Buone scartoffie, cattive intenzioni: una piccola nota su Documentalità

I take into account Ferraris’ attempt at reversing the traditional order of explanation going from thought to language and writing, as exposed in Documentalità. The reversal is supposed to provide a new ontology of social objects that dispenses with Searle’s notion of (collective) intentionality. Th...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Francesco Berto
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Rosenberg & Sellier 2012-07-01
Series:Rivista di Estetica
Online Access:http://journals.openedition.org/estetica/1463
id doaj-1225c4a309a04382b1d434fabfd87c86
record_format Article
spelling doaj-1225c4a309a04382b1d434fabfd87c862020-11-25T02:44:49ZengRosenberg & SellierRivista di Estetica0035-62122421-58642012-07-0150293510.4000/estetica.1463Buone scartoffie, cattive intenzioni: una piccola nota su DocumentalitàFrancesco BertoI take into account Ferraris’ attempt at reversing the traditional order of explanation going from thought to language and writing, as exposed in Documentalità. The reversal is supposed to provide a new ontology of social objects that dispenses with Searle’s notion of (collective) intentionality. The book’s motto is «[social] object = written act». What does that identity sign mean? Given that social objects are not identical with documents taken as mere material objects, they must be identical with documents taken as (systems of) signs, sÚmbola. Can one explain how a sign refers to what it is a sign of, without resorting to intentionality? I’m not sure – but I am pretty sure that the Derridean notion of arch-writing is not going to help.http://journals.openedition.org/estetica/1463
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Francesco Berto
spellingShingle Francesco Berto
Buone scartoffie, cattive intenzioni: una piccola nota su Documentalità
Rivista di Estetica
author_facet Francesco Berto
author_sort Francesco Berto
title Buone scartoffie, cattive intenzioni: una piccola nota su Documentalità
title_short Buone scartoffie, cattive intenzioni: una piccola nota su Documentalità
title_full Buone scartoffie, cattive intenzioni: una piccola nota su Documentalità
title_fullStr Buone scartoffie, cattive intenzioni: una piccola nota su Documentalità
title_full_unstemmed Buone scartoffie, cattive intenzioni: una piccola nota su Documentalità
title_sort buone scartoffie, cattive intenzioni: una piccola nota su documentalità
publisher Rosenberg & Sellier
series Rivista di Estetica
issn 0035-6212
2421-5864
publishDate 2012-07-01
description I take into account Ferraris’ attempt at reversing the traditional order of explanation going from thought to language and writing, as exposed in Documentalità. The reversal is supposed to provide a new ontology of social objects that dispenses with Searle’s notion of (collective) intentionality. The book’s motto is «[social] object = written act». What does that identity sign mean? Given that social objects are not identical with documents taken as mere material objects, they must be identical with documents taken as (systems of) signs, sÚmbola. Can one explain how a sign refers to what it is a sign of, without resorting to intentionality? I’m not sure – but I am pretty sure that the Derridean notion of arch-writing is not going to help.
url http://journals.openedition.org/estetica/1463
work_keys_str_mv AT francescoberto buonescartoffiecattiveintenzioniunapiccolanotasudocumentalita
_version_ 1724765684277182464