APA 6th Edition Hesper, A. (2015). A “Philosophy from the Language Itself”. Synthesis philosophica, 30 (1), 147-159. Preuzeto s https://hrcak.srce.hr/162959
MLA 8th Edition Hesper, Axel. "A “Philosophy from the Language Itself”." Synthesis philosophica, vol. 30, br. 1, 2015, str. 147-159. https://hrcak.srce.hr/162959. Citirano 19.01.2020.
Chicago 17th Edition Hesper, Axel. "A “Philosophy from the Language Itself”." Synthesis philosophica 30, br. 1 (2015): 147-159. https://hrcak.srce.hr/162959
Harvard Hesper, A. (2015). 'A “Philosophy from the Language Itself”', Synthesis philosophica, 30(1), str. 147-159. Preuzeto s: https://hrcak.srce.hr/162959 (Datum pristupa: 19.01.2020.)
Vancouver Hesper A. A “Philosophy from the Language Itself”. Synthesis philosophica [Internet]. 2015 [pristupljeno 19.01.2020.];30(1):147-159. Dostupno na: https://hrcak.srce.hr/162959
IEEE A. Hesper, "A “Philosophy from the Language Itself”", Synthesis philosophica, vol.30, br. 1, str. 147-159, 2015. [Online]. Dostupno na: https://hrcak.srce.hr/162959. [Citirano: 19.01.2020.]
Sažetak Stefan George wrote a verse: “Where word breaks off no thing may be”. Bruno Liebrucks’ (1911–1986) thoughts on language can be understood as the philosophy behind this verse. It widely circles, as dense commentaries of Herder, Humboldt, Kant, Hegel, and other philosophers, around the thought that for human beings nothing exists outside language. We get to know something only within language. Liebrucks extends this thought on the central discipline of philosophy – logic – by stating: “Only within the concept there is something which exists outside the concept.”
The book of proceedings discussed in this paper focuses – with an affirmative, apologetic, but also a critical view and intent – on this fundamental philosophical thesis and its relevance to all philosophical disciplines. For it is clear that, if this thesis is true, the scene in logic, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and other branches of philosophy becomes entirely changed, i.e. it must be considered and understood differently than it has been hitherto. Hence the great question
arises: Is Liebrucks’ effort of the concept really a successful proof of the revolutions of the ways of thinking or is it a case of restitution, caused by overstretching the concept of language, of bygone (if ever shared at all) views on language and world that we today do not (or no longer) consider to be true?