What do you think?
Rate this book
丕賱爻賷賲賷丕卅賷丞 賵賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱賱睾丞
賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱匕賷 賰丕賳 兀賵賾賱 氐丿賵乇賴 爻賳丞 1984 賷鬲賳丕賵賱 噩賲賱丞賸 賲賳 丕賱賲鬲氐賵賾乇丕鬲 丕賱賴丕賲賾丞 丕賱鬲賷 卮睾賱鬲 亘丕賱 丕賱賲賮賰賾乇賷賳 賮賷 賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱賱睾丞 賵賮賷 丕賱爻賷賲賷丕卅賷賾丞: 丕賱毓賱丕賲丞 賵丕賱丕爻鬲毓丕乇丞 賵丕賱乇賲夭 賵丕賱爻賳賳 賵丕賱賲賯丕亘賱丞 亘賷賳 丕賱賯丕賲賵爻 賵丕賱賲賵爻賵毓丞貙 賵賴賷 賲賯丕亘賱丞 賲乇賰夭賷賾丞 賮賷 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱賳賯丕卮丕鬲 亘禺氐賵氐 毓賱賲 丕賱丿賱丕賱丞 賵丕賱賲毓噩賲賷賾丞 賵丕賱匕賰丕亍 丕賱丕氐胤賳丕毓賷 賵丕賱兀賳馗賲丞 丕賱爻賷賲賷丕卅賷賾丞.
賵賯丿 賲孬賾賱鬲 賴匕賴 丕賱賲鬲氐賵賾乇丕鬲 賵丕賱丕卮賰丕賱賷賾丕鬲 丕賱賳丕鬲噩丞 毓賳賴丕 賲賵囟賵毓 賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱賱睾丞貙 丕賳胤賱丕賯丕賸 賲賳 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 賵兀乇爻胤賵貙 賵氐賵賱丕賸 廿賱賶 賲賮賰乇賷 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱毓卮乇賷賳. 賱丕 睾乇丕亘丞 廿匕丕賸 兀賳 賷賯賵賲 丕賱賲丐賱賾賮 賮賷 賰賱賾 亘丕亘 賲賳 丕賱兀亘賵丕亘 丕賱禺賲爻丞 丕賱鬲賷 賷鬲賰賵賾賳 賲賳賴丕 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘乇丨賱丞 賮賷 鬲丕乇賷禺 賴匕丕 丕賱賲鬲氐賵賾乇 兀賵 匕丕賰貙 亘丨孬丕賸 毓賳 丕賱賲丨胤丕鬲 丕賱賴丕賲賾丞 丕賱鬲賷 賲乇賾 亘賴丕 丕賱賮賰乇 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳賷 賮賷 賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱賱睾丞 毓亘乇 丕賱賯乇賵賳.
廿賳 丕賱賳馗乇丞 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲鬲禺賱賾賱 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱賷爻鬲 賲噩乇賾丿 爻乇丿賺 賱賲丕 賰丕賳 賯丿 賯丕賱賴 丕賱賯丿丕賲賶 賰賲丕 賱賷爻鬲 賲賰賲賾賱丞 賱禺胤丕亘 賷乇賷丿 鬲丨賷賷賳 丕賱兀亘丨丕孬 賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱賲爻丕卅賱貙 亘賱 廿賳 丕賱賲乇丕丿 亘賴丕 賴賵 丨賱賾 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱賲毓囟賱丕鬲 亘丕賱乇噩賵毓 廿賱賶 丕賱賱丨馗丞 丕賱鬲賷 賳卮兀 賮賷賴丕 賴匕丕 丕賱賲鬲氐賵賾乇 兀賵 匕丕賰.
賴匕賴 丕賱賳馗乇丞 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷賾丞 賵賴匕賴 丕賱賲丨丕賵賱丞 丕賱噩乇賷卅丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賱禺賾氐 兀賴賲賾 賲丕 賯賷賱 亘禺氐賵氐 丕賱毓賱丕賲丞 賵丕賱乇賲夭 賵丕賱爻賳賳 賵丕賱賯丕賲賵爻 賵丕賱賲賵爻賵毓丞貙 廿囟丕賮丞賸賸 廿賱賶 丕賱丕爻賴丕賲丕鬲 丕賱賴丕賲賾丞 丕賱鬲賷 賯丿賾賲賴丕 廿賷賰賵 賯亘賱 匕賱賰 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘賷賴 丿乇丕爻丞 賮賷 丕賱爻賷賲賷丕卅賷丞 丕賱毓丕賲賾丞 賵丕賱賯丕乇卅 賮賷 丕賱丨賰丕賷丞貙 鬲噩毓賱丕賳 賲賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賲丐賱賾賮 賲乇噩毓丕 兀爻丕爻賷賾丕 賱賰賱賾 丿丕乇爻 賮賷 丕賱爻賷賲賷丕卅賷賾丞 賵賮賷 賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱賱睾丞 亘氐賮丞 毓丕賲賾丞.
賵賯丿 賲孬賾賱鬲 賴匕賴 丕賱賲鬲氐賵賾乇丕鬲 賵丕賱丕卮賰丕賱賷賾丕鬲 丕賱賳丕鬲噩丞 毓賳賴丕 賲賵囟賵毓 賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱賱睾丞貙 丕賳胤賱丕賯丕賸 賲賳 兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 賵兀乇爻胤賵貙 賵氐賵賱丕賸 廿賱賶 賲賮賰乇賷 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱毓卮乇賷賳. 賱丕 睾乇丕亘丞 廿匕丕賸 兀賳 賷賯賵賲 丕賱賲丐賱賾賮 賮賷 賰賱賾 亘丕亘 賲賳 丕賱兀亘賵丕亘 丕賱禺賲爻丞 丕賱鬲賷 賷鬲賰賵賾賳 賲賳賴丕 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘乇丨賱丞 賮賷 鬲丕乇賷禺 賴匕丕 丕賱賲鬲氐賵賾乇 兀賵 匕丕賰貙 亘丨孬丕賸 毓賳 丕賱賲丨胤丕鬲 丕賱賴丕賲賾丞 丕賱鬲賷 賲乇賾 亘賴丕 丕賱賮賰乇 丕賱丕賳爻丕賳賷 賮賷 賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱賱睾丞 毓亘乇 丕賱賯乇賵賳.
廿賳 丕賱賳馗乇丞 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲鬲禺賱賾賱 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱賷爻鬲 賲噩乇賾丿 爻乇丿賺 賱賲丕 賰丕賳 賯丿 賯丕賱賴 丕賱賯丿丕賲賶 賰賲丕 賱賷爻鬲 賲賰賲賾賱丞 賱禺胤丕亘 賷乇賷丿 鬲丨賷賷賳 丕賱兀亘丨丕孬 賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱賲爻丕卅賱貙 亘賱 廿賳 丕賱賲乇丕丿 亘賴丕 賴賵 丨賱賾 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱賲毓囟賱丕鬲 亘丕賱乇噩賵毓 廿賱賶 丕賱賱丨馗丞 丕賱鬲賷 賳卮兀 賮賷賴丕 賴匕丕 丕賱賲鬲氐賵賾乇 兀賵 匕丕賰.
賴匕賴 丕賱賳馗乇丞 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷賾丞 賵賴匕賴 丕賱賲丨丕賵賱丞 丕賱噩乇賷卅丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賱禺賾氐 兀賴賲賾 賲丕 賯賷賱 亘禺氐賵氐 丕賱毓賱丕賲丞 賵丕賱乇賲夭 賵丕賱爻賳賳 賵丕賱賯丕賲賵爻 賵丕賱賲賵爻賵毓丞貙 廿囟丕賮丞賸賸 廿賱賶 丕賱丕爻賴丕賲丕鬲 丕賱賴丕賲賾丞 丕賱鬲賷 賯丿賾賲賴丕 廿賷賰賵 賯亘賱 匕賱賰 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘賷賴 丿乇丕爻丞 賮賷 丕賱爻賷賲賷丕卅賷丞 丕賱毓丕賲賾丞 賵丕賱賯丕乇卅 賮賷 丕賱丨賰丕賷丞貙 鬲噩毓賱丕賳 賲賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賲丐賱賾賮 賲乇噩毓丕 兀爻丕爻賷賾丕 賱賰賱賾 丿丕乇爻 賮賷 丕賱爻賷賲賷丕卅賷賾丞 賵賮賷 賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱賱睾丞 亘氐賮丞 毓丕賲賾丞.
510 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1984
48 people are currently reading
2,083 people want to read
About the author
Umberto Eco
890听books11.6k听followersUmberto Eco was an Italian medievalist, philosopher, semiotician, novelist, cultural critic, and political and social commentator. In English, he is best known for his popular 1980 novel The Name of the Rose, a historical mystery combining semiotics in fiction with biblical analysis, medieval studies and literary theory, as well as Foucault's Pendulum, his 1988 novel which touches on similar themes.
Eco wrote prolifically throughout his life, with his output including children's books, translations from French and English, in addition to a twice-monthly newspaper column "La Bustina di Minerva" (Minerva's Matchbook) in the magazine L'Espresso beginning in 1985, with his last column (a critical appraisal of the Romantic paintings of Francesco Hayez) appearing 27 January 2016. At the time of his death, he was an Emeritus professor at the University of Bologna, where he taught for much of his life. In the 21st century, he has continued to gain recognition for his 1995 essay "Ur-Fascism", where Eco lists fourteen general properties he believes comprise fascist ideologies.
Eco wrote prolifically throughout his life, with his output including children's books, translations from French and English, in addition to a twice-monthly newspaper column "La Bustina di Minerva" (Minerva's Matchbook) in the magazine L'Espresso beginning in 1985, with his last column (a critical appraisal of the Romantic paintings of Francesco Hayez) appearing 27 January 2016. At the time of his death, he was an Emeritus professor at the University of Bologna, where he taught for much of his life. In the 21st century, he has continued to gain recognition for his 1995 essay "Ur-Fascism", where Eco lists fourteen general properties he believes comprise fascist ideologies.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
August 9, 2017
賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷賳丕賯卮 丕賷賰賵 禺賲爻丞 賲賮丕賴賷賲 爻賷賲賷丕卅賷丞 賵賴賷: 丕賱毓賱丕賲丞貙 丕賱賲丿賱賵賱貙 丕賱丕爻鬲毓丕乇丞 賵丕賱乇賲夭 賵丕賱爻賳賳 賵匕賱賰 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丕爻鬲賯乇丕亍 丕賱亘毓丿 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷 賵丕賱賳馗乇賷 賱賴丕. 賵賴賵 禺氐 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 丕賱賳賯丕卮 賵丕賱丨丿賷孬 丨賵賱 丕賱爻賷賲賷丕卅賷丕鬲 丕賱禺氐賵氐賷丞貙 賲鬲賲孬賱丞 亘毓賱賲 丕賱毓賱丕賲丞貙 賲亘鬲毓丿丕 毓賳 丕賱爻賷賲賷丕卅賷丞 丕賱鬲胤亘賷賯賷丞 賰賵賳賴丕 匕丕鬲 丨丿賵丿 睾賷乇 丿賯賷賯丞. 賲毓鬲亘乇丕 丕賱爻賷賲賷丕卅賷丞 丕賱毓丕賲丞 丕賱賵噩賴 兀賵 丕賱卮賰賱 丕賱兀賰孬乇 賳囟噩丕賸 賱賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱賱睾丞 .
賵賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱賱睾丞 賰賲丕 賷乇賶 丕賷賰賵 賱丕 鬲賯鬲氐乇 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲兀賲賱 賵丕賱丿乇丕爻丞 賮賷 丕賱賲賳馗賵乇 丕賱氐賵乇賷貙 賵賲賳胤賯 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷丞貙 賵毓賱賲 丕賱丿賱丕賱丞貙 賵丕賱賳丨賵 賵丕賱鬲丿丕賵賱賷丞 賲賳 夭丕賵賷丞 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 丕賱賱賮馗賷丞 賮丨爻亘貙 亘賱 賷鬲毓丿賶 匕賱賰 賮賷 賮賴賲 賵丕丿乇丕賰 兀賳馗賲丞 丕賱毓賱丕賲丕鬲.
丕賱爻賷賲賷丕卅賷丞 賱丕 鬲賴鬲賲 亘賳賵毓 賲毓賷賳 賲賳 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍貙 亘賱 亘賰賳賴 賴匕賴 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍 毓賱賶 亘爻丕胤鬲賴丕貙 丨賷賳賲丕 鬲爻丕賴賲 賮賷 毓賲賱賷丞 鬲賵賱賷丿 丕賱丿賱丕賱丞.
鬲賰賲賳 兀賴賲賷丞 丿乇丕爻丞 丕賱丿丕賱 賵丕賱賲丿賱賵賱 賮賷 囟乇賵乇丕鬲 賯乇丕亍丞 賵賳賯丿 丕賱賳氐 丕賱賯乇丕卅賷 賵賰匕賱賰 鬲乇噩賲鬲賴. 丨賷孬 賲賳 丕賱賲賴賲 丕賱鬲賮乇賷賯 亘賷賳 賲丿賱賵賱 丕賱兀賱賮丕馗 丕賱賲賮乇丿丞 ( 丕賱賲丿賱賵賱 丕賱賲毓噩賲賷) 賵丕賱賲丿賱賵賱 丕賱賳氐賷賾貙 賵丕賱賮丕乇賯 亘賷賳 丕賱賲丿賱賵賱 丕賱賲亘丕卮乇 賵睾賷乇 丕賱賲亘丕卮乇貙 賱賮賴賲 賵丕丿乇丕賰 丕賱賲毓賳賶 丕賱賲乇丕丿 鬲兀賵賷賱賴 ( 賲爻兀賱丞 丕賱鬲丿丕賵賱賷丞).
賵賰賲丕 賷賯賵賱 賮賷鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 : " 廿賳 賲丿賱賵賱 賰賱賲丞 賴賵 丕爻鬲毓賲丕賱賴丕 賮賷 丕賱賱睾丞貙 賵廿賳 賮賴賲 賰賱賲丞 賷毓賳賷 賲毓乇賮丞 賰賷賮賷丞 丕爻鬲毓賲丕賱賴丕 賵丕賱賯丿乇丞 毓賱賶 鬲胤亘賷賯賴丕.| 賰賲丕 賯丕賱: 鬲賮爻賷乇 丕賱賲丿賱賵賱 賷賮爻乇 丕爻鬲毓賲丕賱 丕賱賰賱賲丞."
賴賵 " 兀賳 賳賮賴賲 丕賱賱睾丞 (賱) 賱丕 毓賱賶 兀賳賴丕 賯丕賲賵爻 賲禺鬲氐乇 賵 賱賰賳 亘丕毓鬲亘丕乇賴丕 賳馗丕賲丕賸 賲毓賯丿丕賸 賲賳 丕賱賰賮丕亍丕鬲 丕賱賲賵爻賵毓賷丞. "
亘丕賱丕囟丕賮丞 丕賱賶 丕賱丕賴鬲賲丕賲 亘丕賱禺丕氐賷丕鬲 丕賱鬲丨賱賷賱賷丞 賵丕賱鬲兀賱賷賮賷丞 賵丿賵乇賴丕 賮賷 丕賱丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 .
賷賲賰賳賳丕 兀賳 賳氐賮 爻賷賲賷丕卅賷丞 丕賷賰賵 賰丕賱鬲丕賱賷 " 兀賳孬乇賵亘賵賱賵噩賷丞 孬賯丕賮賷丞 鬲毓鬲乇賮 亘丕賱毓賱丕賲丕鬲 丕賱賲賯賵賱賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲乇丕賴賳 毓賱賷賴丕 丕賱丕爻鬲毓丕乇丕鬲 貙 賵鬲毓賲賱 毓賱賶 賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱賲賱丕亘爻丕鬲 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 賱賴匕賴 丕賱毓賱丕賲丕鬲 賵賳卮兀鬲賴丕 賵鬲賳賵毓賴丕 . 賰賲丕 鬲乇睾亘 賮賷 賲毓乇賮丞 兀賳賵丕毓 丕賱兀毓賲丕賱 賵丕賱兀賷賯賵賳丕鬲 賵丕賱禺乇丕賮丕鬲."
-丕賱兀賳孬乇賵亘賵賱賵噩賷丞 丕賱乇賲夭賷丞 賲賳 丕賱丿乇丕爻丕鬲 丕賱賲賴賲丞 賮賷 賮賴賲 丕賱乇賲賵夭 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷丞 賵賲丕 鬲賳鬲噩賴 賲賳 毓賱丕賲丕鬲 賵丕賱鬲賷 鬲毓丿 賲賴賲丞 賮賷 賯乇丕亍丞 亘毓囟 氐賵乇 丕賱賮乇丿 ( 賰-丕賱噩爻丿賷丞) 賮賷 丕賱賳馗丕賲 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷. "丨賷孬 賱賰賱 賲賮賴賵賲 賯丕毓丿丞 丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 賵 亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 爻賷賲賷丕卅賷丞"
賷賰賲賳 噩賲丕賱 丿乇丕爻丞 兀賵 鬲毓賱賲 丕賱爻賷賲賷丕卅賷丞 賮賷 賮賴賲 賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱毓賱丕賲丕鬲 賵賮賰 卮賷賮乇丕鬲賴丕 貙 丕賱鬲賷 鬲毓賷賳賳丕 毓賱賶 鬲賮爻賷乇 丕賱爻賱賵賰 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷.
兀賲亘乇鬲賵 丕賷賰賵 賲賮賰乇 賵 亘丕丨孬 乇丕卅毓貙 賱噩兀 丕賱賶 丕賱鬲丨賱賷賱 丕賱賲丨丕賷孬 賮賷 賯乇丕亍丞 賵丕爻鬲賯乇丕亍 亘賳丕賳 丕賱爻賷賲賷丕卅賷丞. 廿賳賴 禺賷賲賷丕卅賷 丕賱爻賷賲賷丕卅賷丞 亘丕賲鬲賷丕夭.
賵賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱賱睾丞 賰賲丕 賷乇賶 丕賷賰賵 賱丕 鬲賯鬲氐乇 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲兀賲賱 賵丕賱丿乇丕爻丞 賮賷 丕賱賲賳馗賵乇 丕賱氐賵乇賷貙 賵賲賳胤賯 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷丞貙 賵毓賱賲 丕賱丿賱丕賱丞貙 賵丕賱賳丨賵 賵丕賱鬲丿丕賵賱賷丞 賲賳 夭丕賵賷丞 丕賱賱睾丕鬲 丕賱賱賮馗賷丞 賮丨爻亘貙 亘賱 賷鬲毓丿賶 匕賱賰 賮賷 賮賴賲 賵丕丿乇丕賰 兀賳馗賲丞 丕賱毓賱丕賲丕鬲.
丕賱爻賷賲賷丕卅賷丞 賱丕 鬲賴鬲賲 亘賳賵毓 賲毓賷賳 賲賳 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍貙 亘賱 亘賰賳賴 賴匕賴 丕賱兀卮賷丕亍 毓賱賶 亘爻丕胤鬲賴丕貙 丨賷賳賲丕 鬲爻丕賴賲 賮賷 毓賲賱賷丞 鬲賵賱賷丿 丕賱丿賱丕賱丞.
鬲賰賲賳 兀賴賲賷丞 丿乇丕爻丞 丕賱丿丕賱 賵丕賱賲丿賱賵賱 賮賷 囟乇賵乇丕鬲 賯乇丕亍丞 賵賳賯丿 丕賱賳氐 丕賱賯乇丕卅賷 賵賰匕賱賰 鬲乇噩賲鬲賴. 丨賷孬 賲賳 丕賱賲賴賲 丕賱鬲賮乇賷賯 亘賷賳 賲丿賱賵賱 丕賱兀賱賮丕馗 丕賱賲賮乇丿丞 ( 丕賱賲丿賱賵賱 丕賱賲毓噩賲賷) 賵丕賱賲丿賱賵賱 丕賱賳氐賷賾貙 賵丕賱賮丕乇賯 亘賷賳 丕賱賲丿賱賵賱 丕賱賲亘丕卮乇 賵睾賷乇 丕賱賲亘丕卮乇貙 賱賮賴賲 賵丕丿乇丕賰 丕賱賲毓賳賶 丕賱賲乇丕丿 鬲兀賵賷賱賴 ( 賲爻兀賱丞 丕賱鬲丿丕賵賱賷丞).
賵賰賲丕 賷賯賵賱 賮賷鬲睾賳卮鬲丕賷賳 : " 廿賳 賲丿賱賵賱 賰賱賲丞 賴賵 丕爻鬲毓賲丕賱賴丕 賮賷 丕賱賱睾丞貙 賵廿賳 賮賴賲 賰賱賲丞 賷毓賳賷 賲毓乇賮丞 賰賷賮賷丞 丕爻鬲毓賲丕賱賴丕 賵丕賱賯丿乇丞 毓賱賶 鬲胤亘賷賯賴丕.| 賰賲丕 賯丕賱: 鬲賮爻賷乇 丕賱賲丿賱賵賱 賷賮爻乇 丕爻鬲毓賲丕賱 丕賱賰賱賲丞."
賴賵 " 兀賳 賳賮賴賲 丕賱賱睾丞 (賱) 賱丕 毓賱賶 兀賳賴丕 賯丕賲賵爻 賲禺鬲氐乇 賵 賱賰賳 亘丕毓鬲亘丕乇賴丕 賳馗丕賲丕賸 賲毓賯丿丕賸 賲賳 丕賱賰賮丕亍丕鬲 丕賱賲賵爻賵毓賷丞. "
亘丕賱丕囟丕賮丞 丕賱賶 丕賱丕賴鬲賲丕賲 亘丕賱禺丕氐賷丕鬲 丕賱鬲丨賱賷賱賷丞 賵丕賱鬲兀賱賷賮賷丞 賵丿賵乇賴丕 賮賷 丕賱丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 .
賷賲賰賳賳丕 兀賳 賳氐賮 爻賷賲賷丕卅賷丞 丕賷賰賵 賰丕賱鬲丕賱賷 " 兀賳孬乇賵亘賵賱賵噩賷丞 孬賯丕賮賷丞 鬲毓鬲乇賮 亘丕賱毓賱丕賲丕鬲 丕賱賲賯賵賱賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲乇丕賴賳 毓賱賷賴丕 丕賱丕爻鬲毓丕乇丕鬲 貙 賵鬲毓賲賱 毓賱賶 賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱賲賱丕亘爻丕鬲 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 賱賴匕賴 丕賱毓賱丕賲丕鬲 賵賳卮兀鬲賴丕 賵鬲賳賵毓賴丕 . 賰賲丕 鬲乇睾亘 賮賷 賲毓乇賮丞 兀賳賵丕毓 丕賱兀毓賲丕賱 賵丕賱兀賷賯賵賳丕鬲 賵丕賱禺乇丕賮丕鬲."
-丕賱兀賳孬乇賵亘賵賱賵噩賷丞 丕賱乇賲夭賷丞 賲賳 丕賱丿乇丕爻丕鬲 丕賱賲賴賲丞 賮賷 賮賴賲 丕賱乇賲賵夭 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷丞 賵賲丕 鬲賳鬲噩賴 賲賳 毓賱丕賲丕鬲 賵丕賱鬲賷 鬲毓丿 賲賴賲丞 賮賷 賯乇丕亍丞 亘毓囟 氐賵乇 丕賱賮乇丿 ( 賰-丕賱噩爻丿賷丞) 賮賷 丕賱賳馗丕賲 丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷. "丨賷孬 賱賰賱 賲賮賴賵賲 賯丕毓丿丞 丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 賵 亘丕賱鬲丕賱賷 爻賷賲賷丕卅賷丞"
賷賰賲賳 噩賲丕賱 丿乇丕爻丞 兀賵 鬲毓賱賲 丕賱爻賷賲賷丕卅賷丞 賮賷 賮賴賲 賯賵丕賳賷賳 丕賱毓賱丕賲丕鬲 賵賮賰 卮賷賮乇丕鬲賴丕 貙 丕賱鬲賷 鬲毓賷賳賳丕 毓賱賶 鬲賮爻賷乇 丕賱爻賱賵賰 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷.
兀賲亘乇鬲賵 丕賷賰賵 賲賮賰乇 賵 亘丕丨孬 乇丕卅毓貙 賱噩兀 丕賱賶 丕賱鬲丨賱賷賱 丕賱賲丨丕賷孬 賮賷 賯乇丕亍丞 賵丕爻鬲賯乇丕亍 亘賳丕賳 丕賱爻賷賲賷丕卅賷丞. 廿賳賴 禺賷賲賷丕卅賷 丕賱爻賷賲賷丕卅賷丞 亘丕賲鬲賷丕夭.
May 8, 2013
I am not actually going to review this book. This book has chapters with titles such as "Discursive isotopies within sentences with paradigmatic disjunction". I read every word, I didn't understand every word. I probably understood a tiny fraction of the words.
I wanted to read a book about Semiotics and the library didn't have many to choose from so I picked some from university libraries to borrow but some were unavailable and I ended up with this one.
There was a lot of "food for thought" about metaphors in here! And the last chapter on mirrors (note: mirrors are NOT signs) was very good and understandable to a lay person like me.
What wasn't so understandable (to me) were the quotations in French or Latin with no translation, there being an assumption I could read more than just English.
I did like Eco's sense of humor peeking through here and there in the middle of his scientific discourses. In the Mirror chapter, for instance, he talks about how is facing a mirror as he is writing and "before deciding whether the door handle is on the right or on the left. . .in the event I wanted to throw my lighter and hit the handle. . . " Wait? What? He's smoking? Wow.
In the meantime, always remember "Greimas has admitted that the isotopies can take place also on the expression-plan, by accepting a minimal definition according to which isotopy is the iterativity of linguistic units, be it manifested or not at the expression plane, belonging to both expression and content."
I'll keep on reading and I'll get it eventually.
I wanted to read a book about Semiotics and the library didn't have many to choose from so I picked some from university libraries to borrow but some were unavailable and I ended up with this one.
There was a lot of "food for thought" about metaphors in here! And the last chapter on mirrors (note: mirrors are NOT signs) was very good and understandable to a lay person like me.
What wasn't so understandable (to me) were the quotations in French or Latin with no translation, there being an assumption I could read more than just English.
I did like Eco's sense of humor peeking through here and there in the middle of his scientific discourses. In the Mirror chapter, for instance, he talks about how is facing a mirror as he is writing and "before deciding whether the door handle is on the right or on the left. . .in the event I wanted to throw my lighter and hit the handle. . . " Wait? What? He's smoking? Wow.
In the meantime, always remember "Greimas has admitted that the isotopies can take place also on the expression-plan, by accepting a minimal definition according to which isotopy is the iterativity of linguistic units, be it manifested or not at the expression plane, belonging to both expression and content."
I'll keep on reading and I'll get it eventually.
Shelved as 'paper-copy'
December 28, 2013兀匕賰乇 兀賳賷 丨丕賵賱鬲 賯乇丕亍鬲賴 賯亘賱 爻賳賵丕鬲
賵 賱賰賳賷 丨賷賳賴丕 賱賲 兀賮賴賲 爻賵賶 賲賯丿賲鬲賴 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 賵 丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳鬲 噩賲賷賱丞 噩丿丕
賵 賱賰賳賷 亘毓丿 匕賱賰 賱賲 兀賮賴賲 卮賷卅丕 賮鬲乇賰鬲賴
丕賰鬲卮賮鬲 兀賳賴 賰鬲丕亘 賲鬲賯丿賲 賮賷 賮賳賴
賵 賱賷爻 鬲兀爻賷爻賷丕
兀馗賳 亘毓丿 賴匕賴 丕賱爻賳賵丕鬲貙 賷爻鬲丨賯 廿毓丕丿丞 丕賱賲丨丕賵賱丞
賵 賱賰賳賷 丨賷賳賴丕 賱賲 兀賮賴賲 爻賵賶 賲賯丿賲鬲賴 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 賵 丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳鬲 噩賲賷賱丞 噩丿丕
賵 賱賰賳賷 亘毓丿 匕賱賰 賱賲 兀賮賴賲 卮賷卅丕 賮鬲乇賰鬲賴
丕賰鬲卮賮鬲 兀賳賴 賰鬲丕亘 賲鬲賯丿賲 賮賷 賮賳賴
賵 賱賷爻 鬲兀爻賷爻賷丕
兀馗賳 亘毓丿 賴匕賴 丕賱爻賳賵丕鬲貙 賷爻鬲丨賯 廿毓丕丿丞 丕賱賲丨丕賵賱丞
November 27, 2013
Eco should write novels.
April 10, 2014
A must if you are a Semiotics student!
July 31, 2019
I like Eco because he bridges Academia and Occult quite seamlessly. He is a bit thick for my comprehension levels, I constantly have to look up words and reread paragraphs. His insights are agreeable and I love considering signs, symbols, semantics.
November 19, 2012
The bible of semiotics
February 28, 2019
Moments of genius wrapped in layers of obfuscation. If I could rate it 3.5/5, I would.
May 16, 2021
The learned philosopher can only marvel at the power of natural language to describe, if not verily to construct the world. Impressive enough as far as natural history and science go, but the epiphanic capacity of man鈥檚 faculty of language comes into its own when we turn to the social and cultural realms, where language plays a constitutive role. No wonder the ancient Greeks comprehended both language and reason itself under the single term, logos! Now, at the root of all this lies the significatory function of the word itself. Thus, the discipline of semiotics, which studies the nature of signs and the processes of their formation, must be exciting and key to a cultivated appreciation of knowledge and of the life of the mind, that which is highest in us. Or so one would suppose. Hence, one should welcome it when a celebrated literary figure such as the Italian novelist Umberto Eco takes it upon himself to write an exposition of these phenomena in the work presently under review, Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language.
The book does put forward some worthwhile conceits, at least to one new to the field of semiotics. The first chapter on signs in general is stimulating, with its discussion among other things of the Stoic semainon and abduction. Smoke is a sign of fire, and in a similar sense the ancients were disposed to look on the spoken word as a sign of what is on the speaker鈥檚 mind. In other words, an indicator of or clue to something else, to be interpreted and investigated with the methods of physics. Nowadays, we restrict signs to their linguistic usage.
The distinction between a dictionary and an encyclopedia, to which chapter two is devoted, is also provocative. A dictionary encodes the knowledge one could impart to an artificial intelligence. A computer program could interpret one thing as standing for another, in a finite chain leading back to the elementary notions. But of course, no real knowledge is thereby conferred. An encyclopedia, on the other hand, does embody knowledge. From an encyclopedia entry, one can gather the relevant contexts in which a term will appear and some narrative understanding of how terms relate to one another (he calls these 鈥榮cripts鈥�). Thus, one can expect an encyclopedia to convey stereotypes and commonsense knowledge of the kind that every native speaker of a language makes constant implicit use of. As such, an encyclopedia is potentially open-ended, unlike a dictionary, where the definitional chain is fixed and must eventually terminate. Eco likens the encyclopedia to a labyrinth. In his view, only the encyclopedia has semantic content, properly speaking, whereas a dictionary is best viewed as nothing but a pragmatic tool.
The most accomplished part of the entire book is Eco鈥檚 critique of the time-honored tree of Porphyry in chapter two. There is simply too much freedom of choice about what specific differentia to apply to what for the linear, hierarchically ordered structure of the canonical tree, such as was first adumbrated for taxonomical purposes by Aristotle in his biology and is presupposed by Porphyry鈥檚 Isagoge, to be adequate to the full range of human knowledge. Eco points out some of the alternate classificatory possibilities in diagrams, which go to show that it would be artificial to seek to compress everything we know into the stricture of a single tree. To this reviewer, what is really at stake here (although Eco does not remark upon it) is that conceptual space cannot be equipped with a strict total ordering, but at best partial orderings. To picture what this might mean, consider the set of subsets of a mathematical space, which is partially but not totally ordered by set inclusion. The implications for ontology of this observation strike the present reviewer as very profound, but Eco himself, not being much of a metaphysician, declines to pursue them.
Now to the main drawbacks. Eco gives the impression of being a typical scholar who has read too widely for his own good, in the sense that he ends up little more than an eclectic. Certainly, nothing here would prompt the reader to suspect him to have anything like assimilative power, the ability to forge his own views on the major topics he covers by drawing on the best ideas he can unearth in the literature and refashioning them into something stamped with his own genius. Rather, all he does is to take a scattershot approach and to treat his topics in isolation, without any organizing principle or overarching themes to connect them. In consequence, his writing is fragmentary, but not in the positive sense of early German Romanticism. There, a well-crafted fragment can serve as a window into an entire world and, moreover, exemplify the poetics of a Friedrich Schlegel, for whom the fragmentary form best reflects the limitations of human knowing when faced with the transcendent; here, in Eco we get merely a disjointed heap of pericopes on trendy present-day semioticians, some of whose names will be familiar while others are deservedly obscure. Illustrative example: the chapter on symbolism. In rapid-fire succession, Eco serves up a series of sections on Lacan, Freud, Peirce, Hegel, Jung, scriptural exegesis, the Kabbalah etc. but manifestly fails to arrive at anything like an adequate grip on his ostensible topic, what is a symbol? Yes, he recognizes that a symbol is more than a mere cipher or allegory, but just what this surplus consists in he cannot say, and neither can any of the authors to whom he adverts. For how could one possibly understand symbolism and its transporting force without a robust metaphysics and the analogy of being, which are foreclosed to an atheist such as Eco himself? Eco鈥檚 own allusions to mysticism and the patristic tradition are notably tone-deaf鈥攚hat is very revealing. He cites Henri de Lubac鈥檚 excellent monograph, Ex茅g猫se m茅di茅vale, but most apparently has not profited at all from his perusal of it.
For the real deal on symbolism one would have to go back to the medieval scholastics. One could heartily recommend the fourth volume of Peter Lombard鈥檚 Sentences and Hugh of Saint-Victor鈥檚 De sacramentis, written during the heady days of the twelfth century when the sacramental vision of reality as strewn with supernatural grace first emerged into theoretical consciousness (only to be negated during the Protestant Reformation, leading to listless modern man鈥檚 disenchantment鈥攂ut that is a story for another time). For a sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible spiritual presence, and in its beginnings sacramental theology did not limit itself to the seven canonical sacraments but saw literally everything as potentially sacramental. The mythopoetic consciousness of prehistoric man was saturated with sacramentality of this kind and the medievals wrought it into a state of high sophistication and artistry. This recensionist really must promise reviews of these two foundational works. Suffice it to say that the field of semiotics must become lifeless and inert when it forgets its religious roots, and Eco鈥檚 dry and unimaginative treatment of his subject, which by rights ought to be charged with vital concern, certainly confirms this a priori prediction.
Shortcomings such as those noted above are symptomatic of unoriginal thought; no trenchant argumentation, no coherence, no vision鈥攕urely it is easier to read widely and to bone up on the views of currently popular postmodern thinkers (Saussure, Derrida, Lacan, Barthes and so forth) and perhaps to excogitate a few clever rejoinders to their theories, than to undertake the hard effort of fleshing out an original, systematic perspective of one鈥檚 own on the subject. The academic journal literature is clogged with such scholarly infelicities, which nobody will remember a generation from now, once they have served their purpose of securing a comfortable career for their undistinguished authors. But don鈥檛 we have a right to expect more of an artist and public persona such as Umberto Eco? His little Art and Beauty in the Middle Ages is not all that bad, after all; it promises far more than he delivers in the present work on semiotics, which goes to show the difference between urbane erudition commonly met with and real speculative philosophical vigor, a rare gift indeed.
Second, this reviewer wishes to register his disappointment over discovering that Eco鈥檚 book scarcely contains what he thought he has the right to expect of it, given its title. In his na茂vet茅, he anticipated a revelatory analysis of lexicalization, the mysterious collective process whereby new terms are introduced into a living language. Another catchword for this would be semiosis (which presumably denotes something broader, in that not all signs have to be verbal). Whatever the jargon one chooses to employ, the idea is evidently of the greatest interest from a philosophical point of view. Nevertheless, in Eco semiosis is poorly explained, or what would be more accurate, neglected altogether. Strictly speaking, there is no philosophy of language per se to be found in Eco鈥檚 book, which barely gets past discussion of terminological issues. It is all well and good to be clear on one鈥檚 definitions, of course, but isn鈥檛 one supposed to go on and to apply them to explain something? That would be a proper philosophy of language. But Eco doesn鈥檛 even make the attempt.
The disappointment thereby encountered recalls that which befell the present reviewer upon hitting upon the shocking superficiality of T.S. Eliot鈥檚 notion of culture in his Notes toward a definition of culture, which occasions wonder as to how the esteemed poet could possibly have won his reputation in the first place as a leading literary figure of the first half of the twentieth century. Eliot is certainly no Herder, to say the least. Perhaps the comparison of Eco to Eliot is apt; just as the avant-garde modernist poet could have brought forth a number of creditable productions, among them the Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, The Hollow Men, Ash Wednesday and the Four Quartets while at the same time being hopelessly shallow as a literary critic and would-be philosopher of culture, so too Umberto Eco has the well-received (at least among the general reading public) novels The Name of the Rose and Foucault鈥檚 Pendulum to his name while being inept as a philosopher and semiotician, as this review has shown.
The present work has been rated two stars, although from the point of view of the intellectual quality of Eco鈥檚 performance it deserves only one, because, as it were despite its author, the attentive reader cannot fail to glean from it some instructive insights into the current state of the literature on semiotics in the second half of the twentieth century. Would that we had a source to go to that could offer an orderly presentation of the same, and what is more a just valuation of it!
The book does put forward some worthwhile conceits, at least to one new to the field of semiotics. The first chapter on signs in general is stimulating, with its discussion among other things of the Stoic semainon and abduction. Smoke is a sign of fire, and in a similar sense the ancients were disposed to look on the spoken word as a sign of what is on the speaker鈥檚 mind. In other words, an indicator of or clue to something else, to be interpreted and investigated with the methods of physics. Nowadays, we restrict signs to their linguistic usage.
The distinction between a dictionary and an encyclopedia, to which chapter two is devoted, is also provocative. A dictionary encodes the knowledge one could impart to an artificial intelligence. A computer program could interpret one thing as standing for another, in a finite chain leading back to the elementary notions. But of course, no real knowledge is thereby conferred. An encyclopedia, on the other hand, does embody knowledge. From an encyclopedia entry, one can gather the relevant contexts in which a term will appear and some narrative understanding of how terms relate to one another (he calls these 鈥榮cripts鈥�). Thus, one can expect an encyclopedia to convey stereotypes and commonsense knowledge of the kind that every native speaker of a language makes constant implicit use of. As such, an encyclopedia is potentially open-ended, unlike a dictionary, where the definitional chain is fixed and must eventually terminate. Eco likens the encyclopedia to a labyrinth. In his view, only the encyclopedia has semantic content, properly speaking, whereas a dictionary is best viewed as nothing but a pragmatic tool.
The most accomplished part of the entire book is Eco鈥檚 critique of the time-honored tree of Porphyry in chapter two. There is simply too much freedom of choice about what specific differentia to apply to what for the linear, hierarchically ordered structure of the canonical tree, such as was first adumbrated for taxonomical purposes by Aristotle in his biology and is presupposed by Porphyry鈥檚 Isagoge, to be adequate to the full range of human knowledge. Eco points out some of the alternate classificatory possibilities in diagrams, which go to show that it would be artificial to seek to compress everything we know into the stricture of a single tree. To this reviewer, what is really at stake here (although Eco does not remark upon it) is that conceptual space cannot be equipped with a strict total ordering, but at best partial orderings. To picture what this might mean, consider the set of subsets of a mathematical space, which is partially but not totally ordered by set inclusion. The implications for ontology of this observation strike the present reviewer as very profound, but Eco himself, not being much of a metaphysician, declines to pursue them.
Now to the main drawbacks. Eco gives the impression of being a typical scholar who has read too widely for his own good, in the sense that he ends up little more than an eclectic. Certainly, nothing here would prompt the reader to suspect him to have anything like assimilative power, the ability to forge his own views on the major topics he covers by drawing on the best ideas he can unearth in the literature and refashioning them into something stamped with his own genius. Rather, all he does is to take a scattershot approach and to treat his topics in isolation, without any organizing principle or overarching themes to connect them. In consequence, his writing is fragmentary, but not in the positive sense of early German Romanticism. There, a well-crafted fragment can serve as a window into an entire world and, moreover, exemplify the poetics of a Friedrich Schlegel, for whom the fragmentary form best reflects the limitations of human knowing when faced with the transcendent; here, in Eco we get merely a disjointed heap of pericopes on trendy present-day semioticians, some of whose names will be familiar while others are deservedly obscure. Illustrative example: the chapter on symbolism. In rapid-fire succession, Eco serves up a series of sections on Lacan, Freud, Peirce, Hegel, Jung, scriptural exegesis, the Kabbalah etc. but manifestly fails to arrive at anything like an adequate grip on his ostensible topic, what is a symbol? Yes, he recognizes that a symbol is more than a mere cipher or allegory, but just what this surplus consists in he cannot say, and neither can any of the authors to whom he adverts. For how could one possibly understand symbolism and its transporting force without a robust metaphysics and the analogy of being, which are foreclosed to an atheist such as Eco himself? Eco鈥檚 own allusions to mysticism and the patristic tradition are notably tone-deaf鈥攚hat is very revealing. He cites Henri de Lubac鈥檚 excellent monograph, Ex茅g猫se m茅di茅vale, but most apparently has not profited at all from his perusal of it.
For the real deal on symbolism one would have to go back to the medieval scholastics. One could heartily recommend the fourth volume of Peter Lombard鈥檚 Sentences and Hugh of Saint-Victor鈥檚 De sacramentis, written during the heady days of the twelfth century when the sacramental vision of reality as strewn with supernatural grace first emerged into theoretical consciousness (only to be negated during the Protestant Reformation, leading to listless modern man鈥檚 disenchantment鈥攂ut that is a story for another time). For a sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible spiritual presence, and in its beginnings sacramental theology did not limit itself to the seven canonical sacraments but saw literally everything as potentially sacramental. The mythopoetic consciousness of prehistoric man was saturated with sacramentality of this kind and the medievals wrought it into a state of high sophistication and artistry. This recensionist really must promise reviews of these two foundational works. Suffice it to say that the field of semiotics must become lifeless and inert when it forgets its religious roots, and Eco鈥檚 dry and unimaginative treatment of his subject, which by rights ought to be charged with vital concern, certainly confirms this a priori prediction.
Shortcomings such as those noted above are symptomatic of unoriginal thought; no trenchant argumentation, no coherence, no vision鈥攕urely it is easier to read widely and to bone up on the views of currently popular postmodern thinkers (Saussure, Derrida, Lacan, Barthes and so forth) and perhaps to excogitate a few clever rejoinders to their theories, than to undertake the hard effort of fleshing out an original, systematic perspective of one鈥檚 own on the subject. The academic journal literature is clogged with such scholarly infelicities, which nobody will remember a generation from now, once they have served their purpose of securing a comfortable career for their undistinguished authors. But don鈥檛 we have a right to expect more of an artist and public persona such as Umberto Eco? His little Art and Beauty in the Middle Ages is not all that bad, after all; it promises far more than he delivers in the present work on semiotics, which goes to show the difference between urbane erudition commonly met with and real speculative philosophical vigor, a rare gift indeed.
Second, this reviewer wishes to register his disappointment over discovering that Eco鈥檚 book scarcely contains what he thought he has the right to expect of it, given its title. In his na茂vet茅, he anticipated a revelatory analysis of lexicalization, the mysterious collective process whereby new terms are introduced into a living language. Another catchword for this would be semiosis (which presumably denotes something broader, in that not all signs have to be verbal). Whatever the jargon one chooses to employ, the idea is evidently of the greatest interest from a philosophical point of view. Nevertheless, in Eco semiosis is poorly explained, or what would be more accurate, neglected altogether. Strictly speaking, there is no philosophy of language per se to be found in Eco鈥檚 book, which barely gets past discussion of terminological issues. It is all well and good to be clear on one鈥檚 definitions, of course, but isn鈥檛 one supposed to go on and to apply them to explain something? That would be a proper philosophy of language. But Eco doesn鈥檛 even make the attempt.
The disappointment thereby encountered recalls that which befell the present reviewer upon hitting upon the shocking superficiality of T.S. Eliot鈥檚 notion of culture in his Notes toward a definition of culture, which occasions wonder as to how the esteemed poet could possibly have won his reputation in the first place as a leading literary figure of the first half of the twentieth century. Eliot is certainly no Herder, to say the least. Perhaps the comparison of Eco to Eliot is apt; just as the avant-garde modernist poet could have brought forth a number of creditable productions, among them the Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, The Hollow Men, Ash Wednesday and the Four Quartets while at the same time being hopelessly shallow as a literary critic and would-be philosopher of culture, so too Umberto Eco has the well-received (at least among the general reading public) novels The Name of the Rose and Foucault鈥檚 Pendulum to his name while being inept as a philosopher and semiotician, as this review has shown.
The present work has been rated two stars, although from the point of view of the intellectual quality of Eco鈥檚 performance it deserves only one, because, as it were despite its author, the attentive reader cannot fail to glean from it some instructive insights into the current state of the literature on semiotics in the second half of the twentieth century. Would that we had a source to go to that could offer an orderly presentation of the same, and what is more a just valuation of it!
March 20, 2015
Veramente difficile, ma non 茅 che non me lo potessi aspettare, sono comunque contenta di aver capito qualcosa e soprattutto di aver seguito abbastanza il discorso su Freud, Lacan e il simbolico. Magari un giorno riprender贸 in mano questo libro che sicuramente necessit谩 di pi煤 di una lettura superficiale.
March 13, 2022
While reading this I chuckled at the blurb on the back of this book that says something to the affect: "perfect for the lay reader." I consider myself a lay reader and found this rather challenging due to the sheer number of terms and references to which I was entirely ignorant. But the one thing I delight in when reading Eco (both fiction and non-fiction) is that even when he's over my head, he still manages to be enjoyable. So much of this book has to do with how language functions metaphorically and how semiotics is a process of interpreting these metaphors through a kind of cultural/language encyclopedia (as opposed to a dictionary... think, maybe web/tangents vs straight line/one-for-one correlations). In short, language is a kind of closed system:
But within that system is vast array of possibilities and semiotics must always wrestle with trying to capture a partial structure to any sign system and the variability/inferential possibilities within and between systems. Here he posits a rather entertaining example of how language allows us to communicate concepts and create terminologies for things prior to their existence:
Much of this book still feels like it went over my head. I did get a little help from PBS's excellent Linguistics Crash Course (specifically, the episode on morphology: ). In the penultimate chapter Eco takes a look at mirrors and differentiates them from symbols. I found this particular chapter utterly captivating and elucidating. It begins with how we frequently misinterpret reflections of ourselves:
What does all this mean? You cannot entirely trust words. Now proceed with your life as per usual knowing that you must.
------------------------------------
MOSTLY NEW-TO-ME WORDS/PHRASES/REFERENCES & A FEW IN NEED OF RE-INTRODUCTION
termic | emic | etic | univocal | apodictic | logical argument types | deduction/induction/abduction | ex novo | Porphry | Porphyrian tree | seme | sememe | ostension | hyperonyms | oneiric | implicature | catachresis | bestiaries | lapidaria | Physiologus | auctoritas | metonymy | paronomasia | syntagm | apologues | no nova sed nove | caritides | holophrastic | proairetic | s-code | yestimental | nomos | phusis | isotopy | ontogenesis | catoptric | denotatum | onomastics | aliquid | doxastic | asemiosic | Fata Morgana | Kuleshov effect
-------------------------------------
"Every discourse on metaphor originates in a radical choice: either (a) language is by nature, and originally, metaphorical, and the mechanism of metaphor establishes linguistic activity, every rule or convention arising thereafter in order to discipline, to reduce (and impoverish) the metaphorizing potential that defines man as a symbolic animal; or (b) language (and every other semiotic system) is a rule-governed mechanism, a predictive machine that says which phrases can be generated and which not, and which from those able to be generated are 鈥榞ood鈥� or 鈥榗orrect鈥�, or endowed with sense; a machine with regard to which the metaphor constitutes a breakdown, a malfunction, an unaccountable outcome, but at the same time the drive toward linguistic renewal. As can be seen,this opposition retraces the classical one between phusis and nomos, between analogy and anomaly, motivation and arbitrariness. 鈥� It is a metaphor that founds language, it is impossible to speak of metaphor unless metaphorically.
But within that system is vast array of possibilities and semiotics must always wrestle with trying to capture a partial structure to any sign system and the variability/inferential possibilities within and between systems. Here he posits a rather entertaining example of how language allows us to communicate concepts and create terminologies for things prior to their existence:
"Now let us suppose that, in order to avoid future world wars, the United Nations decided to establish a Peace Corps of ISC (Inter-Species Clones). This corps will be composed by half-human beings, to be produced by cloning, through a genetic hybridation of human punk rockers and speaking chimps trained in ASL. Such clones would guarantee a fair and unbiased international control, because they are independent of any national or ethnic heritage. The UN Assembly has to speak a lot about this new 鈥榥atural kind鈥� because the members must reach a final agreement鈥攖hat is, they have to speak about ISCs before ISCs exist, and just in order to make them exist. It is clear that, if there were any baptismal ceremony, what the UN christened as ISC was not an original 鈥榯hing鈥�, but the encyclopedic description of such a thing."
Much of this book still feels like it went over my head. I did get a little help from PBS's excellent Linguistics Crash Course (specifically, the episode on morphology: ). In the penultimate chapter Eco takes a look at mirrors and differentiates them from symbols. I found this particular chapter utterly captivating and elucidating. It begins with how we frequently misinterpret reflections of ourselves:
"But the point is that vertical mirrors themselves do not reverse or invert. A mirror reflects the right side exactly where the right side is, and the same with the left side. It is the observer (so ingenuous even when he is a scientist) who by self-identification imagines he is the man inside the mirror and, looking at himself, realizes he is wearing his watch on his right wrist. But it would be only if he, the observer I mean, were the one who is inside the mirror (Je est un autre!)."Ultimately, mirrors have a direct tie to their referents and cannot lie about that referent in the way that symbols can.
What does all this mean? You cannot entirely trust words. Now proceed with your life as per usual knowing that you must.
------------------------------------
MOSTLY NEW-TO-ME WORDS/PHRASES/REFERENCES & A FEW IN NEED OF RE-INTRODUCTION
termic | emic | etic | univocal | apodictic | logical argument types | deduction/induction/abduction | ex novo | Porphry | Porphyrian tree | seme | sememe | ostension | hyperonyms | oneiric | implicature | catachresis | bestiaries | lapidaria | Physiologus | auctoritas | metonymy | paronomasia | syntagm | apologues | no nova sed nove | caritides | holophrastic | proairetic | s-code | yestimental | nomos | phusis | isotopy | ontogenesis | catoptric | denotatum | onomastics | aliquid | doxastic | asemiosic | Fata Morgana | Kuleshov effect
-------------------------------------
September 18, 2020
This book was a long, slow, crawl. Eco appears on many must-read 'metaphor' lists, and as a reader of his novel The Name of the Rose, I was excited to dive into this non-fiction book. My reading was limited to four of the seven chapters (Signs, Symbols, Metaphor and Mirrors), and I confess 鈥� that was enough.
Overall, Eco offers interesting opinions regarding language, words, and signs, and their relationships. From the introduction onwards, Eco notes that signs are referred to as a pair (signifier and signified). In contrast, semiology is a triadic relationship between a sign, its object, and its interpretant. As such, it is as if any discussion henceforth will be akin to pushing a square peg into a round hole, or vice-versa. Nevertheless, Eco appears to argue, and successfully, that both can simultaneously be true. His primary focus throughout the book is the interpretant. He holds firm that interpretation is flexible, changeable, mobile, or as he says of semiotics itself 'nomadic'.
In what seems to be a recurring theme for Umberto Eco, the material in this book was in part published elsewhere 鈥� in particular the chapter 'Metaphor,' (was previously published as 'The Scandal of Metaphor' the year before). In this chapter, Eco reviews Aristotle's four types of metaphors. The first is exampled by; 'the ship stands there' and "is a form of synonymy whose generation and interpretation depend on a pre-existing Porphyrian tree." The second type (a form of synecdoche) uses an example provided by Aristotle 'Indeed ten thousand noble things Odysseus did,' where 'ten thousand' stand for 'many'. Eco distinguishes between these two types, stating the second type is "logically correct but rhetorically insipid, whereas metaphors of the first type are rhetorically acceptable but logically unjustifiable." The third type of metaphor given is two-fold: 'Then he drew off his life with the bronze and Then with the bronze cup he cut the water.' It is this third version which Eco states "genuinely seems to be a metaphor," because cutting = taking away and taking away = drawing off. Eco notes that a metaphor of this type can be illustrated with a simple ven diagram where 'taking away' becomes both a metaphorising and a metaphorised term.
Nonetheless, Eco finds the metaphor troublesome because it requires a two-fold movement of production and interpretation (which others call inventive construction and inventive construal). In other words, an ad-hoc Porphyrian Tree that must, to be understood correctly, be constructed with the same frame of reference. As he says, the operation must be "oriented by a [compatible] universe of discourse." Furthermore, this is a transactional event where features are transferred in a manner whereby something must be lost in order for something else to be gained. He believes, who wins and who loses is not always apparent in the transaction. The fourth and final version of metaphor is the most complex, where A/B is compared to C/D. Here, similarities mingle with dissimilarities. Overall Eco believes the first two types of metaphors are the worst; "impoverished, both conceptually and perceptually," because the metaphorising term is subconsciously absorbed by (or altogether leaves) the metaphorised term.
He goes on at length to investigate the four types of metaphor, noting, that the last two versions are not a matter of substitution but involve a "superimposition" of two things in a cognitively transparent way, an "almost visual" way. "In other words," as Eco writes, "two images are conflated, two things become different from themselves, and yet remain recognisable, and there is born a visual (as well conceptual) hybrid." Eco postulates that this is a potentially oneiric image similar to Freud's notion of 'condensation' ("where noncoincident traits can be dropped while those in common are reinforced"). Eco also explains that Aristotle's review of the four types of metaphor is potentially ambiguous because for the first three types Aristotle explains HOW metaphors are produced and understood (via the "inflexible logic of a Porphyrian tree"). However, for the fourth type, he only notes WHAT they enable us to know.
It was also interesting to note his opinion that even 'scarcely cognitive' metaphors, which are 'poor' and 'worn-out' are never absolutely 'closed'. A new-speaker of our language, for example, must apply trial and error to disambiguate 'she is a rose.' Alternatively, in addition to calling the opposite version 'ambiguous' metaphors, he uses the terms "open" and "unstable."
[As an aside, it becomes apparent when a break in reading is required when you notice that Umberto Eco keeps using the example "She is a birch", and you cannot help but get a goofy smirk imagining birch-girl. Incidentally, he also appears to recognise that his creature "is not very far from being a parody of itself."]
In his chapter on Signs, Eco defines three sorts: intended meaning, pictorial representation and inferential proof. He provides an example of a man wearing a red badge with 'a hammer and sickle' on it and notes that any or all three of the sign-versions could be in play. The overriding point appears to be that a sign 'does not stand for itself.' This chapter is dense and confusing, noting that from as long ago as the Stoics, philosophers have understood "the provisional and unstable nature of the sign-function." Of particular use is the model he presents for deduction, induction and abduction. Too hard to summarise here, the model has the potential to explain three types of architectural competition thinking; the architect is determining the rules of the brief to generate a design, the judges inferring how the rules were interpreted based on the images of the design submission, and how some designs can end up altering the rules of the game, for that competition or all competitions.
Although this book was confusing, with 200 plus pages of often impenetrable writing, there were many sentences or phrases which jumped out as 'quote-worthy.' For example, his neologism 'content nebula' is incredibly evocative. Similarly, taking on board the architectural inferences, his quote regarding philosophy is telling; "Affected as they are by a constitutive solipsism, philosophies can say everything about the world they design and very little about the world they help to construct."
[As a small complaint, I do not speak a second language, so I acknowledge that the significant disadvantage I have attempting to study any subject to do with languages is my fault alone. That said, the majority of the book had been translated into English, so it remains unclear why occasional sentences were not.]
To finish, here is what Umberto Eco says at the end of his introduction: "There are obviously other philosophical approaches, but I think that this one deserves some effort." As a novice reader in the field, 'some' effort is an understatement, but otherwise, I concur.
Overall, Eco offers interesting opinions regarding language, words, and signs, and their relationships. From the introduction onwards, Eco notes that signs are referred to as a pair (signifier and signified). In contrast, semiology is a triadic relationship between a sign, its object, and its interpretant. As such, it is as if any discussion henceforth will be akin to pushing a square peg into a round hole, or vice-versa. Nevertheless, Eco appears to argue, and successfully, that both can simultaneously be true. His primary focus throughout the book is the interpretant. He holds firm that interpretation is flexible, changeable, mobile, or as he says of semiotics itself 'nomadic'.
In what seems to be a recurring theme for Umberto Eco, the material in this book was in part published elsewhere 鈥� in particular the chapter 'Metaphor,' (was previously published as 'The Scandal of Metaphor' the year before). In this chapter, Eco reviews Aristotle's four types of metaphors. The first is exampled by; 'the ship stands there' and "is a form of synonymy whose generation and interpretation depend on a pre-existing Porphyrian tree." The second type (a form of synecdoche) uses an example provided by Aristotle 'Indeed ten thousand noble things Odysseus did,' where 'ten thousand' stand for 'many'. Eco distinguishes between these two types, stating the second type is "logically correct but rhetorically insipid, whereas metaphors of the first type are rhetorically acceptable but logically unjustifiable." The third type of metaphor given is two-fold: 'Then he drew off his life with the bronze and Then with the bronze cup he cut the water.' It is this third version which Eco states "genuinely seems to be a metaphor," because cutting = taking away and taking away = drawing off. Eco notes that a metaphor of this type can be illustrated with a simple ven diagram where 'taking away' becomes both a metaphorising and a metaphorised term.
Nonetheless, Eco finds the metaphor troublesome because it requires a two-fold movement of production and interpretation (which others call inventive construction and inventive construal). In other words, an ad-hoc Porphyrian Tree that must, to be understood correctly, be constructed with the same frame of reference. As he says, the operation must be "oriented by a [compatible] universe of discourse." Furthermore, this is a transactional event where features are transferred in a manner whereby something must be lost in order for something else to be gained. He believes, who wins and who loses is not always apparent in the transaction. The fourth and final version of metaphor is the most complex, where A/B is compared to C/D. Here, similarities mingle with dissimilarities. Overall Eco believes the first two types of metaphors are the worst; "impoverished, both conceptually and perceptually," because the metaphorising term is subconsciously absorbed by (or altogether leaves) the metaphorised term.
He goes on at length to investigate the four types of metaphor, noting, that the last two versions are not a matter of substitution but involve a "superimposition" of two things in a cognitively transparent way, an "almost visual" way. "In other words," as Eco writes, "two images are conflated, two things become different from themselves, and yet remain recognisable, and there is born a visual (as well conceptual) hybrid." Eco postulates that this is a potentially oneiric image similar to Freud's notion of 'condensation' ("where noncoincident traits can be dropped while those in common are reinforced"). Eco also explains that Aristotle's review of the four types of metaphor is potentially ambiguous because for the first three types Aristotle explains HOW metaphors are produced and understood (via the "inflexible logic of a Porphyrian tree"). However, for the fourth type, he only notes WHAT they enable us to know.
It was also interesting to note his opinion that even 'scarcely cognitive' metaphors, which are 'poor' and 'worn-out' are never absolutely 'closed'. A new-speaker of our language, for example, must apply trial and error to disambiguate 'she is a rose.' Alternatively, in addition to calling the opposite version 'ambiguous' metaphors, he uses the terms "open" and "unstable."
[As an aside, it becomes apparent when a break in reading is required when you notice that Umberto Eco keeps using the example "She is a birch", and you cannot help but get a goofy smirk imagining birch-girl. Incidentally, he also appears to recognise that his creature "is not very far from being a parody of itself."]
In his chapter on Signs, Eco defines three sorts: intended meaning, pictorial representation and inferential proof. He provides an example of a man wearing a red badge with 'a hammer and sickle' on it and notes that any or all three of the sign-versions could be in play. The overriding point appears to be that a sign 'does not stand for itself.' This chapter is dense and confusing, noting that from as long ago as the Stoics, philosophers have understood "the provisional and unstable nature of the sign-function." Of particular use is the model he presents for deduction, induction and abduction. Too hard to summarise here, the model has the potential to explain three types of architectural competition thinking; the architect is determining the rules of the brief to generate a design, the judges inferring how the rules were interpreted based on the images of the design submission, and how some designs can end up altering the rules of the game, for that competition or all competitions.
Although this book was confusing, with 200 plus pages of often impenetrable writing, there were many sentences or phrases which jumped out as 'quote-worthy.' For example, his neologism 'content nebula' is incredibly evocative. Similarly, taking on board the architectural inferences, his quote regarding philosophy is telling; "Affected as they are by a constitutive solipsism, philosophies can say everything about the world they design and very little about the world they help to construct."
[As a small complaint, I do not speak a second language, so I acknowledge that the significant disadvantage I have attempting to study any subject to do with languages is my fault alone. That said, the majority of the book had been translated into English, so it remains unclear why occasional sentences were not.]
To finish, here is what Umberto Eco says at the end of his introduction: "There are obviously other philosophical approaches, but I think that this one deserves some effort." As a novice reader in the field, 'some' effort is an understatement, but otherwise, I concur.
Read
March 2, 2015賱賲 兀賳賴賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貙 賮賴賵 賱丕 賷鬲賰賱賲 毓賳 毓賱賲 丕賱爻賷賲賷丕亍 賳賮爻賴 賵廿賳賲丕 賷丐爻爻 賱賱毓賱賲 賳賮爻賴 賵賷賵囟丨 丨丿賵丿賴 賵兀亘毓丕丿賴 賵毓賱丕賯鬲賴 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賷丞 亘賳馗乇賷丕鬲 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱賯丿賷賲丞 賵丕賱丨丿賷孬丞貙 賵丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賵噩賴 廿賱賶 丕賱賲禺鬲氐賷賳 兀爻丕爻賸丕 賮賷 毓賱賲 丕賱毓賱丕賲丞 賵賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱賱睾丞貙 賵賷賯賵賲 賮賴賵 賱丕 賷卮乇丨 丕賱賳馗乇賷丕鬲 賵廿賳賲丕 賷賳鬲賯丿賴丕貙 賵賱賴匕丕 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷賰賵鬲 亘賲孬丕亘丞 丕賱賲丿禺賱 賱賴匕丕 丕賱毓賱賲. 賯丿 兀毓賵丿 廿賱賷賴 賮賷 賵賯鬲 賲丕.
October 22, 2012
An excellent exercise in a little researched(for me)area. Signs as meaning, code as language, a lot of presuppositions on communication I've held are just a filigree and nothing more. Or, Quite a bit more depending on how you look at it and what it is.
Read
April 28, 2014very long extremely detailed historically based discussion of several elements of texts including signs and coding, metaphors and symbols, and interpretation of such, the basis of semiotics as I understand it.
Want to read
August 21, 2021I tried.
January 15, 2024
Amazonia
Gestaltic inelegance on parade
6/10
It seems to me, that you can divide the world's linguists into two categories. There are those who can use their linguistic insights to present their ideas clearly, simply and concisely, and there are those who instead use their linguistic insights to exhibit their vast knowledge of the subject via the liberal use of complexity, clever metaphor, and insider or otherwise obscure references and terminology. Eco is undeniably the consummate grandiloquent semiologue.
As Edmund Kean remarked, "Complexity is easy, simplicity is hard." Methinks the truly brilliant linguist, would be one of few words.
While reading this book, I just couldn't help thinking, what's wrong with this picture?
Is this rocket science?
No, I found here a pretentious alchemy, attempting to fashion lead into gold at the end of a semiotic rainbow.
To get a sense of some of the discourse, try this for size, the concluding sentence of the chapter on symbol:
"In any case, behind every strategy of the symbolic mode, be it religious or aesthetic, there is a legitimating theology, even though it is the atheistic theology of unlimited semiosis of or hermeneutics as deconstruction. A positive way to approach every instance of the symbolic mode would be to ask: which theology legitimates it?" p.163
So it ain't science, it's art. No, I take that back, it's a modern religious art (and seasoned with more than a little Dada).
Such pseudointellectual bourgeoisie seem to thrive on belaboring the number of linguistic angels that can dance on the head of a pin. That, and a propensity for name dropping. The true measure of any "science," analysis, or even a mere methodology, is its results. Where's the beef? Sure, Eco is known to tell a good story now and then, but so do many others. Did it really take deep semiotic study to get him there? Well, perhaps it did. I guess that's evidence. Of a sort. Of something.
Of course, many of these modern semioticians are trying to argue that language is fundamentally indeterminate-- by using their own ill-defined terminology and convoluted argumentation as example. Unfortunately, that only demonstrates THEY lack clarity of expression, not that such lack is inherent.
A more down to earth book on Semiotics is Daniel Chandler's Semiotics: The Basics. It's far more practical, and there's far less pretension. Still, it would appear that semioticians are yet struggling with basic definitions and lack coherent methodologies.
You'd think by now they'd have figured out enough to get better at communicating with each other, at least. What good is analysis if it doesn't net some understanding, other than to buffalo the deans of universities into paying your bills?
At this rate, significant semiotic insights are still a long ways off.
What should we expect to come out of it?
An awareness of cultural relationships and connections that will produce startling insights?
A new language that is more concise, or suggested refinements of existing languages?
The ability to communicate unique concepts that have been heretofore ineffable?
Or perhaps, something much more modest - the ability to identify and eliminate needless complexities and redundancies? Yes, I think that in particular would be a good start...
However, I do give Eco three stars, for effort and the fact that it has provided some comic relief. Irony indeed...
K. Doyle
March 20, 2024
Kind of boring for the most part. He's certainly more methodical and traditionally academically sensible than the stars of post-structuralism with whom he's somewhat associated (at least in my mind) via his hit novel 'The Name of the Rose', which played around with the big ideas of the day entertainingly.
The style, at the level of how he presents his material and arguments, falls somewhere between traditional academia and show-off, perhaps closer to the former, but he can't resist lots of name-dropping from the older philosophical tradition, beyond what's necessary, and a smattering of donnish facetiousness. It's not exactly a joy to read but it could be worse.
I like the chapter on 'Dictionary vs encyclopaedia' - it's well argued and back in the 80s it seemed like an interesting response to the reductive approaches to semantics then prevalent in theoretical linguistics, and perhaps it's still worth taking notice of today.
The English is weird, and no translator is named on my copy, so perhaps it's possible that Eco misguidedly decided to draft it in English himself? (Poorly, if at all, copy-edited, but I suppose they don't spend much on academic publications, even by names that had become more widely known.)
Probably only worth your time if you are fairly seriously interested in the titular subjects; but if you are, I'd say it is worth a reasonably thorough skim.
The style, at the level of how he presents his material and arguments, falls somewhere between traditional academia and show-off, perhaps closer to the former, but he can't resist lots of name-dropping from the older philosophical tradition, beyond what's necessary, and a smattering of donnish facetiousness. It's not exactly a joy to read but it could be worse.
I like the chapter on 'Dictionary vs encyclopaedia' - it's well argued and back in the 80s it seemed like an interesting response to the reductive approaches to semantics then prevalent in theoretical linguistics, and perhaps it's still worth taking notice of today.
The English is weird, and no translator is named on my copy, so perhaps it's possible that Eco misguidedly decided to draft it in English himself? (Poorly, if at all, copy-edited, but I suppose they don't spend much on academic publications, even by names that had become more widely known.)
Probably only worth your time if you are fairly seriously interested in the titular subjects; but if you are, I'd say it is worth a reasonably thorough skim.
October 7, 2023
still havent finished reading - did not approach reading this book chronologically, only sought out chapters individually when in need. The twists and turns and tight logic and metaphors and at times fictive elements in Eco's delineation of topics and semiotics surprisingly has an emotional impact. I often find myself in tears by the end of chapters. there was one zizek quote from Examined Life I think about every time when reading anything by eco (especially the academic works); - "we should develop a new, much more terrifying, abstract materialism, a kind of a mathematical universe, where there is nothing, where it's just formulas, technical forms and so on, and the difficult thing is to find poetry, spirituality, in these dimensions; to recreate鈥攊f not beauty鈥攖hen aesthetic dimension, in things like these: in trash. That's the true love of the world."
November 13, 2019
Very interesting read, not always easy to read to the uninitiated. Something interesting can be found by anyone interested in language structure and use.
December 6, 2020
Me ha gustado: profundo pero did谩ctico.
February 13, 2021
Wonderful read.
Read
October 4, 2024Read Chapter 2 on Dictionary vs. Encyclopedia - difficult reading but very insightful into the way that communication works.
March 19, 2013
Excellent book! Umberto Eco made his job magistrally!
June 29, 2015
More philosophy of language than semiotics.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.