The problem of analogy of money and language in view of analytical philosophy

The article is devoted to consideration of analogy of money and language, its foundation on the one hand and its productivity on the other hand. This analogy represents interest both for economical theory and for the philosophy of the language. And the problem of its prosperity is connected to that tradition in analytical philosophy which concerns the issues of social epistemology. In this work the approach itself is presented, in accordance with which it is possible to draw a conceptual parallel between money and language. The arguments in favor of the stated analogy are given. They are: - how language denotes objects and relations between them so money conveys the price of goods and provides their exchange; - a total combination of language units is not a constant given so the combination of token money; - the existence of language and money is impossible to imagine without an interpreter's figure; - the interpretation of language and currency units gives the opportunity to transfer them from one system to another in an adequate way; - language and money use in the process of social communication is founded on universal language and currency units recognition and on trust to them. The arguments against analogy of money and language are studied such as: - language primacy in relation to money does not permit to regard money as a complete analogue of linguistic systems as money cannot exist without language whereas language can; - token money are self-referential that differs them from language units; - it is impossible to draw an analogy between the expression of the goods value an indication an object in the word as in the first case it is the situation when variable is used and in the second one constant is used. In the solution of this contradiction, the supporters of money and language identification propose such approach according to that the significance of token money is defined by a subject in the process of practical use, i.e. pragmatically. The critique of pragmatic conception of token money is given and the alternative view at the problem of money and language correlation. The sign nature of both is established having lack of communicative contents. Money exists in language area but its concrete functionality makes it close not with language but with other semiotic systems in which value is expressed with the help of quantitative marks. Language regarding these quantitative systems is an essential condition of existence.

Keywords

Authors

References