TrentPhilosophersonFrenchPhilosophy: Blanchot and meaninglessness

Thursday 13 January 2011

Blanchot and meaninglessness

I've been wondering about Blanchot and all of those types of philosophers who are interested in language and who, from what I understand, state in some form or another that because of the indefinability of things that those things are then meaningless. Is this saying any more than our language isn't infinite?

I'm not sure whether it's really that profound or whether it's just an observation on the finitude of language.

Any thoughts?

3 comments:

Anonymous16 January 2011 at 03:50
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous16 January 2011 at 04:00
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Patrick O'Connor1 February 2011 at 07:33
Hi guys, sorry but I missed this one. The question of meaning could refer to the whole debate surrounding structure. I suppose the first difference to note is that I don't think anybody is saying that meaning is meaningless i.e. absurd or a nonsense. What the sturcturalist have shown, and Wittgenstein also I think, is that language is inherently meaningful. It refers, designates' classes things, names inaugurates linguistic practices and so on. When the post-structuralists then embrace things like 'play' and 'movement', they are they are suggesting that structures of linguistic comprehension are somewhat more flexible. This is not to make the strong claim that all language is inherently nonsensical, only that language is dependent from its inception. This is essentially Derrida's point in Structure, Sign and Play. All structures oscillate between structure and non-structure. Language has 'rigid designators' as Kripke said, but these are also dependent on the fluidity of practices. E.g. We have what's called linguistic non-nominative terms, i.e. words like 'the' 'it' and 'they' which do not refer to anyything in particular. Indeed here the structure is meaningless. It is only by reorganizing these terms around things such sa signs that any sentence or utterance can become meaningful. So, in short I think when we hear the term meaningless I think it only refers to essential contingency of language as it is embodied in texts, dialogue and speech. With regard to the finitude of language I'm, not sure. How do you think the finitude of language might manifest itself.
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment

Netiquette:

While you are on this blog, please remember that it is a public forum, one which I expect to be conducted with the height of courtesy and good manners. Blogs remove face to face contact, and for this reason it can be sometimes hard to discern the import of a contributors meaning. It is thus necessary to treat this blog as a classroom.

Please ensure that you follow these guidelines.

1. Be respectful of others online. Refrain from personal abuse. 2. You may express strong disagreement but do not call others names, undermine them or threaten them with any personal violence.
3. DON’T SHOUT. Irrespective of the forum, the use of all capital letters in a word is considered SHOUTING and is thus considered to be very offensive.
4. Be scrupulous with your language. This blog should be considered to correspond to academic standards and practices. Consider your entries as little mini-essays that conform to all your other assignments. This includes proper citation.
5. Avoid personal issues.
6. Adopt an objective and neutral tone throughout.
7. Do not plagiarise or infringe on copyright. E.g. no posting of bootleg pdf’s.
8. Be patient with people who are unused to working with blog’s.
9. Stay on Topic! Three is no need to discuss any events from your personal life here unless it is to make a philosophical point.
10. And last but not least, the site's moderators (Neil, Ruth and Patrick) have the final say in enforcing the rules.