03-15-2012, 05:20 AM
I admire the post-structuralists' ability to ignore most of the discussion in philosophy that has preceded them since Descartes, especially Kant's complete annihilation of metaphysics, and pick such things back up willy-nilly without addressing why they were rejected in the first place. In the dictionary under sophomoric philosophical movements they have a picture of post-structuralism. Personally, if I were going to rely on this sort of mumble jumbo I'd just a soon appeal to the oracle at Delphi, she at least has a bit of a track record to stand on! Contradiction is not a philosophical form of argument, however it will wear a person down who will become so frustrated at the others imbecilic posturing that he will simply just give up. At which point the other will claim victory. It is a victory of sorts I suppose, a victory of ignorance, not unlike a teenagers victory against authority as he drunkenly dives at night into a swimming pool devoid of water. Of course the price for such a victory, in retrospect may seem a tad bit high, at least to the teenager, if not to the post-structuralists.
BTB (by the by) ambiguity is not a leg of any kind, it is simply one of several literary devices in the category of tropes. Of course that is a fact and I know how you reject facts of any kind you find inconvenient to your argument
Dale
BTB (by the by) ambiguity is not a leg of any kind, it is simply one of several literary devices in the category of tropes. Of course that is a fact and I know how you reject facts of any kind you find inconvenient to your argument
Dale
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.