ABSTRACT
In recent years, many studies have been published on the influences and convergences between the thought of the so-called “Bakhtin Circle” and other contemporary authors of Russian authors M. Bakhtin, P. Medvedev and V. Voloshinov. In this sense, several researchers (Marchezan, 2019MARCHEZAN, R. C. M. Bakhtin e a "virada linguística" na filosofia. In: BRAIT, B.; PISTORI, M. H. C.; FRANCELINO, P. F. (org.). Linguagem e conhecimento (Bakhtin, Volóchinov, Medviédev). São Paulo: Pontes, 2019. p.261-291.; Faraco, 2009FARACO, C. A. Linguagem e diálogo: as ideias linguísticas do Círculo de Bakhtin. Curitiba: Criar Edições, 2009.; Grillo, 2017GRILLO, S. Marxismo e filosofia da linguagem: uma resposta à ciência da linguagem do século XIX e início do século XX. In: VOLÓCHINOV, V. N. Marxismo e filosofia da linguagem. Problemas fundamentais do método sociológico na ciência da linguagem. Tradução Sheila V. C. Grillo e E. V. Américo. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2017. p.7-79.; Poole, 1998POOLE, B. Bakhtin and Cassirer: The Philosophical Origins of Carnival Messianism. The South Atlantic Quarterly, v.97, n.3/4, p.537-78, 1998.; Brandist, 2002BRANDIST, C. The Bakhtin Circle: Philosophy, Culture and Politics. London: Pluto Press, 2002., 1997BRANDIST, C. Bakhtin, Cassirer, and Symbolic Forms. Radical Philosophy, v.85, p.20-27, 1997.; Lofts, 2016LOFTS, S. G. Bakhtin e Cassirer: o evento e a máquina. Bakhtiniana. Revista de estudos do discurso, São Paulo, v.11, n.1, p.77-98, jan./abr. 2016., 2000LOFTS, S. G. Ernst Cassirer - A "Repetition" of Modernity. Albany N. Y.: State University of New York Press, 2000.; Tihanov, 2002TIHANOV, G. The master and the Slave: Lukács, Bakhtin, and the Ideas of Their Time. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002.; Dop, 2001) have shown some convergences between the thinking of German philosopher Ernst Cassirer and the thinking of the aforementioned Russian authors, as well as the influences that Cassirer had on their theoretical construct. In this article, therefore, we propose a comparative analysis between concepts of “symbol/sign” developed by Cassirer and the concept of “sign” outlined by Voloshinov, pointing out similarities, differences, and possible influences of Cassirer on Voloshinov. Our path of analysis is guided by the search for “principles” or “key concepts” that can synthesize these mentioned concepts. We conclude that the idea defended by Voloshinov, which the different spheres (religion, art, politics, etc.) are linked to by their sign substrate, is directly influenced by Cassirerian theses. Also, the representation of semiotic systems, understood as the “pointing outside of one’s self” of the concrete sign, which correlates at least two realities, is influenced by Cassirer’s premises.
KEYWORDS
Sign; Marxism and Philosophy of Language; Philosophy of Symbolic Forms