Buone scartoffie, cattive intenzioni: una piccola nota su Documentalità

ISSN： 0035-6212

Source： Rivista di estetica, Vol.50, Iss.1, 2012-07, pp. : 29-35

Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.

Previous Menu Next

Abstract

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, σνμβολα. 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.