Stvarna institucija. Dokument i realizam

Regardless of the fact that I am using certain texts by Searle, Fer- raris, Smith and De Soto, my intention is not at all to reiterate someone else’s position in my own words, nor is it to question or modify some such position. My intention for now is to, using Ferraris’ theory of the document, affirm the existence of a paradox - one rejected by Searle, but unconvincingly so, I think - regarding the institution (or the institutionalization of the institution). In order to do that, it seems to me that I am forced to slightly disturb both Searle’s and Ferraris’ conception, in attempting to offer my own contribution to a new future theory of the institution

Gilles Deleuze on Institution and Violence [Žil Delez o instituciji i nasilju]

Th e general idea of the article is to compare Deleuze’s theory of the institution, which emerges in the context of various infl uences of French phenomenology and philosophy of law, with Searle’s theory and the latest Anglo-Saxon theories of the institution, and the new institutionalism. Deleuze carelessly diff erentiates infl uences and fragments copied or taken over from Hume, Saint-Just, de Sade, Renard, Hauriou, Durkheim, Malinowski and others and in the end completely succeeds in relegating to oblivion his ingenious project from 1953, Instincts and Institutions (Instincts et institutions). Th e consequences of such writing and theoretical work call into question the status of the theory of the institution and replace it with intuition and recognition that the thematisation of the institution is an impossible task. Th us the author of the article attempts to ‘integrate’ this impossibility to systematically think or explain the fi gure of institution into the framework of the great and pioneering work of Saint- Just, Hume, Deleuze, Gehlen and Searle

Realism’s Understanding of Negative Numbers

Our topic is the understanding of the nature of negative numbers – the entities to which expressions such as ‘-1’ refer. Following Frege, we view positive whole numbers as providing the answer to the question „how many?“ In this light, how are we to view negative numbers? Both positive and negative numbers can be ordered through the relation of larger or smaller. It is then true of all negative numbers that they are entities which are (somehow) smaller than zero. For many, this has been understood as an ontological paradox: how can something be „less than nothing?“ Some propose to avoid the paradox by treating negative numbers as mere façons de parler. In this paper, we propose a more realist account, taking as our starting point the thesis that there is at least one familiar type of object, the magnitude of which can be expressed with negative numbers, namely, debt. How can the sense of an expression be ontologically paradoxical, yet the expression itself still plausibly refer to a social object such as a debt? Or, put differently, how is it possible to be, at the same time, a realist in financial theory and a nominalist in mathematical theory? The paper first shows that the paradox arises when the two distinct ways in which negative numbers are connected to real objects are run together. The first of the two refers to debt only, whereas the second could refer to debt, as well as to physical objects. Finally, we claim that a debt is at once a specifically social object and part of reality as described by physics

Violenza e convivenza. Atti sociali, atti non-sociali (nichtsoziale Akte), azioni negative e a-sociali

In un’epoca in bilico tra pluralismo e relativismo, quale può essere un punto di sintesi fra autonomia individuale e responsabilità sociale? I conflitti che attraversano la sfera pubblica sono prodotti da un eccesso o, al contrario, da un deficit di valori morali? Dinanzi ad alcune delle grandi domande che sono alla base del dibattito contemporaneo e che segnano lo spartiacque fra civile e incivile, il libro invita a riconoscere, oltre la conflittualità dello stare insieme, la ragioni profonde dell’essere insieme: abitare la “terra di mezzo” tra privato e pubblico significa partecipare all’edificazione del bene che accomuna