Return to Saussure

Trick or treat! AI image Introduction The figure of the undead has long fascinated literature and cinema, serving as a mirror for cultural anxieties and philosophical reflection. From Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818) to contemporary films like 28 Days Later (2002) and Resident Evil (2002), the living dead challenges our understanding of life, death, and the boundaries in between. This article explores how such figures resonate with the thought of Jacques Derrida, particularly his notions of hauntology and spectrality , and with Sigmund Freud’s concept of the uncanny ( Das Unheimliche , 1919). By examining the intersection of horror cinema and philosophy, we can see how the undead enact a profound destabilization of categorical oppositions, revealing the philosophical and affective power of the uncanny. The Uncanny and the Living Dead Freud describes the uncanny as “that class of the frightening which leads back to what is known of old and long familiar” (Freud, 1919, p. 124...

Signifier? AI image   Introduction Understanding the dynamics between the signifier and the signified, as expounded in Course in General Linguistics (CGL), forms a cornerstone of linguistic theory. Saussure’s depiction of the sign—represented through diagrams illustrating the intimate relation between signified and signifier—lays the foundation for his project. Lacan’s reinterpretation of these theories, however, especially his claims regarding the primacy of the signifier and the notion of pure signifiers , introduces a set of complexities that demand careful scrutiny. This article examines Lacan’s selective reading of Saussure, assessing its implications for linguistic theory and psychoanalytic thought alike. Understanding the Sign in Part One of the CGL In Part One of the CGL , General Principles , Chapter 1, §1 Sign, signification, signal [CGL] [97], Saussure presents his well-known diagram of the sign. Here, the signified rests atop the signifier within a circle divide...

Nostalgic? AI art Introduction: Provocation or Gaslighting? In a widely circulated video clip in YouTube titled “Why People Were ‘Happier’ Under Communism,” Slovenian philosopher and cultural critic Slavoj Žižek delivers a provocative thesis: that people in communist regimes experienced a peculiar form of psychological stability, even happiness, precisely because their lives were constrained. The following is a summary of selected moments from the video: “ The notion of happiness itself is very ambiguous and has deep implications. There was a brief period of political openness in Prague in 1968. Then, the Soviet tanks came and crushed the reforms. But here's the paradox: people often claim they were happier during that period. Because their material needs were modestly met. Maybe once a month you'd go to the supermarket and buy coffee. It wasn’t much, but there was a certain comfort in the limitations. You weren’t constantly bombarded with choices and pressure to succeed...

Winter Field with Crows – In the Style of C. D. Friedrich (AI Art)     Introduction Can suffering teach us anything? If it could, wouldn’t the world be filled with wise men? A phrase widely attributed to Sigmund Freud puts it starkly: “If suffering really taught lessons, the world would be populated only by wise people. Pain has nothing to teach those who do not find the courage and the strength to listen to it.” While the authenticity of this quote remains uncertain, its sentiment resonates powerfully with another provocative image from Friedrich Nietzsche: “Does wisdom perhaps appear on earth after the manner of a crow attracted by a slight smell of carrion?” (Nietzsche, 2005, p. 9). Both expressions pose a challenge to our understanding of suffering and insight. They imply that distress alone does not enlighten—that something more is required. Nietzsche and Freud, each in his own way, suggest that only those who face darkness with fortitude can extract meaning from it...

AI art Nietzsche’s Diagnosis: The Will to Perish In §5 of An Attempt at Self-Criticism , Friedrich Nietzsche offers one of his most scathing critiques of Christian morality, describing it as a force that “from the very first… was, essentially and thoroughly, the nausea and surfeit of Life for Life” ( Übelkeit und Überdruß des Lebens am Leben ).[1] This morality, he argues, does not reject suffering—it rejects vitality itself. Nietzsche names this rejection in a series of powerful terms: the “will to perish” ( Wille zum Untergang ), the “will to disown life” ( Wille zur Verneinung des Lebens ), and an “instinct for annihilation” ( Instinkt der Vernichtung ). These are not simply moral descriptors; they articulate a deeper ontological and psychological conflict. Morality, for Nietzsche, is not a counter-belief but a counter-valuation ( Gegenwerthung )—a systematic devaluation of the instincts of life, a negation rooted in ressentiment. Dionysus vs. the Eternal “No” Nietzsche’s co...