This article is an analysis of a collection of articles published by Gilles Deleuze in 1953 under the direction of Georges Canguilhem. This collection, which has been little read and commented upon, sheds light on the intellectual trajectory of its author by underlining the theoretical hesitations that were his. I show that Deleuze then outlined an ambitious “psycho-sociological” project that he never fully realized. To do this, I reconstitute the psychological and ethological subtext of the book by following his sources; (...) I thus bring to light real theoretical positions often unnoticed in his work (in particular with respect to Henri Bergson, Jakob von Uexküll, and gestaltpsychology). I then argue that the difficulties linked to the theory of perception lead Deleuze to turn away from this project in order to devote himself to more specifically ontological problems. However, I suggest that these difficulties persist throughout Deleuze's works, where notions such as “sign” and “semiotics” both cover and avoid specifically perceptual problems. (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)

In this article, I will analyze certain theoretical tensions that are inherent in Goldstein’s concept of organism. To do so, I will compare it with the outline of the concept of organism (or, more precisely, “organized being”) found in Kant’sCritique of the Faculty of Judgement, to which Goldstein is largely indebted. This comparison will help show the extent to which Goldstein distances himself from the Kantian perspective, which aims to define the conditions of possibility of biological knowledge, by going beyond (...) the simple biological dimension in a pragmatist manner. (shrink)

Kurt Goldstein’s thinking on health and disease is based on the concept of milieu [Umwelt], which he inherited from the ethologist Jacob von Uexküll, while at the same time reforming the concept in an original way. Goldstein’s interpretation of the organism-environment relationship emphasises the dynamic nature of this relationship and the reciprocal structuring of the two poles; this hypothesis forms the basis of his original conception of pathology as the shrinking of the patient’s environment. The German neurologist’s position is characterized (...) by the ambivalence that runs through his conceptions of pathology and health, and which gives his thought its richness. On the one hand, ordered behaviour is a necessary condition for the patient’s adaptation to a new relationship with the environment, but it may also be pathogenic if it is aimed at self-preservation only. On the other hand, according to Goldstein, health is, in a first sense, a tendency of the organism to actualise its own capacities, even in a situation of illness; in the second sense, it is a tendency towards expansion and self-actualization that goes beyond the aim of constituting an adequate environment for the organism. (shrink)