Return to Saussure

Aristotle’s Unexpected Challenge For more than two millennia, Aristotle’s account of the good life has shaped philosophical reflection on human flourishing. Yet many influential thinkers of the twentieth century rejected one of its central assumptions: that human beings possess a fixed nature with a determinate end. Existentialists famously declared that “existence precedes essence,” while poststructuralists questioned stable foundations of identity, meaning, and reason. From this perspective, Aristotle’s conception of the contemplative life appears to belong to a metaphysical world that modern philosophy has left behind. And yet an unexpected tension remains. Many philosophers who denied any predetermined human purpose nevertheless devoted their lives to precisely the activity Aristotle regarded as the highest expression of human fulfillment: sustained intellectual inquiry. They immersed themselves in reading, writing, teaching, and archival research, often at the expense of w...

Introduction: facts, interpretation, and an uneasy confidence In a recent televised exchange, a journalist invoked a familiar Leninist gesture: political claims, he suggested, must ultimately submit to facts; analysis begins and ends with what can be verified in practice. The appeal carried a certain force. It suggested clarity in a landscape often saturated with interpretation, narrative, and suspicion. Yet something in that gesture feels historically displaced. Not because facts have disappeared, nor because material reality has become secondary, but because the philosophical confidence that once accompanied such appeals no longer appears self-evident. The issue is not whether Lenin was “right” or “wrong.” It is that the conditions under which his epistemology could appear unproblematic have shifted. What once functioned as a relatively direct theory of knowledge now emerges as one articulation within a broader and more complex history of how truth is produced, stabilized, and ...

Thesis In Nietzsche’s account, the capacity to promise does not rest on a stable, self-identical subject, but on a constitutive tension between forgetting and memory. The sovereign individual ( das souveräne Individuum ) emerges precisely from this instability: a subject produced through practices that regulate discontinuity rather than eliminate it. Read in this way, Nietzsche’s genealogy anticipates later critiques of the Cartesian subject in Freud, Foucault, and Derrida. The freedom of the sovereign individual is therefore neither original nor self-grounding, but the outcome of a long historical process that transforms instability into responsibility. Introduction: The Paradox of the Promising Animal “To breed an animal with the prerogative to promise—is that not precisely the paradoxical task which nature has set herself with regard to humankind? Is it not the real problem of humankind?” (Nietzsche, 2006, p. 35). The opening of the second essay of On the Genealogy of Morali...

Introduction Carlos Alsina opened his radio monologue on May 26, 2026, by invoking the Battle of the Alamo. The episode quickly moved from historical summary to cultural memory: William Barret Travis, the siege in Texas, the famous letter in which he declared he would “never surrender,” and the later transformation of that episode into a foundational American myth. Between documented events and cinematic reconstruction, the Alamo has long oscillated between history and legend. Within that narrative space appears a striking remark attributed to Paco Ignacio Taibo II: “debajo de una gran mentira se esconden verdades tapadas” (“beneath a great lie, hidden truths remain”). The sentence carries immediate force. It suggests depth beneath surface, authenticity beneath distortion, something concealed by official accounts waiting to be recovered. Yet this intuitive appeal raises a more difficult question: what does it actually mean for truth to lie “beneath” a narrative? The archaeologic...