Empedocles: European Journal for the Philosophy of Communication - Volume 12, Issue 1, 2021

This article aims to contribute to the Peircean studies by providing an account of the reception of Peirce’s philosophy in Russian academia. Peirce was introduced to Russian scholarship at the beginning of the twentieth century, but Russian scholars’ work on Peirce remains unnoticed for the most part in the international academic world. Presenting an outline of their research fills a certain gap in the Peircean studies demonstrating how Peirce was received in imperial Russia, the USSR and post-Soviet Russian academia. This overview can also serve, to some extent, as a contribution to the studies in cross-cultural communication, because the authors present Russian philosophers’ take on an American philosopher considered in the context of the changing historical and cultural landscape. From being introduced to Peirce via a francophone scholar at the beginning of the twentieth century to criticizing Peirce from the stance of dialectical materialism during the Cold War and exploring Peirce’s original work from various angles in the recent decades, Russophone academics could not avoid being affected by the complexity of cross-cultural communication.

Language can be cast through words and images where truth claims are thought to lie. They may be either embodied within language or indicate what transcends it. Yet expression is formed through the spoken, written words or images. But what about the imagistic: words doing the work of an image without employing the visual? To grasp how the latter has emerged, the shift in authority from the spoken to the written word will be undertaken. The importance of the shift from the written word to the image can be illustrated in the case of the Renaissance, for example, where the image in the book legitimated, the word. Today the word merely amplifies or justifies the image, located on a screen! From that development the imagistic has evolved raising the problem of its authority and thereby the issue of a concern for truth.

This article revisits the debate between Leibniz and Clarke to explore conceptual shifts in the use of the term medium. A basic tenet of physics since antiquity says that every act of communication – that is, every transmission of a force from the place of its cause to that of its effect – requires a medium to ensure its interaction. In the context of the Early Modern Period, media were regarded as mediating instances that enabled communication. If these instances were not immediately connected but rather spatially separated from one another – as in the case of gravitation, magnetism or electricity – then there had to be a medium to ensure both the transmission of the force and the causal connection. Although the mediation of the medium took place in an inexplicable way, it seemed to explain one process or another by its mere introduction. The epistemological foundations of communicability – those with which Leibniz, Clarke and Newton were attempting to come to terms – remain relevant to the descriptive language with which we depict our present and its technological condition. Without duration there is no mediation but rather immediacy and simultaneity. Immediacy means that the necessary separation between the two events, the abyss of communication, is negated. Immediacies, like instantaneous actions at a distance, presuppose the difference they are deemed to eradicate.

This article proposes a reading of Sarah Polley’s Stories We Tell (2012) through the work of Hannah Arendt and Adriana Cavarero. Far from being a simple homage to her late mother Diane, Polley’s film is a ‘polyphonic tale’, a complex and multi-layered narrative which allows for an exploration of the many functions of (cinematic) storytelling. Highlighting the close link between relating narratives and personal identity, the film sheds light on both the innate desire for biography that characterizes us as human beings and the complex and dynamic relationship between storytellers and listeners. The way we tell stories affects the narrator(s), their audience and the fabric of the story itself in a process that ensures both continuity and change. Referring to Arendt’s notion of political storytelling, I conclude by suggesting that Stories We Tell, like the Greek polis, functions as an ‘organized remembrance’, a community whose purpose is to preserve fragile human deeds and words from oblivion.

Communication presumes trust, but trust presumes risk. The main characteristic of trust is that it offers social stability, gives strength for mutual expectations and makes possible the construction of a common world. These traits make possible to present the temporal, spatial and identical aspects of trust. The confrontation of ‘traditional’ and online trust shows that there is not an essential difference between them but a relational one, the essence of trust appears on his relational mode. The relational approach makes evident that only the risky choice gives content for trust, in the sense that it is capable to open new, creative possibilities for communication.