Return to Saussure

AI art   Introduction: Regretting the Borrowed Concepts In 1886, more than a decade after the publication of The Birth of Tragedy , Friedrich Nietzsche returned to his early work with a sharply self-aware preface titled An Attempt at Self-Criticism . In §6 of this retrospective, he reflects: “I now regret the fact that at the time I did not yet have the courage (or the presumptuousness?) to allow myself in every respect a personal language ( eine eigne Sprache ) for such an individual point of view and such daring exploits — that I sought laboriously to express strange and new evaluations with formulas from Schopenhauer and Kant, something which basically went quite against the spirit of Kant and Schopenhauer, as well as against their tastes!”¹ This is not a mere admission of youthful hesitance or rhetorical failure. Nietzsche articulates a deeper insight: that inherited conceptual languages are not neutral instruments but structured systems with internal constraints. By atte...

Introduction Jesus' paradoxical teaching— "Whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for my sake will find it" (Matthew 16:25)—expresses a fundamental tension between self-preservation and transformation. This idea, though theological, has found echoes in philosophy. Kant’s antinomies reveal the limits of reason when confronting ultimate truths, while Hegel’s dialectics frame contradiction as a path to higher understanding. Hegel, educated in a Lutheran seminary, absorbed Christian concepts into his philosophical system, suggesting that negation is a necessary stage of development. Nietzsche, in contrast, fiercely rejected Christianity, seeing it as a denial of life’s power. Yet, his own words in Beyond Good and Evil (§2) suggest a hidden complexity: good and evil might be not just opposed, but deeply interwoven. Could it be that Nietzsche, despite his opposition, was closer to Hegelian thought than he admitted? This article trac...

Introduction Immanuel Kant’s three Critiques — Critique of Pure Reason (1781, 1787), Critique of Practical Reason (1788), and Critique of Judgment (1790)—form the cornerstone of his philosophical enterprise, establishing a rigorous framework for understanding cognition, morality, and aesthetics. Despite their comprehensive scope, these works remain strikingly reticent on the subject of language. While his predecessors and contemporaries, such as Hamann and Herder, explored the profound interdependence of thought and linguistic expression, Kant largely treated language as an auxiliary device rather than an essential component of cognition. This indirect engagement is particularly evident during the period of the Critiques , where linguistic considerations are subordinated to his transcendental inquiries. Although the Critique of Judgment hints at the idea that meaning extends beyond strictly logical or conceptual structures, these insights remain fragmentary. Kant does not co...

Introduction Language has long been recognized as central to philosophical inquiry, shaping thought, communication, and the structure of human understanding. The philosophy of language, as developed in the modern era, explores how this construct relates to meaning, cognition, and reality. Immanuel Kant, despite his profound influence on epistemology and metaphysics, has not traditionally been regarded as a foundational figure in this domain. However, his writings contain significant—though often overlooked—insights into the nature of linguistic mediation in human thought. This article examines whether he developed a systematic philosophy of language. Did he conceptualize this phenomenon as an essential component of cognition, or did he merely reference it as an ancillary tool for expressing ideas? While his engagement with linguistic concerns evolved over time, his treatment of the subject remained largely fragmentary and derivative, drawing upon but not advancing beyond the ins...

Introduction Human understanding continually negotiates the boundary between concrete experience and abstract conceptualization. This article explores how two distinct philosophical models— Kant’s investigation of reason’s limits through antinomies and Peirce’s dynamic theory of signs—shed light on the complex relationship between lived experience and conceptual frameworks. Kant famously distinguishes between sensory impressions (phenomena) and pure concepts (noumena), arguing that our minds organize sensory input using innate cognitive structures. However, when pure reason pushes beyond the empirical world, it generates antinomies—conflicting propositions that, despite their contradictions, maintain compelling internal logic. In contrast, Peirce’s triadic theory of signs—comprising icons, indices, and symbols—offers a dynamic view in which signs actively shape both our perceptions and our thinking. This article revisits Kant’s antinomies in the context of his evolving understan...

— "Whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for my sake will find it" (Matthew 16:25) Introduction The history of philosophy is, in many ways, a history of contradictions. Thinkers have long grappled with the tension between opposing forces, using paradox and conflict as catalysts for intellectual evolution. Immanuel Kant, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Jacques Derrida each contribute uniquely to this ongoing discourse, engaging with dialectics in ways that redefine the boundaries of thought. Kant’s antinomies reveal the inescapable contradictions of pure reason, Hegel’s dialectical method transforms opposition into a dynamic process of conceptual development, Nietzsche dismantles rigid moral structures, and Derrida deconstructs hierarchical binaries to expose the inherent instability of meaning. This article traces the shifting role of dialectics from Kant’s exploration of reason’s limitations to Derrida’s c...

  Introduction In Derrida's "Of Grammatology," the concept of arche-trace challenges traditional notions of origin and presence in philosophical discourse. Ann Smock, in her analysis of Derrida's text in the book Reading Derrida's Of Grammatology, underscores the provocative nature of this concept encapsulated in the remark "this concept destroys its name" (OG 61; DG 90). Derrida posits that the arche-trace must simultaneously acknowledge its necessity and the inherent erasure implied by its existence: ‘The concept of the arche-trace must do justice both to this necessity and to this erasure’ (OG 61). This enigmatic statement has sparked numerous interpretations and scholarly debates, inviting a deeper exploration into its implications. In this article, we explore this section of the book Reading Derrida's Of Grammatology where the elusive concept of arche-trace is discussed and try to shed light on its implicit meaning by invoking Kant's phi...