Andrea C. Bertino

Nietzsche hat Herder bekanntlich nur geringe und vor allem polemische Aufmerksamkeit gewidmet. Wie Nietzsche verstand jedoch schon Herder den Menschen und seine Kultur betont aus Analogien mit natürlichen Prozessen; beiden ging es - mit Nietzsches Begriff - um eine 'Vernatürlichung' des Menschen. Dabei nimmt der ursprung der Sprache eine Schlüsselstellung ein, und hier untersteichen widerum beide die Rolle unbewusster Instinkte und Triebe, die zur Produktion von Analogien und Metaphern führen. Da sie sich aber dessen bewusst sind, dass auch ihre Ursprungsdiskurse an die Sprach gebunden bleiben und keine wissenschaftlichen Theorien sein können, werden diese Instinkte und Triebe, jenseits jeden biologistischen Reduktionismus, nur als heuristische Zeichen kenntlich. Während Herder jedoch an der Rolle des Bewusstseins bei der Sprachgenesis festhält, macht Nietzsche, auch hier noch konsequent pragmatisch ansetzend, die Entstehung des Bewussteins selbst von der Kommunikation abhängig.As is well known, Nietzsche gave Herder's thought only cursory attention, and the few remarks he did make were usually polemical and often dismissive. Nevertheless, both Herder and Nietzsche understood humans and their culture on the analogy with natural processes. Both thinkers are concerned with the, to use Nietzsche's phrase, "Vernatürlichung" (naturalization", of human beings. Moreover, both emphasize the importance of understanding the origin of language, especially the way in which instincts and drives lead to the production of analogies and metaphors. Because they are aware that their own discussion of the origin of language remains bound to language and cannot hope to attain the status of scientific theories, since these instincts and drives can only be knowable as heuristic signs. While Herder held that consciousness plays a role in the origin of language, Nietzsche rather sees the origin of consciousness itself dependent on communication.

The metaphor of sacrifice is involved in different contexts of human life; specifically,the knowledge and the communication of truth are often supposed to imply sacrifices. This paper aims to show the role of sacrificial semantic for the conceptualization of truth in Giordano Bruno’s philosophy. In fact, Bruno allows us to appreciate the continuity between the logical structure of the religious institution of sacrifice and the philosophical use of sacrificial metaphors. More specifically, Bruno shows that our understanding of philosophical truth can be deepened if the kind of sacrifice involved with the search of truth is disclosed by starting from a ritual and religious point of view. By interpreting passages of Bruno’s works it becomes clear that the concept of sacrifice, on the one hand, serves for the critique of specific conceptions of truth, and, on the other hand, for the self-legitimization of the philosopher. Firstly, we read the Actaion’s mythos in terms of a Foucaultian aleturgy; then we reconstruct the connections between the sacrificial metaphor and other metaphors which are used to present the philosophical knowledge. Finally, we discuss the meaning of the sacrificial metaphor for a possible moral evaluation of dangerous researches of truth and come to suggest that Bruno develops a kind of narrative justification of the sacrifice for the sake of truth which appeals to a specific fundamental experience.

Attributions of personal or moral integrity presuppose self-commitments. These are brought to our attention whenever an agent has to make difficult decisions. It can be seen that in such decisions other interests or moral values and norms of the actor must be neglected or even eliminated. One of the standard language games by which integrity is thought and attributed claims that the person with moral integrity sacrifices himself for something or someone. This can be well understood by using Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit. Hegel not only dealt extensively with the concept of a religious sacrifice, he also made use of the semantics of sacrifice for his characterization of the becoming of the spirit. Without having the concept of integrity yet, he used the logic of a sacrifice to comprehend the constitution of the »true« self. With Hegel we can disclose a dialectical concept of integrity as a consistent internalization of the logic of the sacrifice. At the same time we will emphasize the differences between Hegel’s attempt and the use of sacrificial speech in today’s discourse of moral integrity.