Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Empiricist]

"Correct. Define as far you wish, for your own purposes, if it doesn't fit your argument, define it further until it does. And yes, there is no connection between the signifying symbol, the word 'cat', and an actual cat. Darnos defined 'cat' as 'cat' and Fluffy defined it as 'meow'. They are both correct as well. Those are their interpretations, what they signify to them. Do you understand me?"

[RangerCado]

"Um... I... I th-think..." Selina is a little confused but it doesn't show.

[GreatWyrmGold]

((Between looking up a certain definition and typing this out--and thinking about definitions of various words--you added a couple pages or so while I typed. Nice.))

...and as per usual, Ricardo would be slightly irritated by how it manages to interpret every single literary technique as a representation of death, suffering or something equally depressing.

((Sounds like the inverse of my high school World Lit class.))

"Yes, Professor Nikki has already explained your, extraneous circumstances to me."

Angel shifted slightly.

"This new topic is post-structuralism and semiotics, to put it simply, post-structuralism is the literary and academic idea, that the composer can go fuck themselves."

Don't swear! There are children in this classroom!, Angel wanted to say.

It may be considered as an application of semiotics in a literary manner. Let's explain it via example, shall we?" The projector produces, in large block letters, the word 'cat' onto the screen behind Ricardo. "What is the definition of cat?"

((...Only one way to answer this question.))
"Quadruped. Carnivorous. Thirty teeth, namely fourteen molars, four eye-teeth, and twelve incisors. Sheds coat in the spring. Claws hard, but requiring to be trimmed if domestic. Age known by marks in iris." Thus (and much more) Bitzer.
((Cookie for the reference.))

"Let's go with Miss Martin's definition for now, as it is longer and does not cause an infinite loop. Yet. Define 'fur'."

((This is more boring.))
"A body covering of mammals, composed of strands of keratin."

"Define 'fur', define 'member', define 'order'."

"Member: A part of a set. Order: A taxonomic classification, under class and containing genera."

Fur, member, order.

"Those aren't definitions, Darnos! You're not even trying!"

Ricardo smiles vaguely in a playfully sinister manner "Let's speed this up, shall we? Define 'to'."

"Tee-Oh, Tee-Oh-Oh, or Tee-Double-Yoo-Oh?"

"Define 'a'."
"I personally define it as 'a name with masculine connotations.'"

"The letter or the article?"

"Define 'of'."

"Belonging to."

"Exactly. This house of cards we call 'language' goes on forever, yet, it also stands upon itself... as Darnos illustrated by defining each word as itself, it loops. There is no final meaning. There is no final definition, for each definition never brings us to any truth, only deferring the meaning further. Such is the basis of semiotics and by extension post structuralism. Permit me to ask two more questions, one: 'when do we stop defining and say that the definition is good enough?' and two: 'how does the word 'cat' or its fractal definitions remind us of an actual cat?'"

"When we are capable of understanding the definition and by triggering a connection between the word and our schema of the feline form."

"Correct. Define as far you wish, for your own purposes, if it doesn't fit your argument, define it further until it does. And yes, there is no connection between the signifying symbol, the word 'cat', and an actual cat. Darnos defined 'cat' as 'cat' and Fluffy defined it as 'meow'. They are both correct as well. hose are their interpretations, what they signify to them. Do you understand me?"

"Are you going to say that books can be interpreted however we want, too?"

[Xantalos]

It depends on whether I want to or not. In other words, yes.

[Empiricist]

"Correct, you think so or want to. What if I thought what I just said was just random gibberish or a lecture on grapefruits and rainbow-trout batteries? Then you do not understand what I am talking about, you only think you understand what you think I mean."

[Twi]

"The connection is  in the reader's  mind. Not that you're the type to understand  it. You could call a cat a frindle and it would make just as much sense - to you. But why bother? The  benefit  of words is  communication of information,  which requires mutual understandin'. At the very least, the denotations have to be the same in both the quill- or voice, for that matter-  and the eye."

Miranda appears to be working up a temper.

[GreatWyrmGold]

"That makes sense to a point, but you seem to be taking it to a point where you're saying that what's actually written doesn't matter at all..."

[Xantalos]

What I think and what I am are generally the same thing.

"That makes sense to a point, but you seem to be taking it to a point where you're saying that what's actually written doesn't matter at all..."

Take anything to its logical conclusion and stuff like this comes up.

[Projeck37]

Isaac kicks back and listens to the babbling of the other people, sucking in information.

[Empiricist]

"Yes, I personally prefer that far more elegant ideal as well. As I've said, this is only a mere theory that can be used. But post-structuralism is nevertheless a rather useful tool to twist what we perceive in order to help our own arguments regarding texts. As Angel hypothesized, this allows us to continue defining or interpreting words until they fit our argument, what's written doesn't have to matter...  This theory, it's crude, inelegant and inefficient. But effective for academic purposes."

[Twi]

"So basically, this is an excuse to ignore the author and pretend  things mean whatever the devil you want them to as long as you can convince other people the same. Sounds like a politician's dream. I  didn't know you planned on runnin' for office."

[Xantalos]

"So basically, this is an excuse to ignore the author and pretend  things mean whatever the devil you want them to as long as you can convince other people the same. Sounds like a politician's dream. I  didn't know you planned on runnin' for office."

I could, but honestly it's far too easy to win the things.

[Empiricist]

"I don't intend to. But what can I say? This sort of stuff is acceptable in some academic cases such as a few exams, so why not use it as a last resort? I personally hate the notion, but I like what it allows us to do."

[Twi]

"Personally, I think if you need to defend what you think something means with an inelegant theory instead of actually supportin' your meanin', you're doin' something wrong. But then maybe I'm wrong too."

[Empiricist]

"I personally agree with your idea. It's pretentious, useless and amounts to nothing, but it's accepted in exams provided that most of your argument is still the elegant composition they expect. When time is limited and you hit writer's block, you can use it sparingly. And thus brings it to the final difference in this discussion. The signifier 'Post Structuralism and Semiotics' signifies something different to me. The actual topic we are studying is the signified term: 'Exam Techniques and Styles'. Thankfully, I do not have to set up an entire course for the contents of my lecture. I'd probably have to be high as fuck to think up of that shit..."