Return to Saussure

Introduction: The Limits of Definition In the history of philosophy, few issues have proven more elusive than the problem of definition. What does it mean to define something? Is a definition a mere verbal convenience, or does it capture the true essence of a thing? Two radically different figures—Diogenes the Cynic and Friedrich Nietzsche—gesture provocatively toward the same unsettling conclusion: language, far from offering clarity, often obscures the nature of what it seeks to describe. Diogenes famously upended Plato’s definition of man as a “featherless biped” by presenting a plucked chicken and declaring, “Here is Plato’s man.” Nietzsche, in On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense , calls language a “mobile army of metaphors,” exposing the fiction at the heart of naming. This article investigates how these two provocateurs challenge the presumed stability between word and world. Their gestures—mockery and philosophical skepticism—disclose not merely the failure of language to ...

Introduction In his lecture on June 30th, 1911, Ferdinand de Saussure discussed the concept of the linguistic sign, a dual-sided psychological entity comprising the signifier and the signified. He explored how the value of a sign is determined not only by this internal relationship but also by its interactions with neighboring terms within the language system. These relationships form a network of syntagmatic (in praesentia) and associative (in absentia) relations, making it clear that understanding a sign in isolation is insufficient. A few days later, on July 4th, 1911, Saussure revisited this topic from the “proper perspective.” He emphasized the necessity of starting the analysis from the linguistic system as a whole rather than from individual signs. His originality in this respect seems to have passed unnoticed by most poststructuralists, including Jacques Derrida, who tried to frame him within the Western metaphysical tradition, c asting doubt on how closely they read Saussu...