这段没有引号没有注释的文字，完整地抄录了Dummett著, Frege: Philosophy of Language (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981) , p. xv.
At any time there are certain parts of philosophy which appear more basic than others, in the sense that a correct solution of problems in one branch depends on the prior correct solution of problems in the more basic branch, but not conversely: thus evidently political philosophy is posterior to ethics, and ethics to philosophical psychology. The most far-reaching part of Descartes's revolution was to make epistemology the most basic sector of the whole of philosophy…It is this orientation which makes post-Cartesian philosophy so different from that of the scholastics, for whom epistemology, in so far as they considered it at all, was no more than a sidestream. (p. xv)
Pears, Wittgenstein (Glasgow: Fontana/Collins, 1971), p. 21.
Achimedes said that he could move the world, if he could find a point in space which would serve as the fulcrum for a sufficiently long lever. … Philosophy originates in the desire to transcend the world of human thought and experience, in order to find some point of vantage from which it can be seen as a whole.
见Dummett著, Frege: Philosophy of Language (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981) , p. 2.
Frege distinguished two elements in the meaning of a sentence or expression, for one of which he reserved the word 'sense' ('Sinn'), and for the other of which we might use the word 'tone' ('illumination' [‘Beleuchtung'], and 'colouring' ['Färbung'] being the words Frege himself used for this latter). He explained the difference in this way: to the sense of a sentence belongs only that which is relevant to determining its truth or falsity; any feature of its meaning which cannot affect its truth or falsity belongs to its tone.
All these theories may be grouped with the theory of meaning of the Tractatus, and that was how they were presented earlier. They all make the a priori postulate, that something static must serve as the basis of meaning. (The False Prison: A Study of the Development of Wittgenstein's Philosophy, vol. 2 (Oxford: Oxford U.P., 1988), p. 223)
苏格拉底曾经说明他为什么要离开阿那克萨哥拉的物理哲学而转向自己的方法。 他说，如果他试图借助于直接研究实在来描述实在的结构，他在理智上将是盲目的。他决定把语言当做实在的一面镜子：“我决定遁入语言，以语言来研究事物的真相。”（《斐多篇》，99e）（p. 37）徐友渔在这里为苏格拉底的话做了一个注释，即注24，内容为：转引自A. P. 马蒂尼希维：《语言哲学》，1985年，英文版，第三页。
Martinichi, The Philosophy of Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), pp. 3-4.
In Socrates' account of his turn away from the physical philosophy of Anaxagoras to his own method, he says that he feard that if he tried to figure out the structure of reality by studying reality directly, he might be intellectualy blinded. Thus he resolved to use language as a kind of mirror of reality: "I decided to take refuge in language, and study the truth of things by means of it" (Phaedo 99E).
任何一位对分析哲学有所了解的人都知道，著名哲学家罗蒂编的The Linguistic Turn (语言转向Chicago: University of Chicago press, 1961)第一部分的标题就是，“Classic Statements of the thesis that philosophical questions are questions of language” (哲学问题就是语言问题这个论点的经典表述)。徐友渔用的关键概念、表达方式和这个标签都是来自这本经典著作，所谓“并非得自于语言哲学文献”无法成立。
