the development of European philosophy since the turn of the 19th century, through which language as a topic of philosophy has been rediscovered and the relationship between language and reality rethought. Romanticism, whose authors were greatly influenced by Immanuel Kant’s transcendental philosophy, touched on almost all the issues in his literary and philosophical experiments, which were later addressed in the philosophy of the 19th and 20th centuries, and in particular in the ontology of language. Thus, it can be argued that the ontology of language, as a special field of modern philosophy, needs to be seen in the context of the philosophical problems created in European philosophy by the rationalism of the late Enlightenment and the transcendental philosophy of I. Kant, and the reactions to I. Kant in Romanticism. All attempts then to recall the philosophy of language in Ancient Greece (Plato, Aristotle) and in medieval times (nominalism, realism, the work of Nicholas of Cusa) are the result of this constellation of Enlightenment and Romantic ideas from the turn of the 19th century. The main issue in the ontology of language is the relation between language and reality and the idea of language as a worldview. Among the 20th-century philosophers who have specifically dealt with these central issues of language ontology are Martin Heidegger. His readers are well aware that the German philosopher talks about language not only as a predicated act, a means of communication, and an instrument of socialization; M. Heidegger extends language awareness to pre-radical levels, stressing that any predication (and communication) can only take place where openness already exists. M. Flatscher and C. Taylor show well that M. Heidegger’s language understanding gravitates to the reality of human openness in prefabricated layers. M. Flatscher wants to show that understanding is to be embedded in J. G. Herder’s paradigm, while C. Taylor stresses that M. Heideggers’ view is related to HHH (J. G. Hamann, J. G. Herder, W. v. Humboldt) theories. The article shows that the interpretations of these language philosophers are partly correct: M. Heidegger does indeed operate within the framework of the HHH theories, but he was conscious of leaving them. M. Heidegger also highlights the idea that modern language theories depend on anthropology.