The article reconstructs the is/ought debate in legal theory through a phenomenological reading of the concept of normality. An analysis of Siniscalchi, Fuller and Manderson looks at the issue from the perspective of law and literature, and then applies Giambattista Vico’s rhetorical methodology within the contemporary debate. The question: “is Hume’s law really visible within Hume’s thought?” also paradoxically poses the figure of phantoms and fictions at the heart of the current theoretical debate on law. A history of the phantom (...) placed at the centre of the history of Western institutions still remains to be written, but a comparison of very diverse and incongrous approaches such as the extended order of Hayek, the dogmatic anthropology of Legendre, the eunomics of Fuller and the new science of Vico shows how the mystery of consciousness and the mystery of institutions are inextricably entwined. It is impossible at the moment to draw a coherent doctrine from these conflicting perspectives, but their convocation is sufficient to demonstrate how the theory of law is always suspended between the unknown and the human attempt to inhabit it, moving us toward an affective turn that has yet to be fully conceived in the theory of law, following the iconic turn. The anthropological primacy of fictio and the aesthetic-legal dimension in the constitution of language is not that of a logic and separation from the body and meaning, but the exact inverse, even in the unavoidable constant tension between the two poles: logic is born through the gesture of the body that precedes it, as myth precedes the foundation of the State; the origin of the concept is affective, as Hume, and perhaps Vico himself, would have passionately affirmed. (shrink)

Part one: the act of speaking -- The speaker as performing artist -- The absolute performative -- The repetition of anthropogenesis -- Part two: toward a critic of interiority -- Second-degree sensualism: a physiognomic project -- In praise of reification -- Part three: from the beginning and right now -- Natural history -- The multitude and the principle of individuation -- Appendix: Wittgenstein and the question of atheism.

Name der Zeitschrift: Semiotica Jahrgang: 2016 Heft: 209 Seiten: 357-370.

Aristotle created logic and developed it to a level of great sophistication. There was nothing there before; and it took more than two millennia for something better to come around. The astonishment experienced by readers of the Prior Analytics, the most important of Aristotle's works that present the discipline, is comparable to that of an explorer discovering a cathedral in a desert. This article explains and evaluates some of Aristotle's views about propositions and syllogisms. The most important omission is the (...) difficult subject of syllogisms involving modalities. Aristotle distinguishes two relations of opposition that can obtain between propositions with the same subject- and predicate-expressions: contrariety and contradiction. In every canonical syllogism, one term is common to the two premises: it is called “middle term,” or simply “middle.” The remaining two terms of the premises are the only ones occurring in the conclusion: they are called “extreme terms,” or simply “extremes.”. (shrink)

_An examination of the philosophical notion of sacrifice from Kant to Nietzsche._.

"The fact is, man is an etymologizing animal."Etymologizing—the practice of connecting one word with one or more other similar-sounding words that are believed to elucidate its meaning1—is a complex and putatively universal phenomenon.2 Thus, to take two representative examples far apart in time and space, etymologizing practices figure prominently in some episodes of the Hebrew Bible,3 but also provide some modern influential thinkers with an important mode of argument.4 Perhaps etymologizing is so pervasive because it offers a pliable and powerful (...) tool for addressing a key question, namely, why is something called what it is?While this question has universal appeal, only a few cultures seem to have addressed it... (shrink)

The aim of this chapter is to reconstruct a hypothetical genealogy of the U.S. national motto “in God we Trust” by comparing the juridical and theological concept of “depositum”. According to Philo of Alexandria, the deposit was the most sacred institutional act of ancient social life, because it had both a religious and a sociological function. According to the Epistulae to Timothy the term ‘deposit’ defined the legacy of the Christian faith of which the disciple of St. Paul was entrusted. (...) His task was to manage this legacy and to spread it among the others. Hence the deposit defined at the same time a contract based upon good faith and a symbolic space of “security”, namely a container that protected an unchangeable content: the oral knowledge transmitted by Christ to the Apostoles and, indirectly, to St. Paul. The depositum was also the procedure through which the word of Christ would acquire all its potential. On the other hand, the contract defined as “depositum” by Roman law was characterized by a centrality of the so-called bona fides and by the distinction between regular and irregular deposit. This means that the principle of good faith should lead the conducts of the manager whose task is exactly to look after an object called Christian faith. How can we interpret the word ‘trust’ according to the juridico-political remarks? The purpose of this chapter is to explain all these related issues. (shrink)

The article aims at describing an alternative way to the Foucaldian escape of sovereignty. According to Foucault the only chance to reach this goal is to “go beyond” this concept as well as of linked concepts such as “law” and “institution”. On the one hand this vision is affected by the erroneous identification of law with the order of the sovereign, while the original private dimension of law is totally neglected. On the other hand, Foucault cannot assume that it is (...) also possible to delegitimize sovereignty with the very tools of law, namely in a trial. The article deals with the case of the «mutilated sovereignty» of the Italian State which has been acknowledged by a court in 2006. The government has been compensated for the damages suffered by the State because of the illegal activity in a region. The sovereignty has been “estimated”. But estimating something unquantifiable like sovereignty is destroying its symbolic force. (shrink)

Biopolitics, as interaction of power and subjectivity, creates new ways of making law. It is no longer the definition of borders. It gives legitimacy to emerging practices.

According to Merleau-Ponty, institution has to do with the deposit of a sense. This operation invokes a gesture of completion that is left to a future of recovery, modifications and alterations that expose that deposited sense to dialectical tensions between orthodox conservation and inevitable deviations. The decisive issue at stake is then announced precisely around this ambivalent status of the institution, which becomes the guardian of the deposited sense, not to fix it in a systematized repetition but to welcome, measure (...) and ensure its evolution. Thus “instituting” indicates the ouverture d'un champ, the possibility of setting the sense in a container with an extensible shell. It deals with the capacity of preserving the duration of the sense originally deposited but also of increasing the quality of its substance in the course of history. On these dynamic potentialities of the “deposited” and administered sense Merleau-Ponty’s notes manage to glimpse an essential technical quality that, for example, Christianity has been able to exploit to the maximum. (shrink)

The institution is always a heteronomous construction which supposes the intervention of a “fiat” establishing a break in the continuum of the natural succession of events. This beginning is a sequence of acts leading to a practical judgment on a reality that exists only because of this qualification. This is the sense of the legal verb instituere. The paper tests this vision of the institution on the case of a widespread practice in the managerial world: the 360-degree feedback. A Jesuit (...) genealogy of this practice illustrates new cultures within the firm and the consequences on the subjectivity level. (shrink)

Ever since the early decades of this century, there have emerged a number of competing schools of ecology that have attempted to weave the concepts underlying natural resource management and natural-historical traditions into a formal theoretical framework. It was widely believed that the discovery of the fundamental mechanisms underlying ecological phenomena would allow ecologists to articulate mathematically rigorous statements whose validity was not predicated on contingent factors. The formulation of such statements would elevate ecology to the standing of a rigorous (...) scientific discipline on a par with physics. However, there was no agreement as to the fundamental units of ecology. Systems ecologists sought to identify the fundamental organization that tied the physical and biological components of ecosystems into an irreducible unit: the ecosystem was their fundamental unit. Population ecologists sought, instead, to identify the biological mechanisms regulating the abundance and distribution of plant and animal species: to these ecologists, the individual organism was the fundamental unit of ecology, and the physical environment was nothing more than a stage upon which the play of individuals in perennial competition took place. As Joel Hagen has pointed out, the two schools were thus dividied by fundamentally different and irreconcilable assumptions about the nature of ecosystems.Notwithstanding these divisive efforts to elevate the image of ecology, the discipline remained in the shadows of American academia until the mid-1960s, when systems ecologists succeeded in projecting ecology onto the national scene. They did so by seeking closer involvement with practical problems: they argued before Congress that their approach to the theoretical problems of ecology was uniquely suited to the solution of the impending “environmental crisis.” With the establishment of the International Biological Program, they succeeded in attracting unprecedented levels of funding for systems ecology research. Theoretical population ecologists, on the other hand, found themselves consigned to the outer regions of this new institutional landscape. The systems ecologists' successful capture of the limelight and the purse brought the divisions between them and population ecologists into sharper relief — hence the hardening of the division of ecology observed by Hagen.45I have argued that the population biologist Richard Levins, prompted by these institutional developments, sought to challenge the social position of systems ecology, and to assert the intellectual priority of theoretical population ecology. He attempted to do so by articulating a nontrivial and rather carefully thought out classification of ecological models that led to the disqualification of systems analysis as a legitimate approach to the study of ecological phenomena. I have suggested that — ultimately —Levins's case against systems analysis in ecology rested on the view that an aspiration to realism and prediction was incompatible with an interest in theoretical issues, a concern that he equated with the search for generality. He sought to reinforce this argument by exploiting the fact that systems ecologists had staked their future on the provision of technical solutions to the problems of the “environmental crisis”: he associated systems ecologists' aspiration to realism and precision with a concern for practical issues, trading on the widely accepted view that practical imperatives are incompatible with the aims of scientific inquiry.46 These are plausible, but nonetheless questionable, claims which have now become an integral part of ecological knowledge. And finally, I hope to have shown how even the most abstract levels of scientific argument are shaped by political considerations, and how discussions of the conceptual development of modern ecology might benefit from a greater consideration of its historical and social dimensions.47. (shrink)

We present a sequent calculus for extensional mereology. It extends the classical first-order sequent calculus with identity by rules of inference corresponding to well-known mereological axioms. Structural rules, including cut, are admissible.

The homeopathic principle of similitude is not based on the principle of vaccination but on the more general principle of inversion of effects, a widespread medical phenomenon. Based on the systemic networks which play an important role in response to stress, this principle concerns the reorganization of regulation systems, through a coherent response to the medicine. This model is backed by a large number of published studies from our laboratory and others, by toxicological evidence such as the emerging fields of (...) ‘hormesis’, of neuropharmacology, and of systems biology. The immune system is just one example of the possible application of this law of similitude, which constitutes the true ‘heart’ of the homeopathic idea, and again ethically justifies the attempt to apply it to experimental pharmacology. (shrink)

Ce texte examine l’affirmation d’Aristote qui se trouve dans les Seconds Analytiques II 19, que la perception porte sur l’universel. L’examen s’effectuera par le biais du De Anima II 6 et III 6-8 où Aristote décrit les objets de la perception et de l’intellect. L’auteur soutient que selon Aristote, la perception humaine porte toujours sur l’universel contenu dans le particulier parce que l’unité de la substance individuelle est garante de l’unité de l’acte de perception. Par conséquent, l’analyse en termes de (...) trois objets de perception n’est que le résultat de la méthode analytique qu’Aristote emploie afin d’étudier l’acte de perception. (shrink)