Papers by Valerio Marconi
Chinese traditional characters share with Peirce's existential graphs the fact of being endowed w... more Chinese traditional characters share with Peirce's existential graphs the fact of being endowed with an object-language that they describe through a nonlinear syntax and in an iconic way. Here iconicity is not restricted to images and perceptive similarity since diagrams and graphic metaphors are iconic too. The graphs are shown to be a borderland between Western traditional logic and Chinese traditional writing and culture, so the écart (Jullien's concept for cultural distance) between characters and graphs is preserved even though graphs break with the Western prejudice in favor of conventionality at the expense of iconicity in logical systems. The take-home lesson for the study of writing systems is to substitute the orality-writing duality with the interplay among orality, writing, and pictures thus shifting from a linguistic typology to a semiotic one.
The concept of personal code is inspired by Peirce and Coseriu but is compatible with Code Biolog... more The concept of personal code is inspired by Peirce and Coseriu but is compatible with Code Biology. Persons can build their cultural code out of the codes available among their communities. Personal codes are social i.e., they are constructed by a population of interacting human code-makers, yet the interacting population is made of different states of the same human mind. The rules of personal codes are a set that can be partitioned into two subsets: the subset of rules that are shared with other human beings and the subset of rules that are followed by just one person. In a personal code, some of the meanings of a pre-existing cultural code are connected either with new cultural meanings or with meanings coming from a different pre-existing cultural code. The attachment of a new meaning to a previous one will be exemplified by analyzing Giacomo Leopardi’s poem La Ginestra, while the personal connection between two different cultural codes will be shown in a text written by a young migrant. These two case studies employ Hjelmslev’s connotative analysis of sign systems.
Kobow has recently argued for introducing Vaihinger’s Als-ob in social ontology. She discusses at... more Kobow has recently argued for introducing Vaihinger’s Als-ob in social ontology. She discusses at length both models and fictions as cases of “thinking as if". Searle’s analyses on the linguistic structure of social reality are interpreted in the light of Vaihinger’s concept of fiction and the interplay between existential aspects of social life and language is thoroughly assessed. In my own discussion of Kobow’s work, I focus on possible integrations into her framework. I claim that Meinong’s views on assumptions can shed further light on fictions in social ontology and that semiotics of modelling systems can help us understanding what Kobow calls “horizon of action" in terms of culture.
Bozza dell'articolo pubblicato in GALASSI, R., MARCONI, V., ZORZELLA CAPPI, C. (a cura di),
Varia... more Bozza dell'articolo pubblicato in GALASSI, R., MARCONI, V., ZORZELLA CAPPI, C. (a cura di),
Variazioni Glossematiche, ZeL, Treviso 2019, pp. 105-
126
Bozza dell'articolo pubblicato in GALASSI, R., MARCONI, V., ZORZELLA CAPPI, C. (a cura di),
Vari... more Bozza dell'articolo pubblicato in GALASSI, R., MARCONI, V., ZORZELLA CAPPI, C. (a cura di),
Variazioni Glossematiche, ZeL, Treviso 2019, pp. 89-104
A differenza del più esteso "Galvano della Volpe e il metodo semiotico strutturale", il presente ... more A differenza del più esteso "Galvano della Volpe e il metodo semiotico strutturale", il presente testo si interroga sui fondamenti teorici e sugli esiti della parafrasi per la comprensione filosofica della poiesi, del fare letterario e artistico.
A new reading of the meaning of being in Aristotle based on the comparison with Peirce's doctrine... more A new reading of the meaning of being in Aristotle based on the comparison with Peirce's doctrine of categories.
If you want to quote or refer to this paper please purchase or consult
T. Gasbarro and D. Testa (edd.), Tempo: tra esattezza e infinito. Atti del IX Convegno Interdisciplinare dei Dottorandi e Dottori di Ricerca, Vol II – ISBN 978-88-3293-199-0.
The paper assesses Aristotle’s account of individuation, recent interpretations are considered an... more The paper assesses Aristotle’s account of individuation, recent interpretations are considered and to a certain extent confirmed. There are at least two criteria of individuation, namely form and matter. These criteria hold as far as they are individual, so the distinction between physical and logical point of view becomes relevant in order to separate matter as genus from matter as concrete constituent. The same holds in the case of universal and individual form. Proximate matter itself can be shown to be a relative and matter is generally the principle of all accidents. The strength of Aristotelian insights is a combination of the non-relational side of identity (form) with the relational one (matter), even if there might be a flaw in the story. How far we can take Aristotelian individual form to be such?
Review of an Italian book on Hegel and Contemporary Thought.
Articolo in volume: “Il concetto di categoria tra Aristotele e Hjelmslev”, in V. Marconi e C. Zor... more Articolo in volume: “Il concetto di categoria tra Aristotele e Hjelmslev”, in V. Marconi e C. Zorzella Cappi (a cura di), Caleidoscopio glossematico, ZeL Edizioni, Treviso, 2017, pp. 95-109.
Out of Place Language and its Accessibility, namely the poetic Place
The rules of poetic discour... more Out of Place Language and its Accessibility, namely the poetic Place
The rules of poetic discourse are not the rules of the language in which the poem is written. Poetry is a land ruled by a different law, even though it is not an independent state. This paper enquires the links between connotation in Hjelmslev’s sense and della Volpe’s poetics, which is based on Hjelmslev’s theory of language (glossematics). What we may call glossematic poetics presents strong analogies with the chapters XXI and XXII of Aristotle’s Poetics, whose interpretations given during Italian Renaissance were studied by della Volpe. The role of paraphrasis in the analysis of poetry is a common feature to Aristotle and della Volpe and their methodologies are shown to be consistent with glossematics. Furthermore, Aristotle’s account of metaphor is the most important to Eco’s own one. The insights of these authors can help us to understand the nature of poetry and its cognitive relevance, namely the competence with reading and understanding poetry can bring to a deeper awareness of our own conceptual schemes and to overcome them. Providing a population with such a competence is a way of enhancing its cognitive skills which seems less puzzling from a bioethical point of view than the employment of pharmacological enhancement.
Full text at http://www.ilsileno.it/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/10-Valerio-Marconi.pdf
In this ske... more Full text at http://www.ilsileno.it/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/10-Valerio-Marconi.pdf
In this sketch of Edith Stein’s phenomenology of language, I’ll focus on concepts of semiotic relevance such as Bild, Bildverhältnis, Sinn-Bild, Wahrzeichen, Symbol and Wesenheit. They are core notions to phenomenology of mystic experience as well and their link to metaphysics and semantics consists in their use in understanding the Word of God by Edith Stein. She unveils the presence of the divine Logos both in Sacred Scripture and in the writings by St Therese of Avila and St John of the Cross thanks to her study of Dionysius’ symbolic theology. The outcome is a description of symbolic expression and communication which are common to Scripture and mystic writing. I hold that this type of writings stands against the project of universal semantics; this is shown both by Stein’s metaphysics of sense (Sinn) and by Hjelmslev’s reflexions on structural semantics. The phenomenological analysis of sense is not limited to analysis of linguistic meaning but, as far as it concerns linguistic data, it is not lacking some methodological similarity to a structural analysis of meaning. Eventually, the divine Word who is studied by Stein and the semantic word to which structural semantics must be devoted (according to Hjelmslev) are analogical.
Scopo di questo contributo è valutare l’attualità della riflessione filosoficolinguistica di Aris... more Scopo di questo contributo è valutare l’attualità della riflessione filosoficolinguistica di Aristotele per quanto riguarda la nozione di ‘verbo’ non tanto dal punto di vista dell’analisi logica ma da quello dell’analisi linguistica. Nello specifico si considererà l’analisi linguistica di stampo strutturalista come essa è declinata dalla Glossematica di Louis T. Hjelmslev. Per caratterizzare l’analisi glossematica del verbo si farà, dunque, riferimento a "Il verbo e la frase nominale" poiché in tale saggio è proposto un distacco dalle teorie grammaticali classiche, le cui posizioni sul verbo poco o nulla hanno a che fare con Aristotele, che del verbo si è occupato nel "De interpretazione" (§2 e §3) e nella "Poetica" (§20). Il riferimento ai due luoghi in cui Aristotele analizza da un punto di vista più strettamente linguistico nome e verbo risponde alla considerazione delle critiche volte da Elio Montanari ad Antonino Pagliaro e a Walter Berardi: entrambi avrebbero sacrificato le differenze, storiche e teoriche, tra i due passi per poterli riadattare in un’unica prospettiva teorica che costituisse una monolitica teoria aristotelica del linguaggio. La tesi di Montanari è suffragata da dati oggettivi, seppure nella generale unitarietà del pensiero aristotelico resti chiaro un percorso evolutivo. Inoltre, nella sua pratica teorica lo Stagirita soleva adeguare la trattazione dell’argomento di volta in volta alla scienza dalla quale tale argomento era studiato. Infine, l'analisi linguistica del verbo può rivelare aspetti centrali sia del principio di non-contraddizione sia della concezione del segno linguistico comune ad Aristotele e Hjelmslev.
Full text available at http://www.ilsileno.it/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Marconi-Valerio.pdf
A d... more Full text available at http://www.ilsileno.it/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Marconi-Valerio.pdf
A definition of mysticism based on mysticism studies can show the phenomenological and semiological character of mystical experience. The experience of the One is both a limit-experience and unsayable; these two features respectively connect to phenomenology and to semiology. Following this path, we uncover a general relation between the two disciplines, as Greimas held. What is more is that mystical experience trials two core notions such as intentionality and reference. This highlights how peculiarly mysticism participates of the two disciplines’ subject matter. Considering Sini’s account of external world, it is possible to deconstruct the notion of referent as sign-independent and restore this notion as sign-dependent – although not necessarily as language-dependent. What Ghilardi holds to be a circularity between perception and signification is shortly broken in the mystical experience, but it is as much naturally fixed as it naturally went undone. We can experience non-linguistically, but we need to tell it. The reason of this fact is that only languages can say the unsayable, as Hjelmslev reached by considering the omniformativity of historical-natural languages. The analysis of mysticism corroborates the conclusion that, both in sign function analysis of sign and in semiotic triangle analysis of sign, what we call “referent” does not figure outside the sign.
Translation and commentary to a medieval quaestio.
Talks by Valerio Marconi
Martedì 9 aprile 2024 nell'ambito del corso di Filosofia del linguaggio
Handout utilizzato in occasione dei Seminari aristotelici a Urbino
Quasi-Platonic premises of Existential Graphs and their consequences in social ontology.
Uploads
Papers by Valerio Marconi
Variazioni Glossematiche, ZeL, Treviso 2019, pp. 105-
126
Variazioni Glossematiche, ZeL, Treviso 2019, pp. 89-104
If you want to quote or refer to this paper please purchase or consult
T. Gasbarro and D. Testa (edd.), Tempo: tra esattezza e infinito. Atti del IX Convegno Interdisciplinare dei Dottorandi e Dottori di Ricerca, Vol II – ISBN 978-88-3293-199-0.
The rules of poetic discourse are not the rules of the language in which the poem is written. Poetry is a land ruled by a different law, even though it is not an independent state. This paper enquires the links between connotation in Hjelmslev’s sense and della Volpe’s poetics, which is based on Hjelmslev’s theory of language (glossematics). What we may call glossematic poetics presents strong analogies with the chapters XXI and XXII of Aristotle’s Poetics, whose interpretations given during Italian Renaissance were studied by della Volpe. The role of paraphrasis in the analysis of poetry is a common feature to Aristotle and della Volpe and their methodologies are shown to be consistent with glossematics. Furthermore, Aristotle’s account of metaphor is the most important to Eco’s own one. The insights of these authors can help us to understand the nature of poetry and its cognitive relevance, namely the competence with reading and understanding poetry can bring to a deeper awareness of our own conceptual schemes and to overcome them. Providing a population with such a competence is a way of enhancing its cognitive skills which seems less puzzling from a bioethical point of view than the employment of pharmacological enhancement.
In this sketch of Edith Stein’s phenomenology of language, I’ll focus on concepts of semiotic relevance such as Bild, Bildverhältnis, Sinn-Bild, Wahrzeichen, Symbol and Wesenheit. They are core notions to phenomenology of mystic experience as well and their link to metaphysics and semantics consists in their use in understanding the Word of God by Edith Stein. She unveils the presence of the divine Logos both in Sacred Scripture and in the writings by St Therese of Avila and St John of the Cross thanks to her study of Dionysius’ symbolic theology. The outcome is a description of symbolic expression and communication which are common to Scripture and mystic writing. I hold that this type of writings stands against the project of universal semantics; this is shown both by Stein’s metaphysics of sense (Sinn) and by Hjelmslev’s reflexions on structural semantics. The phenomenological analysis of sense is not limited to analysis of linguistic meaning but, as far as it concerns linguistic data, it is not lacking some methodological similarity to a structural analysis of meaning. Eventually, the divine Word who is studied by Stein and the semantic word to which structural semantics must be devoted (according to Hjelmslev) are analogical.
A definition of mysticism based on mysticism studies can show the phenomenological and semiological character of mystical experience. The experience of the One is both a limit-experience and unsayable; these two features respectively connect to phenomenology and to semiology. Following this path, we uncover a general relation between the two disciplines, as Greimas held. What is more is that mystical experience trials two core notions such as intentionality and reference. This highlights how peculiarly mysticism participates of the two disciplines’ subject matter. Considering Sini’s account of external world, it is possible to deconstruct the notion of referent as sign-independent and restore this notion as sign-dependent – although not necessarily as language-dependent. What Ghilardi holds to be a circularity between perception and signification is shortly broken in the mystical experience, but it is as much naturally fixed as it naturally went undone. We can experience non-linguistically, but we need to tell it. The reason of this fact is that only languages can say the unsayable, as Hjelmslev reached by considering the omniformativity of historical-natural languages. The analysis of mysticism corroborates the conclusion that, both in sign function analysis of sign and in semiotic triangle analysis of sign, what we call “referent” does not figure outside the sign.
Talks by Valerio Marconi
Variazioni Glossematiche, ZeL, Treviso 2019, pp. 105-
126
Variazioni Glossematiche, ZeL, Treviso 2019, pp. 89-104
If you want to quote or refer to this paper please purchase or consult
T. Gasbarro and D. Testa (edd.), Tempo: tra esattezza e infinito. Atti del IX Convegno Interdisciplinare dei Dottorandi e Dottori di Ricerca, Vol II – ISBN 978-88-3293-199-0.
The rules of poetic discourse are not the rules of the language in which the poem is written. Poetry is a land ruled by a different law, even though it is not an independent state. This paper enquires the links between connotation in Hjelmslev’s sense and della Volpe’s poetics, which is based on Hjelmslev’s theory of language (glossematics). What we may call glossematic poetics presents strong analogies with the chapters XXI and XXII of Aristotle’s Poetics, whose interpretations given during Italian Renaissance were studied by della Volpe. The role of paraphrasis in the analysis of poetry is a common feature to Aristotle and della Volpe and their methodologies are shown to be consistent with glossematics. Furthermore, Aristotle’s account of metaphor is the most important to Eco’s own one. The insights of these authors can help us to understand the nature of poetry and its cognitive relevance, namely the competence with reading and understanding poetry can bring to a deeper awareness of our own conceptual schemes and to overcome them. Providing a population with such a competence is a way of enhancing its cognitive skills which seems less puzzling from a bioethical point of view than the employment of pharmacological enhancement.
In this sketch of Edith Stein’s phenomenology of language, I’ll focus on concepts of semiotic relevance such as Bild, Bildverhältnis, Sinn-Bild, Wahrzeichen, Symbol and Wesenheit. They are core notions to phenomenology of mystic experience as well and their link to metaphysics and semantics consists in their use in understanding the Word of God by Edith Stein. She unveils the presence of the divine Logos both in Sacred Scripture and in the writings by St Therese of Avila and St John of the Cross thanks to her study of Dionysius’ symbolic theology. The outcome is a description of symbolic expression and communication which are common to Scripture and mystic writing. I hold that this type of writings stands against the project of universal semantics; this is shown both by Stein’s metaphysics of sense (Sinn) and by Hjelmslev’s reflexions on structural semantics. The phenomenological analysis of sense is not limited to analysis of linguistic meaning but, as far as it concerns linguistic data, it is not lacking some methodological similarity to a structural analysis of meaning. Eventually, the divine Word who is studied by Stein and the semantic word to which structural semantics must be devoted (according to Hjelmslev) are analogical.
A definition of mysticism based on mysticism studies can show the phenomenological and semiological character of mystical experience. The experience of the One is both a limit-experience and unsayable; these two features respectively connect to phenomenology and to semiology. Following this path, we uncover a general relation between the two disciplines, as Greimas held. What is more is that mystical experience trials two core notions such as intentionality and reference. This highlights how peculiarly mysticism participates of the two disciplines’ subject matter. Considering Sini’s account of external world, it is possible to deconstruct the notion of referent as sign-independent and restore this notion as sign-dependent – although not necessarily as language-dependent. What Ghilardi holds to be a circularity between perception and signification is shortly broken in the mystical experience, but it is as much naturally fixed as it naturally went undone. We can experience non-linguistically, but we need to tell it. The reason of this fact is that only languages can say the unsayable, as Hjelmslev reached by considering the omniformativity of historical-natural languages. The analysis of mysticism corroborates the conclusion that, both in sign function analysis of sign and in semiotic triangle analysis of sign, what we call “referent” does not figure outside the sign.
"Ancient Theories of Argumentation" – 18.12.2018, Musaφ (LMU, Munich).
Are Aristotelian categories either grammatical or semantical or ontological?
What sense they make to glossematics and to strcutural semantics?
Organizer of the group: Prof. Venanzio Raspa.
Other participants: Aurélin Zincq, Matteo Gargani.
A livello di competenze, oltre all'approfondimento culturale di temi come l'inferenza e la scienza nel mondo greco, si mirerà a rendere consapevoli della possibilità di utilizzare uno strumento matematico, solitamente applicato a numeri e figure, anche alle parole. Il percorso didattico offrirà solo i rudimenti di tale competenza, che tuttavia favorisce sia l'apprendimento che le capacità inferenziali e concettuali tanto nella ricerca quanto nella diagnostica
Segno linguistico e segno inferenziale
Principio di non contraddizione come legge semantica
Significato ed essenza
The Parable of Three Rings is famous in its versions by Boccaccio and Lessing. They share the fundamental idea that only one religion is true but human condition does not let us know which one is the true one (Celada Ballanti 2018). It is an inherently modern idea to stress on the limits of human knowledge while arguing against pure forms of skepticism and relativism. What takes place in Boccaccio and Lessing’s tales goes beyond mere tolerance. The result of the parable is friendship in both versions, yet the question of truth remains at the center of the conceptual framework underlying the stories. On the contrary, scholars started giving much more relevance to the ethical side of dialogue (Larson, Shady 2009; Urbano 2012; Burggraeve 2014), so that interpersonal relationship is not just the result of a cognitive process. Personal encounter should be prior to the question of truth, i.e. interfaith dialogue should be with someone rather than on something. This new approach is challenged by the nature of the relationship with the other. Should it be symmetrical and mutual? Views on dialogue inspired by Levinas must answer negatively. If we want to keep the relevance of friendship – suggested by Boccaccio and Lessing themselves –, we should rather prefer Buber’s idea of dialogue. In our world, despite this, inequalities are such that symmetry and mutuality cannot be the standard condition of dialogue and we must be responsible in advance for the other (in the sense of Levinasian visage). A mediation between these two standpoints can be found in Panikkar’s notion of inter-in-dependence, as I shall argue. In fact, this notion combines the interdependence present in Buber’s I-Thou relationship and the independence or separation stressed by Levinas in the relation to the other understood in terms of relation between absolute terms.
DATES: December 4–6, 2020
Abstract Proposal Deadline: September 15th, 2020
Presentation exposed at the Italian Association of Semiotic Studies Congress on the semiotic method in Cassino (09/06/2017-09/08/2017).
Che cos’è una relazione? Che cosa un segno? Il significato è relazionale? Il libro pone queste domande intrecciando in un dialogo che attraversa i secoli le prospettive di due classici della filosofia e di una delle voci più radicali dello Strutturalismo europeo. Dall’articolato percorso nei ed oltre i testi emerge l’elaborazione, aperta e mai definitiva, di un lessico comune per parlare dei principi della semiotica e per interrogarsi sul senso e sulla vita, poiché dove c’è vita c’è significato. La ricerca indica che il senso è una domanda rivolta a un significato relativo a una società e una cultura passate, di un passato anche prossimo (ma non per questo meno passato): nel dialogo, come fatto etico-esistenziale e al tempo stesso logico, l’umano coglie la propria specificità all’interno del vivente e l’analisi testuale trova un principio.
La strategia argomentativa del presente lavoro è la seguente: mostrare su basi lessicografiche quale sia l’interpretazione di sumbolon più adeguata e proporne una rappresentazione altrettanto immanente e coerente coi testi. Si mostrerà la vicinanza o almeno l’affinità con la teoria hjelmsleviana e si procederà a rappresentare la teoria aristotelica del segno linguistico usando il sistema delle funzioni glossematiche. Questo comporterà un confronto teorico serrato tra le due teorie del segno linguistico sulla base della loro comune rappresentabilità da parte del connettivo logico chiamato coimplicazione.
Le differenze evidenziate da tale confronto mostreranno di risolversi in emendazioni reciproche e in una fondamentale complementarietà teoretica. Infine, si esporrà e difenderà sul terreno del dibattito contemporaneo la teoria semantica che deriva dalla somma delle due prospettive risultate complementari.
Nello specifico i paragrafi del capitolo primo seguono la seguenti strategie:
1. Vaglio critico delle varie interpretazioni attraverso l’uso di una coppia di antinomie interpretative caratteristiche dei capitoli 1 e 2 del PH. Si vedrà che le uniche due letture a risultare sufficientemente adeguate saranno quelle di Lo Piparo e Montanari, che interpretano il sumbolon come “corrispettivo” in linea con molte traduzioni inglesi (che però non sono del PH); questa interpretazione è profondamente contraria a quelle che leggono il sumbolon meramente come “simbolo” nel senso moderno o come “segno convenzionale” (che è spesso sinonimo di “simbolo” in senso moderno).
2. Un’approfondita analisi lessicografica dei passi in cui occorre sumbolon individuati dal Bonitz porterà a ridurre da tre a due le accezioni possibili in cui sumbolon compare nel corpus aristotelicus. L’accezione che verrà dichiarata infondatamente individuata è quella che pone sumbolon come sinonimo di semeion. Non a caso, questa individuazione faceva da fondamento per buona parte delle interpretazioni moderne che sono state confutate nel paragrafo 1. La lessicografia del termine analizzato ci indicherà la costanza della rappresentabilità del suddetto termine con il connettivo logico chiamato coimplicazione, in questo si è reso fondamentale l’apporto del Manetti.
3. Attraverso lo studio dell’uso del termine sumbolon nel discorso di Aristofane nel Simposio platonico si andrà a determinare il rapporto dei due usi aristotelici del termine con gli usi linguistici comuni e filosofici del greco di quel tempo. Ne risulterà una conferma dell’interpretazione di Montanari (che mancava, però, di adeguata rappresentazione) e una correzione di quella di Lo Piparo.
4. Attraverso l’analisi specifica di uno dei passi del PH fraintesi dal Bonitz si arriverà a cogliere una prefigurazione che Aristotele ebbe del principio di analogia strutturale tra espressione e contenuto sostenuto da Hjelmslev. Lo stretto immanentismo dell’approccio interpretativo ha determinato da sé il passaggio alla trascendenza della comparazione teorica.
Questo è lo schema argomentativo del secondo capitolo:
1. Una discussione delle funzioni glossematiche e delle loro principali caratteristiche logiche permetterà la rappresentazione della relazione contratta dai sumbola aristotelici. Si mostrerà come entrambe le teorie (la rappresentata e la rappresentante) colgano e coniughino assieme la necessità e l’arbitrarietà tipiche del segno linguistico. Verrà, poi, presa in analisi l’affinità dei due autori nel mettere in una relazione privilegiata gli elementi grafici, fonici e semantici delle lingue.
2. Questo complesso paragrafo è quello più strettamente comparativo. Verranno evidenziati i lineamenti comuni della metafisica del segno linguistico dei due autori. Verrà messa a tema la complementarietà tra il prevalere del formalismo glossematico in ambito dell’analisi di forme e sostanze linguistiche e il prevalere dell’essenzialismo aristotelico nell’analisi della materia del contenuto.
3. Sulla base della profonda complementarietà delle due teorie e della loro possibilità di emendarsi a vicenda sarà proposta una teoria-somma, che si configurerà come una semantica linguistico-filosofica (in linea anche con le ultime tendenze della filosofia analitica in materia). Urgerà, dunque, un confronto con le obiezioni filosofiche contro una tale costruzione teorica mosse dai filosofi francesi Deleuze e Guattari; tale discussione dimostrerà come tanto la semantica quanto la pragmatica debbano restare ciascuna nel suo specifico ambito, senza tentare dominazioni o riduzionismi né in un senso né nell’altro. Ciò che dalla pragmatica viene ridotto o trascurato con un certo guadagno teorico non va, per questo, espunto definitivamente dal discorso filosofico-scientifico o rivolto contro la possibilità della semantica. Infatti, tale operazione significherebbe “l’esilio del pensiero dalla semiosi”.
Relatore: Prof. Marcello Ghilardi
Correlatore: Prof. Giovanni Catapano
Published in Studia philosophica (Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Philosophie) 77/2018, pp. 152-157.