Results found: 2

Search results

Search:
in the keywords: monetary value

Sort By:

Limit search:

Is Money a Linguistic Form? Integrating Simmel’s Construction of Monetary Value into the Framework of the Philosophy of Language

100%

Leder A.

Polish Sociological Review

2018

vol. 204

issue 4

515-526

In his study, the author discusses his hypothesis of money as a linguistic form, one understood sensu stricto, as Ferdinand de Saussure would. This approach seems to be the key to explaining some important phenomena: the so-called ‘economics imperialism’ in the social sciences and the specific character of economic language, as seen from the perspective of the humanities. Both the ‘uncanny character’ of economic terms and ‘economics imperialism’ appear in this text as symptoms, or ways in which economic signs, especially money understood as a sign, specifically manifest themselves. The logical analysis of the construction of these signs-analysis based on Saussure’s and Simmel’s propositions-is the main topic of this article. First, the author revisits a well-known parallel between formal structures of linguistic and monetary signs developed in Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics. Second, a crucial difference in these structures is presented and theoretically explained using tools developed by Georg Simmel. The author goes on to consider whether this difference locates the monetary sign outside the realm of language per se. Finally, by applying certain claims made by Ludwig Wittgenstein on the limits of language, the author develops his hypothesis that money is a linguistic sign, but a specific one; it is a kind of a ‘border phenomenon.’ In this text, the author proposes the term ‘linguistic form’ to distinguish this kind of sign. Some theoretical and social consequences of this state of affairs are proposed; inter alia the immanent social antagonism between the symbolic articulation of the social sphere and the economic one.

Żądanie zapłaty równowartości rzeczy w powództwie windykacyjnym

84%

Wielgus K.

Rejent

2022

issue 11 (379)

74-111

The practice of proprietary actions (for natural restitution of corporeal things) shows that the petitum of the lawsuits is formulated as a demand for a hand over of a thing and, in the event of the defendant's failure to comply with the first obligation, a demand is made for the payment of a sum of money equivalent to the value of the claimed thing. While it is clear that the legal basis for the first demand is Article 222 § 1 of the Polish Civil Code, the basis for the second (alternative or eventual) demand is unclear. At the same time, the question arises as to what are the premises of this demand, what is its content (scope), which court has local and material jurisdiction to hear this demand, what is the applicable law. In order to answer this questions, the paper examines the concepts of: 1) tort, 2) breach of obligation, 3) on unjust enrichment, 4) entitlement to substitutive performance, 5) offer of settlement agreement, 6) sui generis right to creditor's satisfaction, 7) a specific claim for payment in respect of damage to or destruction of thing.

Refine search results

1 Polish Sociological Review

1 Rejent

1 Leder A.

1 Wielgus K.

1 2022

1 2018

Search results

Is Money a Linguistic Form? Integrating Simmel’s Construction of Monetary Value into the Framework of the Philosophy of Language

Żądanie zapłaty równowartości rzeczy w powództwie windykacyjnym