Abstract:A predominant misunderstanding of the philosophical importance of paying attention to our ordinary language is that it supplies us with a standard of correctness. In contrast to this view, it is arguedhere that everyday and ordinary language are so difficult to bring into view and that this is something both J. L. Austin and Ludwig Wittgenstein maintained as well. It is precisely the failure to notice these kinds of difficulties that often leads philosophers into philosophical problems and metaphysical speculation. The philosopher who most clearly has stressed that "the everyday" is something difficult to get into view is Stanley Cavell, and he has also linked the concept of the ordinary to the Freudian concept of the uncanny. The idea of the "Unheimlich" contains the suggestion that there is something uncanny about that which is open to view because it is open to view. Thus, if the real problem with "ordinary language" is that we philosophers take ourselves to be in full command of our everyday language already and need not think more about it, then a presentation of our own familiar language that presents the familiar as something unfamiliar, the homely as strange, might be exactly what philosophy needs. This is one thing Raymond Carver's short stories achieve. The instability and flexibility here discerned does not warrant philosophico-theoretical "correction," but is rather a place where the complex, nuanced, and morally charged nature of our ordinary language comes into view. We are vulnerable to each other's wordings, but that vulnerability may itself be the very bond that holds us together.

中文翻译：

---

卡弗，卡维尔和普通人的残酷

摘要：关注普通语言的哲学重要性的一个主要误解是它为我们提供了正确的标准。与这种观点相反，有人认为，日常语言和普通语言很难被理解，这也是JL Austin和Ludwig Wittgenstein都坚持的。正是由于没有注意到这些困难，才常常使哲学家陷入哲学问题和形而上学的思辨中。最清楚地强调“日常”是难以理解的哲学家是斯坦利·卡维尔（Stanley Cavell），他还将普通的概念与弗洛伊德的不可思议的概念联系在一起。“ Unheimlich”的想法 包含这样的建议，即某些东西有些不可思议，因为它是开放的，因此可以查看。因此，如果“普通语言”的真正问题是我们哲学家已经将自己掌握在日常语言中，并且不需要多考虑它，那么我们自己的熟悉语言的展示会将熟悉的事物呈现为陌生的事物，居家般的陌生，可能正是哲学所需要的。这是雷蒙德·卡佛的短篇小说所达到的目标。这里发现的不稳定性和灵活性并不能保证进行哲学理论上的“纠正”，而是可以看到我们普通语言的复杂，细微差别和道德上的本质。我们很容易受到对方措辞的伤害，