Suchergebnisse

Introduction. The urgency of this article theme is determined by the searching of modern philosophy, cognitive sciences, linguistics, social and political philosophy, psycholinguistics in the problem area of the dialogic guideline in general communication, as well as language, speech and discourse. This, in turn, leads to the subjects of philosophical anthropology. Purpose. The aim of the study is to determine the relationship between speech symbolism, symbolic constructions of discourse and the dialogic instruction in speech, discourse and thinking. Methods used in the study: textual analysis of sources, analytical methods for considering philosophical discourse and paradigm guidelines in philosophical currents, hermeneutic approach and problematization of differences between language and speech. The results of the study allow us to find out the essential correlation and the relationship between the symbolic structures of speech and language and the initial guidelines of the dialogical paradigm in the philosophy of the twentieth century. It is found out that the fundamental boundary concepts of the category of the philosophy of dialogue usually function as symbolic constructions. This gives the philosophy of dialogue the features of similarity to religion and ethics. The originality and novelty of the study are that an attempt has been made to outline the interdependence of linguistic forms and means of dialogue and its philosophical content. Also, the concepts-philosophers-symbols of space, time, stay, eternity, encounters and their symbolic functional and ontologizability are clarified. Conclusions. The results of the study allow us to conclude about the linguistic nature of the philosophy of dialogue and her inherent appeal to the symbol and symbolic structures of speech and language. It was also proposed the ways of overcoming the subject-object dichotomy within the paradigm of dialogical philosophy. This overcoming is possible due to the symbolic nature of dialogical speech, the accentuation of the principle of attitude, and not the essence.