How Postmodernists Use Language as a Weapon
From the Church and State website
In Jacques Derrida’s words, “[t]he fact of language is probably the only fact ultimately to resist all parenthization.” That is to say, we cannot get outside of language. Language is an “internal,” self-referential system, and there is no way to get “external” to it—although even to speak of “internal” and “external” is also meaningless on postmodern grounds.
Once again: go about the business of living your life from day to day. A "normal day."
Now, how many times in regard to the language you use to communicate with others is the "intellectual contraption" above going to come up?
Get back to us on that.
Language as a "self-referential system" is perfectly coherent when the self itself is perfectly coherent. Doing things wholly in sync with the meaning that we give to words to encompass our day-to-day interactions with others. In the family. At school. On the job. On the baseball diamond.
What on earth is the significance of deconstruction and semiotics then? Premodern, modern, postmodern interactions...your words and mine generating little or no ambiguity or confusion or conflict.
There is no non-linguistic standard to which to relate language, so there can be no standard by which to distinguish between the literal and the metaphorical, the true and the false. Deconstruction is therefore in principle an unending process.
Same thing. Take this obtuse assessment out into the world with you. Only not "in principle", in reality. The standards that transcend human language are mathematical and scientific laws, nature, biology, demographics, empirical facts. Words and worlds almost entirely in sync. Meaning often conveyed by and large on automatic pilot.
On the other hand, in regard to value judgments....
How are premoderns, moderns and postmoderns not equally impaled on the arguments I make above and elsewhere?
Unmasking does not even terminate in “subjective” beliefs and interests, for “subjective” contrasts to “objective,” and that too is a distinction that postmodernism denies. A “subject’s beliefs and interests” are themselves socio-linguistic constructions, so unmasking one piece of language to reveal an underlying subjective interest is only to reveal more language. And that language in turn can be unmasked to reveal more language, and so on. Language is masks all the way down.
Are you a postmodernist? Know any postmodernists? Bring them on board.
Then, given a particular context let's discuss our respective "beliefs and interests" in regard to how effective human beings either can or cannot be in communicating a sense of reality.