Return to Saussure

1. The Fundamental Question If the world exists independently of our minds, how can we know it? Everything we understand passes through our capacities to perceive, distinguish, and interpret. Yet we expect our judgments to tell us something about a reality that does not depend entirely on these capacities. How can thought know a world it does not create? In Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy , Friedrich Engels identifies the relationship between thought and being as the fundamental question of philosophy. He distinguishes between the priority of thought or nature and the possibility of knowing the real world. Although these problems are connected, accepting that nature exists independently of consciousness does not explain how our judgments can provide objective knowledge of it. Immanuel Kant and Theodor W. Adorno approach this difficulty from different directions. Kant investigates the conditions that make objective knowledge possible, while Adorno que...

Philosophen im goldenen Abendlicht , in Rembrandt 's style. AI image § 1. The Mistake of Confusing Weariness with Decline There is a convenient explanation for the loss of energy that accompanies the passage of time: the body deteriorates, and vitality declines with it. Yet this account leaves a more troubling dimension untouched. Many people discover that what wears out first is neither their muscles nor their joints, but the impulse that once propelled them forward. At a certain age, goals no longer promise transformation, projects cease to seem decisive, and the future begins to look like a faded repetition of the past. Movement loses its direction. It is not that we lack the strength to go on; we no longer know what makes the effort worthwhile. This kind of weariness has less to do with physical exhaustion than with a change in our relationship to existence. The things that once gave our lives direction may still be there, but they no longer possess the same power over us. W...

1. What Does It Mean to Know Something? When we call a particular animal a dog, we identify it by bringing what we perceive under a general concept. This enables us to recognize similarities among different animals, distinguish them from other kinds of living beings, and communicate what we know about them. Concepts make experience intelligible by allowing us to organize what we encounter according to shared characteristics. Yet the concept dog does not tell us everything about the specific animal before us. Its history, behaviour, physical condition, and responses to its surroundings may require further observation and more precise descriptions. The general concept allows us to identify the animal, while understanding its particular characteristics calls for a more differentiated account. How these two aspects of knowledge are related raises a philosophical problem: how do concepts enable us to know objects, and what are the limits of the understanding they provide? Immanuel Kan...