Our article debates the issues at stake in the Heideggerian examination of the Umwelt theory in his Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics. This discussion sheds light on the links and differences between the lifeworld that is constituted as a set of meanings and interactions, and the world that opens up to Being, by providing a definition of the world as what is experienced through “the accessibility of beings” (Heidegger, 1983/1995, p. 196, §47), i.e. the lived relationship to the subjective world itself. (...) As Heidegger (1983/1995, p. 192, §46) theorizes the idea of the animal “poor in world” (based on the Uexküllian (1934/2010, p. 51) concept of “poverty”), he implies that both humans and animals perceive the fundamental nature of the world, albeit in different ways. Therefore, the article contends that the distinct treatment of human beings helps avoid confusion between the ontology of beings and their ontic biological structure. As Uexküll also makes the human being the exception in the harmonics of nature, we demonstrate that Uexküll’s statement of the human imperfection in fact prevents a biological reductionism. This article thus highlights the challenge, for biosemiotics, to provide a clear distinction between the ontology of living beings and their biological disposition. (shrink)

This paper investigates the reception and discussion of Jakob von Uexküll’s biological theory by two German thinkers of his time, Helmuth Plessner and Kurt Goldstein. It demonstrates how their bio-philosophical perspectives are on the one hand indebted to Uexküll’s theory and, on the other, critical of its tendency to excessively harmonize the relationship between living beings and their environment. This original critical reading of the _Umweltlehre_ is rooted in ambiguities within Uexküll’s own thought - between a dynamic conception of the (...) organism-environment relationship and the idea of "conformity to a plan" -,, which is here examined in the second section. In the third and fourth sections we will then focus on Plessner and Goldstein respectively, demonstrating how for these two authors the harmony between organism and environment is not an original state, but only reveals itself against the background of a tension; as such, it can only be partial, unstable and always changing. The two thinkers avoid the rigid alternative between Darwin’s concept of adaptation (_Anpassung_) and Uexküll’s “fitting into” (_Einpassung_) by theorizing the ideal state of the relationship between organism and environment in terms of “adequacy” (_Adäquatheit_) and “adaptability” (_Adaptiertheit_). Between organism and environment there is neither absolute separation nor perfect harmony, but rather a gap which can never be definitively fixed. (shrink)