Return to Saussure

The Birth of Intelligibility. AI image The Suspicion Toward Clarity When an idea resists clear expression, the obstacle is not always its depth;  often it signals that thought has not yet reached its final stage.   Intellectual culture has long harbored a quiet suspicion toward clarity, as though lucidity diminished seriousness. Dense prose is often mistaken for rigor, while transparent language risks being read as naïve. Yet this opposition is misleading. Difficulty and profundity are not synonyms, and obscurity is no guarantee of insight. We may therefore begin with a simple question: is darkness the mark of thought at its limits, or does it occasionally signal that thinking has not yet reached its mature form? Clarity as the Result of Discipline Clarity is rarely immediate. It is the visible outcome of a long discipline. What appears effortless on the page typically conceals years of hesitation, revision, and conceptual reordering. To render something intelligible w...

MIT Great Dome. AI image Introduction: Creativity and Complicity The 1971 debate between Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault is often remembered for its confrontation between rationalism and historical critique. Yet some of its most philosophically suggestive moments occur not during the exchange between the two thinkers, but in the questions posed by the audience. One such intervention, concerning Chomsky’s employment at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, exposes a tension that unsettles the very framework through which he imagines political transformation. Chomsky repeatedly grounds the prospect of social change in those engaged in what he calls the “productive work of society.” At first glance, this formulation appears to sustain a familiar distinction between creative labour and the managerial structures that organize exploitation. A closer reading, however, suggests that the opposition cannot remain intact once the institutional location of the revolutionary intellectual ...

Introduction What if the symptom did not disclose an illness but instead brought it into existence? Such a possibility unsettles one of the most durable assumptions of modern medicine: that disease precedes its signs and awaits discovery through clinical observation. During the 1971 debate with Noam Chomsky, Michel Foucault articulated a striking inversion of this logic, suggesting that the act of classification may itself generate the very pathology it claims to identify. Far from being a passing provocation, this remark condenses a broader philosophical position concerning the historical conditions that allow objects of knowledge to emerge. The Medical Model Reversed Medical reasoning typically follows a familiar sequence: an underlying disorder produces symptoms, which physicians then interpret. Foucault disrupts this chain by proposing that social practices first mark certain behaviors as symptomatic, thereby forming the category of disease retroactively. As he observes: “T...

Neo-Caravaggist Version of The Debate. AI Image Introduction — Before Political Disagreement The 1971 exchange between Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault is commonly framed as a confrontation over power, authority, or human nature. Yet beneath these visible disagreements lies a more prior tension, one unfolding at the level of language itself. Before they disagree about politics, they diverge over whether the terms that make political judgment possible possess any stable authority. Throughout the conversation, certain words recur with quiet insistence: creativity , justice, legal, illegitimate, correct. Their repetition is not incidental. Each thinker is attempting, in real time, to determine who, if anyone, has the authority to stabilize their meaning. This instability does not interrupt the debate; it gives it urgency. The exchange reveals a philosophical difficulty that precedes ideological division: are political concepts entities awaiting clarification, or historical formatio...