Simone Aurora

The aim of the paper is to show the relevancy of Aron Gurwitsch’s transcendental-phenomenological theory of the field of consciousness for semiotics and the theory of meaning. After a brief biographical introduction, the paper will focus upon the key theoretical points that define Gurwitsch’s theory of the field of consciousness and will consider some of Gurwitsch’s reflections on linguistic and semiotic issues. Finally, it will be shown that the latter are strictly connected with Gurwitsch’s general philosophical framework and, accordingly, that it is possible (and fruitful) to provide a semiotic understanding of Gurwitsch’s phenomenology.

The paper argues that ecology should not be understood as a sectoral issue, i.e. as the object of specific scientific disciplines such as environmental sociology, geology or biology; on the contrary, it is by very nature that ecology should be regarded as a large-scale matter consisting first and foremost in philosophical and political questions. It is the paper’s main objective to claim that there is no way out from the ecological crisis without a critical reconsideration of the dominant socio-economic structures and of the cultural and philosophical background underpinning them. To this end, the present paper resorts to the concept of “social metabolism”. By applying it to various “immaterial elements”, and notably to philosophical systems, the essay investigates their ecological impact. As the paper aims to show, the metabolic analysis of the philosophical system implies adopting and advocating for a renewed transcendental approach.

Phenomenology and structuralism are commonly understood as two opposing and largely incompatible schools of thought. Indeed, if the former is thought of as the philosophy of subjectivity par excellence, and the latter as the tradition in which the “death of man” is declared, it seems difficult to challenge the antagony between them. On closer inspection, however, it becomes clear that this picture represents an oversimplification and turns out to be, to a great extent, fallacious. The aim of this paper is to show that the philosophy of the early Husserl – notably as exposed in the Logical Investigations – ought to be fully considered as both part of the wide tradition of Transcendental philosophy as well as Structuralism. To this end, the paper mainly addresses Husserl’s notion of Wissenschaftslehre and the mereology developed in the Third logical investigation and, as a result, tries to show how Husserl’s position can be defined in terms of a “phenomenological structuralism” or a “structural phenomenology” or, as I propose, a “transcendental structuralism”.

This paper aims to consider the main features of the philosophy of linguistics proposed by Deleuze and Guattari, which emerges from the criticisms directed at what in A Thousand Plateaus they call ‘postulates of linguistics’. The paper focuses on the transition from the Saussurean concept of system and from the connected notion of structure to Deleuze and Guattari's concept of machine. More precisely, the purpose of the paper lies, on the one hand, in showing in which sense Deleuze and Guattari claim that language is not a ‘structure’ but a ‘machine’ and why, accordingly, they maintain that the mentioned ‘postulates of linguistics’ must be refused; on the other hand, the paper represents an attempt at placing Deleuze and Guattari's position in the context of contemporary linguistics.

In appearance, Husserl’s writings seem not to have had any influence on linguistic research, nor does what the German philosopher wrote about language seem to be worth a place in the history of linguistics. The purpose of the paper is exactly to contrast this view, by reassessing both the position and the role of Husserl’s early masterpiece — the Logical Investigations — within the history of linguistics. To this end, I will focus mainly on the third (On the theory of wholes and parts) and fourth (The distinction between independent and non-independent meanings) Investigations, paying special attention to Husserl’s mereology and to the idea of a general pure grammar. The paper tries to situate the third and fourth Logical Investigation within the general context of late nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century linguistics and furthermore attempts to show the historical and theoretical importance of the Logical Investigations for the birth and the development of one of the most important linguistic “schools” of the twentieth century, namely structural linguistics.

The paper’s purpose consists in pointing out the importance of the notion of “territory”, in its different accepted meanings, for the development of a theory and a practice of subjectivity both in deleuzean and canettian thought. Even though they start from very different perspectives and epistemic levels, they indeed produce similar philosophical effects, which strengthen their “common” view and the model of subjectivity they try to shape. More precisely, the paper focuses on the deleuzean triad of territorialisation, deterritorialisation, reterritorialisation, with regard to the role it plays in the forming of the subject and in connection with the fundamental deleuzean notion of difference; it furthermore concentrates on the characterization of the notion of territory in Canetti’s work, also in the light of the mentioned deleuzean categories and with reference to the crucial canettian concept of transformation. Finally, the paper analyses both the political consequences of the “nomadic subjectivity” Deleuze and Canetti deal with and the critical and problematic aspects it involves.