<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>elisa freschiIs written language a means of knowledge? &#8211; elisa freschi</title>
	<atom:link href="https://elisafreschi.com/2017/01/11/is-written-language-a-means-of-knowledge/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://elisafreschi.com</link>
	<description>These pages are a sort of virtual desktop of Elisa Freschi. You can find here my cv and some random thoughts on Sanskrit (and) Philosophy. All criticism welcome! Contributions are also welcome!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2026 19:06:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
		<item>
		<title>Is written language a means of knowledge?</title>
		<link>https://elisafreschi.com/2017/01/11/is-written-language-a-means-of-knowledge/</link>
		<comments>https://elisafreschi.com/2017/01/11/is-written-language-a-means-of-knowledge/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2017 15:37:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>elisa freschi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Epistemology of testimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nyāya]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alessandro Graheli]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://elisafreschi.com/?p=2397</guid>

				<description><![CDATA[The topic is not explicitly discussed, as far as I know, in European or American epistemologists (who all seem to assume that it obviously is), whereas it is relevant in South Asian epistemology of language. Graheli&#8217;s contribution to this workshop focuses on the epistemology of written versus spoken language in the Nyāya school of philosophy, [&#8230;]]]></description>
					<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The topic is not explicitly discussed, as far as I know, in European or American epistemologists (who all seem to assume that it obviously is), whereas it is relevant in South Asian epistemology of language. <span id="more-2397"></span></p>
<p>Graheli&#8217;s contribution to <a href="http://elisafreschi.com/2015/06/12/linguistic-communication-as-an-instrument-of-knowledge-a-panel/">this</a> workshop focuses on the epistemology of written versus spoken language in the Nyāya school of philosophy, since written language is a case in which the seeming transparency of language is revealed to be illusory. This revelation can take the form of the realisation that reading needs additional skills on top of the ones required to understand one&#8217;s mother tongue. In the case of Nyāya, the epistemic account of written words sees the knowledge conveyed through written words as involving an inference, from the written to the audible words. Thus, can written language still amount to a separate instrument of knowledge? If not, how can one avoid the risks of reductionism?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			

		<wfw:commentRss>https://elisafreschi.com/2017/01/11/is-written-language-a-means-of-knowledge/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
				<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">2397</post-id>	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>