Jan Maurits Broekman

The question of the philosophical basis of medical science and medical practice is considered under three closely related themes: (i) the doctor-patient relationship, (ii) the structure of the medical-ethical discourse, and (iii) the problem of philosophical founding in relation to medical conduct. The doctor-patient relationship is regarded as a transformational relation. Acceptance of the illness of the patient, the construction of a complaint as a necessary condition — and not a description of an existing reality — as well as the establishment of a common interest are determinants of that relation. They are related to the dominant form of science and thought in medicine, namely application. This is typical for the Standard Medical-Ethical Discussion (SMED), its scope and its rationality. The third issue leads to the thesis that this particular rationality is not a sufficient ground for considering the medical discourse to be founded in philosophy.

The Roberta Kevelson Seminar on Law and Semiotics is integrated in the regular program of a US Law School and student enrollment is honored with credit points. Hitherto, the study of Legal Semiotics has mainly been located outside the Law Schools in the US and the Faculties of Law in the EU. Two important questions within the more general theme of Legal Semiotics and Legal Education arose: (1) the program requirements in an education context, and (2) the attention and interests of the students. This IJSL issue offers essays presented during the Round Table which closed the Seminar, provides some experience-based suggestions for a Seminar program and discusses how to deal with the pragmatic attitude of law students. It interests how those topics relate to legal and semiotic literature and how they focus globally important viewpoints, as can be concluded in the example of the legal semiotics of family structures

Faces challenge the sender-receiver model as the major scheme of thought for appropriately understanding interaction between human individuals. The openness and indeterminacy of faces lead to establish a semiotically relevant distinction between interaction and interactivity. The latter is our proposed articulation of the dynamic energy that thrives through the existence of signs and the uses of a semiotics. Facial expressions sustain and express the vital dynamism of making meaning in life. This often occurs at a bewildering distance to legal life and discourses established by legal terminologies

Peirce shows how he presupposes that a ‘most general science of semeiotic’ is entirely a matter of culture. Semiotics unfolds even beyond the debate on specific differences between nature and culture. The expression ‘semiotics of culture’ entails all components of a true pleonasm. Pierce finds his parallel in the philosophy of Hegel and both philosophers consider the close ties between expressiveness and consciousness as a specifically human, cultural and spiritual activity. That viewpoint leads not only to linguistic but also to other expressive phenomena, among which the body. Faces are perhaps the most outstanding bodily carriers of expression, so that Peirce’s analyses of Thirdness relate to the human face, not as a natural but as a cultural datum, in particular an artifice. A face-to-face relationship is embedded in a regulative discourse rather than an ethical appeal or other metaphysical dimensions. Three cases show various degrees of artificiality with different semiotic implications: Tilda Swinton’s appearance at the recent 2008 Oscar ceremony, the body art of Orlan and the first 2005 facial transplant of Isabelle Dinoire. The three do not only show how the human face is an artifice, but also how realities can appear to be fictitious within patterns of semiotic nature. Any sign can be a correlative to a fictitious world!

The close ties between law and psychiatric illness challenge our effort to understand the complex semantics of Western culture and the foundations of law in the heart of that culture. It is, however, difficult to be immediately confronted with the limitations of these semantics. Can one ever achieve a refined precision of psychiatric issues? Lawyers and psychiatrists tend to disregard the fact that people live within different realms of expressiveness, even where the same phenomena seem apparent. They neutralize all relativity and design a quasi-universal body of legal doctrines or construct an all-embracing medical nosology. The question remains what practices of judgment are justifiable when the history books demonstrate the ever-changing character of the idea of a common good and a well-ordered life. Notions of relativity accompany decisions to punish or to cure, to exclude or to include, to disregard or to consider. In these decisions, there are never supracultural notions at hand and only rarely ideas that reach beyond the boundaries of either profession's own discourse.

Die Diskussion zwischen Marxismus und Strukturalismus wird im allgemeinen als eine Angelegenheit des heutigen französischen Strukturalismus betrachtet. Diese Auffassung wird hier relativiert und erweitert. Es stellt sich nämlich heraus, dass Wurzeln des jetzigen strukturalen Denkens im Russischen Formalismus zu finden sind und dass bereits dort eine Auseinandersetzung mit dem Marxismus stattfand, die bis heute ihre Gültigkeit behalten hat. Die wichtigsten Themen dieser Diskussion sind die Idee der Verfremdung, die Frage des Strukturdenkens und das Problem des Verhältnisses zwischen literarischer und sozialer Realität. Sie sind in vielerlei Gestalt Gegenstände der Diskussion in Moskou und Petersburg während der zwanziger Jahre unseres Jahrhunderts, aber auch in den dreissiger Jahren im Prager Kreis - dieselben Themen werden heute in den Pariser Kreisen diskutiert, sowohl in dem literarischen Kreis der Zeitschrift Tel Quel wie auch in dem Althusser-Kreis. Auf dem Hintergrund dieser Fragen steht der Gegensatz zwischen einem Wesensdenken und einem Strukturdenken. Er beherrschte sowohl den Formalismus als den Strukturalismus des Prager Kreises. Heute ist eine Verschiebung zu registrieren : es geht um denselben Gegensatz im Marxismus. Kann der Marxismus, besonders seine Theorie der Praxis, vermitteln zwischen beiden Denkformen, da er sie als ihn selbst kennzeichnende Ambiguität in sich trägt ?

Lawyers write, blog and are otherwise producers of words; they structure public life through legal discourse and integrate all issues that reinforce legal reasoning. Even if one is inclined not to justify the power of their words in the context of a democratic theory, one is hardly able to challenge its public acceptance. But semiotic analyses harden the question whether these emperors wear nothing but robes. That attitude intensifies where medicine becomes increasingly relevant for legal discourse, as becomes clear where for instance US political viewpoints bring bioethical issues to the Courts. One major theme in today’s medicine pertains to identity in its psychological, philosophical and social dimensions. Identity thus becomes a groundbreaking semiotic issue in law and medicine; both discourses are particular important to the otherness of the other. A US criminal law case interests here (Harrington v. State of Iowa, 2003; cited as: 659N.W.2d 509). The case is decided with “information about what the person has stored in his brain”. A chain of signs is involved: from “brain-function” to “brain-storage” via “brain-scan” to “brain-fingerprint”, for which the case became famous. A long series of signs and meanings belong here to intertwined discourses. Central is a particular sign in each discourse: “brain” means brain scan, and “fingerprint” means law! The two display trading mechanisms, which determine the otherness of the other and the self! The chain of signs in the Harrington case shows inter-disciplinarity in law and inter-discursivity among law and medicine. The trading itself underlines the semiotic dimensions in cyberspace, in particular the semiotics of the virtual (Hayles, Kurzweil) and their effects on legal discourse

This engaging book examines the origins and first effects of the concept ‘legal semiotics’, focusing on the inventor of the term, Roberta Kevelson. It highlights the importance of her ideas and works which have contributed to legal theory, legal interpretation and philosophy of language. Kevelson’s work is particularly relevant today, in our world of global electronic communication networks which rely so much on language, signs, signals and shortcuts. Kevelson could not have foreseen the 21st century, yet the story of her work and influence deserves more attention as it is key to our understanding of modern legal discourse and why law fascinates and is accepted in modern society. The authors draw on Kevelson’s hitherto unknown Office Papers and Notes, and a biographical examination points to key influences in her work such as the early feminist movements of the US East Coast, the philosophy of Charles Sanders Peirce and the semiotics of Thomas Sebeok. This forms the basis for a more encompassing research of Kevelson’s position, work and philosophical background, which the authors call for. A quick and enlightening read, this book interests a wide range of readers with an interest in legal history and the fields which Kevelson both drew on and influenced, including lawyers, students and scholars.

Is the European Union a new Walden? Although a contrast in form and format, the Union is surprisingly close to the latter's underlying philosophy. One can read this proximity in the Treaties or the many facets of the European idea which mirrors in the Union's emerging legal system. Today there is no longer a Union of a limited number of Nation States desiring to end divisions among themselves, to acquire mutual respect and prosperity or a higher standard of living and working conditions for its members. European citizenship shows a global orientation and is in continuous competition with the discourse of a globalizing economy and its Internet democracy. Analyses of concepts such as political geography, global, (supra)national and regional citizenship, democracy, learning society, native tongue and market lead to the insight that the Union's legal system wishes to ensure its citizens a legally engendered, formatted and protected global position for action. Walden's philosophy has a new face.

Wat is de plaats van het recht in de samenleving? Hoe fungeert het juridisch discours? Wie is de mens van het recht? Waartoe leiden de semantische transformaties die het recht tot een eigen discours maken? Hoe gaat de maatschappij met het juridisch discours om? Hoe verhoudt het rechtsbeleid zich tot de rechtswetenschap? Hoe verhouden de verschillende vakgebieden binnen het recht zich tot elkaar? Deze en andere vragen tussen rechtsfilosofie, rechtstheorie en rechtspraktijk worden in een collectie wetenschappelijke teksten geconfronteerd met kritische interdisciplinaire benaderingen. Het boek biedt in die zin een kleine encyclopedie van de juridische discipline, gelieerd aan overwegingen van algemene cultuur.

die Behandlungsweise kann jedoch sehr verschieden sein. Diese letztere charakterisiert nicht nur eine bestimmte Auffassung von Philosophie, sondern ebenso den Philosophen, der sie anwendet. In dem Sinne ist jede Erörterung eines philosophischen Gedankens zugleich eine bio graphische Notiz. Der erfahrungswissenschaftliche Charakter der in diesem Band ge sammelten philosophische Gedankengänge entstammt zu einem er heblichen Teil der Kenntnisnahme der (ursprünglich amerikanischen) Kulturanthropologie. Ihr Schöpfen aus den Initiativen der alther kömmlichen Ethnologie wie auch aus der vergleichenden Völkerkunde hat, zusammen mit dem fruchtbaren «:field-work», auf einer anthropo logischen Basis neue und neuartige Erfahrungen über den Menschen hervorgehoben. Dadurch ist mehr als ein bloßes Kooperieren von Philosophie und Wissenschaft gewachsen: hier hat sich der Charakter des Philosophischen selbst gewandelt. Diese Kooperation, ja vielmehr tiefgreifende Verschränkung ist ein Merkmal moderner Philosophie. Besonders im Denken von Hermann Wein ist dieses Charakteristikum zu einem fruchtbaren philosophischen Ausgangspunkt geworden. Das wäre sowohl für seine philosophisch-anthropologischen wie auch für seine sprachphilosophischen Erörterungen nachzuweisen. Eben in der Abschätzung und Durchdenkung jener Bereiche bekommt die Idee der Erfahrung ihre Gestaltungskraft. Als Grundmotiv wäre diese Idee zu betrachten - nicht als ein regelmässig wiederkehrender Hinweis oder die Formulierung irgendeiner Wünschbarkeit in philosophicis. Betrachtet man unsere Philosophie der Gegenwart, so ergibt sich, dass ein solcher Ausgangspunkt außer in anthropologischen und be stimmten sprachphilosophischen Erwägungen auch in ethischen Frage stellungen fruchtbar geworden ist - wir weisen auf die amerikanischen und anderen.

This book examines the concept of meaning and our general understanding of reality in a legal and philosophical context. Starting from the premise that meaning is a matter of linguistic and other forms of articulation, it considers the inherent philosophical consequences. Part I presents Klages', Derrida's, Von Hofmannsthal's and Wittgenstein's explorations of silence as a source of articulation and meaning. Debates about 20th century psychologism gave the attitude concept a pivotal role; it illustrates the importance of the discovery that a word is globally qualified as 'the basic unit of language'. This is mirrored in the fact that we understand reality as a matter of particles and thus interpret the real as a component of an all-embracing 'particle story'. Each chapter of the book focuses on an aspect of legal semiotics related to the chapter's theme: for instance on the meaning of a Judge's 'Saying for Law', on law students training in varying attitudes or on the ties between law and language. Part II of the book illustrates our general understanding of reality as a matter of particles and partitioning, and examines texts that prove that particle thinking is basic for our meaning concept. It shows that physics, quantum theory, holism, and modern brain research focusing on human linguistic capabilities, confirm their ties to the particle story. In contrast, the book concludes that partitions and particles are neither a fact in the history of the cosmos nor a determinant of knowledge and the sciences, and that meaning is a process: a constellation rather than a fixation. This is manifest once one understands meaning as the result of continuously changing attitudes, which create our narratives on cosmos and creation. The book proposes a new key for meaning: a linguistic occurrence anchored in dimensions of human narrativity.

This volume provides a critical roadmap through the major historical sources of legal semiotics as we know them today. The history of legal semiotics, now at least a century old, has never been written (a non-event itself pregnant with semiotic possibility). As a consequence, its sources are seldom clearly exposed and, as word, object and meaning change, are sometimes lost. They reach from an English translation of the 1916 inaugural lecture of the first Chair in Legal Significs at the Amsterdam University, via mid 20th century studies on "property" or "contract," to equally fascinating essays on contemporary semiotic problems produced by former students of the Roberta Kevelson Semiotics Roundtable Seminar at Penn State University 2012 and 2013. Together, the materials in this book weave the fabric of semiotics and significs, two names for the unfolding of semiotics in law and legal discourse at least until the second half of the 20th century, and both of which covered a lawyer's focus on sign and meaning in law. The latter is embedded within the cultural imperatives of the civilization that gave these terms meaning and made them an effective tool for the dissection of law, its reconstitution as an instrument to be used by the lawyer to advance the interests of her clients, and for judges as a means to restructure language as a narrative of law whose power could bend behavior to its strictures. Legal semiotics has become an indispensible part of the elite lawyer's toolkit and a fundamental approach to analysis of legal texts. Two previous volumes published in 2011 and 2012 explored the conceptual, methodological and epistemological progress in the field of legal semiotics, the modern forms of semiotics study, and the mechanics of meaning making processes by lawyers. Yet the great lessons of semiotics requires a focus on the origins of the concepts and frameworks that would become contemporary legal semiotics, its origins as an object of the consciousness of meaning making-one whose roots, as lessons for the oracular conversations of law, are expanded in this volume.