Cassirer vs artaud en el lenguaje

Abstract

This article aims to consider some viewpoints about language from Cassirer’s perspective in the book “Philosophy of Symbolic Forms” (Chapter II, in its second paragraph) and from Antonin Artaud’s perspective in the book “The Theater and its Double” (Capter 8, Theater of Cruelty, first manifesto). First it is necessary to define certain characteristics of language supported in Cassirer, and then, Artaud’s position about the word in theater and his radical rejection to the privilege it is given in impairment of staging, this is to say multiplicity of languages, is described. Finally, some arguments that clarify, in Cassirer’s terms, the characteristic of the word that Artaud rejects and the specificity of the other languages are provided. The purpose is to demonstrate how when Artaud questions the way to pose verbal text in theater and give relevance to other languages, he is reinforcing the idea that the first phases of language could be closer to being, saying more of its essence. The article presents a historicalhermeneutic research method.

Keywords

Language

phonetics

word

theater

thing

rethoric

References

Apuntes de Filosofía. (2008, 22 de febrero). Gorgias, el escéptico radical. Apuntesdefi losofa.blogspot.com. Recuperado de htt p://apuntesdefilosofa.blogspot.com/2008/02/gorgias-el-escptico-radical_22.html

Artaud, A. (1987). El teatro y su doble. México: Editorial Hermes.Cassirer, E. (1998). Filosofía de las formas simbólicas. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

---------------- (1945). Antropología Filosófica.México. Fondo de Cultura económica

Educ.ar. (s.f.). htt p://www.aportes.educ.ar/Recuperado de http://globalbackend.educ.ar/dinamico/UnidadHtml__get__bc037303-8248-40bb-81f7-dd3061df308f/107368/index.html

Platón. (1949). La Republica. Madrid: Instituto de Estudios Políticos