>> We might as well go all the way and say that *any* concept is
impossible
>> to define. Doesn't Derrida theorize something along these lines?
Words
>> are only defined by reference to other words.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
kim il-sung wrote:
>The later Wittgenstein goes in this direction as well, in his
>anti-essentialism. W asks what do all games have in common? W cannot
find
>any commonality between games and there is thus no essence of the
word
>"game".
lyotard pretty well takes on this approach, but not derrida.
>It is imperative for Marxists to argue the opposite.<
the opposite of what? that words are defined by their reference to other words? how would you define a word without using other words?
Language is distorted by
>ideology and power relations. Language ,in at least in some minimal
sense,
>must hook onto a real state of affairs int he world so one can
identify,
>expose and rectify ideology and power relations. This can be done by
>comparing the real world with language that is both deliberately and
,often
>unknowingly to the speaker, being used to misrepresent the real
world in
>the name of dominant power relations. Hope this much is clear.
no. it's not clear at all that language is a distortion and reality is undistorted. aren't they both distorted? and, isn't it only possible to arrive at this definition of reality and language if you distort the character of both: ie., that language is not real and that reality does not include language?
angela