Exactly the analogy I needed - thanks for posting!

Put it in .5, it suddenly becomes a casual conversation between two stoned friends. He's the one that talks about his understanding of the things and you are the one that goes "bro that's so true, wtf"

L.p

Yeah people commonly misunderstand Derrida.

"il n'y a pas hors text", J Derrida = writing precedes language

Regarding 2. Even in this case we have the same problem. There is a seemingly endless number of things one needs to understand the word sun at even a really basic level based on a shared experience. They need to have a concept of a sky, of light, of heat, of distance, of shared experiences, and so on. And each of those things require their own set of basic understandings. To even understand that a word can be a stand in for a shared experience requires an understanding of many concepts.

@@WillEnj0y I'm not so sure. A toddler learning about the word "sun" needs nothing more than to look up when outside. That same toddler doesn't have to know the words for sky/light/heat/etc. or even know about the concept of word abstraction. I think this whole train of thought is over-intellectualization.

@@AdvaitShinde but in order to distinguish the sun from other things, they at least need a capacity to recognize some of its properties (warmth, color, brightness, shape, position) and also recognize the fact that another person is associating this sound with this thing, and also recognize that this word can serve as a representation for this thing that other people can understand. I think you’re getting too caught up in the dictionary thing.

Are you afraid of the lack of meaning?

@@OjoRojo40 Interesting question. Could you be a bit more specific? Meaning of words, meaning of life, meaning of ...?

@@irlc1254 meaning in general, but I guess meaning of life is close enough. Cheers!

@@OjoRojo40 Thanks for the clarification. I think the answer is I don't have much fear in either case, because I believe in meaning in general and that there is meaning of life. I'm afraid I just think Derrida well overstates his case to the point of being ridiculous. Doesn't Steven West's example of the "free throw" prove exactly the opposite point he's trying to make? There are millions of basket ball fans in the world. They weren't born as basket ball fans, and they can be of any culture, nationality, language, sex, age, etc., etc. But they had to become a fan at some point in life. If Steven West, in explaining Derrida, is right, they all have tremendous difficulties understanding what a "free throw" is! Sorry, but that just does not ring true to me.

​@@irlc1254 You think there is meaning in everything? In that sense, Derrida would convey a meaning you don't agree on, but not a lack of it. On the other hand, if only some things have meaning, who decides what's meaning and meaningless? The example of the "free throw" is about the concept of "difference" in Derrida. You derive understanding of a concept because of his relation to other concepts in the language. The word "house" derives its meaning more as a function of how it differs from "shed", "mansion", "hotel", "building", etc. than how the word "house" may be tied to a certain image of a "real" house (i.e. the relationship between signifier and signified). You know something is called a "car" because it's not called a track or a plane or a motorcycle. the full meaning is always postponed; it is never total. The dictionary example given in the video is very good to illustrate the point. A simple test of this is to look up the definition of a word, then look up the words that define that word, and so on. This procedure never ends. A symbol is defined by its relationship to other symbols. A free throw is a free throw because it’s not a 3 point attempt or a dunk or a 7 foot jumper. It has nothing to do with the difficulty (or lack of) to understand the concept, but the formation of meaning (understanding) of it. Hope this helps to clarify the point, and thanks so much for engaging in a polite way in the conversation, something more and more rare around. Have a good day and take care!

If organism adapt then they are not constant!

I got here because of Adam Curtis and cancel culture

Yup, I needed somebody with a better understanding of post-structuralism.

ditch jordan peterson

No but thought of him

I dont think structuralists are referring to how our memory works but more to how meaning itself itself is created. so we can remember the word cat by coleration to 🙀 but that alone doesn't make it significant collectively. the other 39999 words are behind the meanings, not our brains.

@@bentaro9743 What do you mean by meaning? As in literal definition or are you talking about a more 'spiritual' definition of meaning? Not sure what the word is I'm looking for. I ask this because you say "significant" and regarding the latter part; I'm a materialist in this sense, the words are some complex inner-workings of our minds/brain. Which means they need to be realistically stored and then re-interpreted. Perhaps, this makes placing these 'strings' into a form to be checked by some system of syntax (probably functioning partly due to memory). Of course, I do not know any of this and I am merely hypothesising. I may have missed your point though.

That's the magic of it and Derrida is not correct or incorrect, it's just a different lens to look at semiotics.