The aim of the research is to elucidate the key notions of the German mystic thinker Jacob Boehme’s linguistic-philosophical theory: language of Nature (Natursprache), Adamic language and sensual language in regard to each other and to post-Babel historical languages of humankind. This theory is considered in a dual context of the Late Renaissance “Adamicist” studies and of Boehme’s theosophical project as a whole. Since a considerable part of his work had a form of an extensive commentary on Genesis, Boehme’s interpretations (...) of the biblical stories are devoted to linguistic topics. Explaining the stories concerning Babel (Gen. 11), the theosophist gives some considerations to the essence of historic transformation and loss of the primordial language. Based on the story of Adam’s naming of the animals (Gen. 2:19–20), Boehme formulates his views on the substance of Natural and Adamic languages. It is argued that, according to the theosophist, the rise of polyglottism, caused by Babel catastrophe, was a culmination of spiritual disorientation of humankind. Having started from the Fall, that process led to a fundamental distortion of ideas about being and the Deity. Due to this, people decided to look for Him in a reified form by technical means. A cognitive and linguistic aspect of that disorientation consisted in alienating of still single primordial language from Natursprache as its ontological foundation. Boehme thought that this alienation mainly caused rapid development of linguistic pluralism. Meanwhile, the language of Nature was a unique “guide,” which made possible for Adam to create his epistemically perfect language, and his descendants could keep its understanding for some time. (shrink)

Leibniz’s philosophical and philological interests overlapped at many points, and some of his fundamental philosophical notions shaped his views on language, particularly his thinking about language history, in decisive ways. Although he is better known for his work on universal language, his writings on natural language and language history are worth consideration both for their subtlety and for the insight they give into the complex history of thought on this topic. The principles of sufficient reason, praedicatum inest subjecto, and his (...) doctrine of marks and traces are echoed in his work on natural languages and in his account of their histories. He attempted to reconcile philosophical investigations of the natural languages with the Biblical accounts of the confusion of languages at Babel, and in his approach to etymology he participated in a long tradition of thinking about language and its essence as hidden or secret, the truth of which remains scattered in signs and which etymology alone may occasionally reveal. (shrink)

The disciplinary differentiation of sciences attracted Leibniz’s attention for a long period of time. From nowadays prospects it looks very well grounded as soon as in Leibniz’s manuscripts a modern scholar finds clue ideas of any research field which would tempt him to consider Leibniz as one of the founders of this particular discipline. We argue that this is possible only in retrospection and would significantly distort the essence of Leibniz’s epistemology. Our approach implies, in contrary, the investigation of the (...) Leibniz doctrine of signs on the background of the related philosophical problem, that of expression. The choice of semiotics is justified by the fact that it took a central place in his theoretical constructions, both those of natural sciences and of philosophy. In Leibniz system of knowledge the concept of notes (notae) and sings (signa) served a theoretical foundation of his most important and long-life aspiration to build up practical science of universal characteristics (characteristica universalis). In his eyes this practical science was the science of sciences (Scientia scientiarum), and we can consider it as the matrix for all possible scientific knowledge. (shrink)