During this reading, I ended up focusing on Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. I found this most interesting, but honestly I have heard about Marxism but I would not be able to tell you what it actually is. I find this to be a big bummer. Now that it is my senior year, I would I go back and tell myself to remember important things like this because now I regret not knowing true and valuable information like this. But regardless of this, I found it interesting that basis of signs and that in regards to language.
On page 1210 it states the following: "Everything ideological possesses meaning: it represents, depicts, or stands for something lying outside of itself. In other words, it is a sign. Without signs, there is no ideology. A physical body equals itself, so to speak; it does not signify anything but wholly coincides with its particular given nature. In this case there is no question of ideology." (pg. 1210)
I found this paragraph very interesting at a reader because it is such a bizarre concept to think about. When thinking about everything, it is true that everything does have a sign. It also says, "Every sign is subject to the criteria of ideological evaluation (i.e. whether it is true, false, correct, fair, good, etc.). The domain of ideology coincides with the domain of signs They equate with one another. Wherever a sign is present, ideology is present, too." (pg. 1211) I just find this concepts to bizarre to wrap my head around. Marxism is such a huge part of our world and logic.
I feel as though rhetoric is interrelated in someway or another I find it hard to believe we haven't as a society put these pieces together yet. The world is such a large place, but yet we can somehow connect every thing to one another.
No comments:
Post a Comment