“Humanists claim that the meaning of a thing is inherent in the thing itself, and that language simply labels what already exists. Poststructuralists, on the other hand, argue naming is constitutive and that the meaning is culturally and socially produced”. These two large scales of meaning making, that are humanism and post-structuralism, have competing perspectives of the way ideals, beliefs and practises are produced and constructed and arguments are made in support for and against these notions. Humanism is the belief in universal principles and that the meaning of objects, persons or texts is inherent in the thing itself. Humanism is founded on dichotomous logic and rationality, their reasoning is objective. Contrastingly post-structuralism is more concerned with meaning making that is contextually specific through the effect of cultural and social relations. It diminishes the ideals of dichotomous logic and the universalising of texts, objects and persons. This essay will critically analyse the competing arguments of each perspective.
Humanism is centrally concerned with reason and rationality. It specifies that the meaning of a thing is inherent in the thing; simply, it exists throughout texts, objects and persons. A form of universalism, humanism absorbs the concept of empiricism. This is the ability to examine the world objectively and in turn gain access to ‘common sense’ truths, the belief that the principles of humanism can supposedly be applied equally to the entire population. The thought processes, ideals and practices are envisioned as rational and objective meaning they can be applicable to everyone, universalised, as well as being arrived at through a rational analysis. The identity of humanism is associated ...
... middle of paper ...
...cognise that is not green, or red, etc. In addition post-structuralism also recognises a variety of contextual meanings the term may have creating a more complex binary. Criticism of the humanist meaning making model also comes from Saussure when looking at his study of semiotics. Humanists believe the relationship is pre-determined and fixed whereas post-structuralism disagrees. The proposal that the word and object are linked inevitably means that the word possesses all the qualities that are attached to the object when we think of the word. Therefore the definition is not inherent in the object or word but rather through the association between a thing and the words/letters we relate to it. Consequently the effect is that meaning making becomes contextually specific making it impossible for meaning making to be rigid and rather it constantly be subject to change.
The first principle Postman suggests is that people should reflect upon any definition before accepting it blindly. Definitions are defined by other people rather than by god. The so called definitions can be biased due to different point of views people have. Therefore, Postman suggests students imagine “alternative definitions for every important concept and term they must deal with in school” (23).
Tim LaHaye is one of the most influential religious leaders in the United States today. In 2001, Evangelical Studies Bulletin named him as the most influential Christian leader for the past quarter century. He is mostly known for the Left Behind series of apocalyptic fiction, which he co-wrote with Jerry B. Jenkins. However, this paper will talk about LaHaye’s book, The Battle for the Mind, which is one of his most important works but was not included in the Left Behind series.
The notion of humanity is a picture intricately painted using the ideals and morals that define us as human beings in contextual society. The audience is influenced by the morals and values present through techniques in texts to paint their own image of humanity. Our ideals and morals that differ in texts through context, scrupulously shape our image of humanity
If postcapitalist appropriation holds, we have to choose between constructivism and the semiotic paradigm of expression. However, postcapitalist appropriation holds that consciousness is capable of significance.
During the renaissance, there was a renewed interest in the arts, and the traditional views of society came into question. People began to explore the power of the human mind. A term often used to describe the increasing interest in the powers of the human mind is humanism. Generally, humanism stresses the individual's creative, reasoning, and aesthetic powers. However, during the Renaissance, individual ideas about humanism differed.
Post-structuralism is a theory containing a wide array of ideas concerning meaning, reality, and identity. Post-structuralism believes that the mind receives “impressions from without which it sifts and organizes into a knowledge of the world” which is expressed in language, or symbols (Selden, Widdowson 128). The “subject,” or person, “grasps the object and puts it into words”(128). Knowledge is formed from various types of communication which “pre-exist the subject’s experiences,” the subject existing as a being that is “not an autonomous or unified identity, but is always ‘in process’”(129). There are many assumptions of post-structuralism, but only one will be focused on here, in terms of Lolita and Humbert. This assumpti...
7. la Tournier, O. Y. ed. (1988) The Reality of Defining characteristic: Semanticist pretextual theory and cultural
The west insists on the discrete identity of objects. To name is to know; to know is to control. (Paglia, p.5)
What does it mean to be human? To most people it means being high on the food chain; or having the ability to make our own choices. People everywhere have a few things in common: We all must obey Natural laws, and we have preconceived ideas, stereotypes, and double standards. Being human is simply conveyed as human nature in “The Cold Equations”, by Tom Godwin, where the author shows the common ground that makes each and every one of us human.
As a reader it is difficult to separate ones analysis of such a commanding piece of work from ones own constructed systems of meaning. Because of this, actual meaning is tricky to assert with certainty as it is subject to change as easily as reality is subject to influence. This may be beside the point, however; for it seems as though what matters in structuralism is the recognition that everyone, and everything everyone creates or does, is in some part connected to a system of meaning which informs and influences varying interpretations of what is real and true of the world and its diverse inhabitants.
The notion of postmodernism has rapidly made its way to the front and center of our social discussion topics. The question that must be asked concerning this erroneous view from the premise is, ‘How does anyone think this logically and pragmatically could be an idea which they could hold firm to?’ The idea of postmodernism guarantees that there are no guarantees. In other terms, postmodernism boldly states that there is a solid truth that the earth is incapable of boldly producing statements of solidified truths. Straight from the premise of this fallacious idea we see a landslide of incoherence and an overwhelming sense of vacillation at the very foundation.
Peter Barry attempts to define structuralism succinctly by narrowing it down as “the belief that things cannot be understood in isolation—they have to be seen in the context of the larger structures they are part of”; he goes on to add that “meaning is always an attribute of things, in the literal sense that meanings are ATTRIBUTED to the things by the human mind, not contained within them” (39). One might attempt to further narrow this idea (ironically) by quoting the famous line, “Everything is relative,” which is to say, all reality is contingent upon the perceiver. The context in which that reality is being perceived becomes the point of interest, so that, in regard to literature, “there is a constant movement away from the interpretation of the individual literary work and a parallel drive towards understanding the larger, abstract structures which contain them” (Barry, 40). The question becomes not what, but how.
This text explains that language does not shape our identities and desires so much as our identities and desires are acquired from language (Richter 1046). Lacan explains that the symbolic stage consists of the Other and the Other is not complete because there is a lack. This concept suggests that there is always a signifier missing from the collection of signifiers composed by the Other. Lacan then asserts that the subject is now ruled by language, and this symbolic discourse forms the structures of cultural and social identities (Richter 1046). Lacan also describes the use of metonymy and this is a mode of symbolization in which one thing is signified by another that is associated with it, but it is not from the same class.
Encarta Dictionary says that Humanism is a system of thought that centers on human beings and their values, capacities and worth. Encarta also goes on the say that, in philosophy, humanism is an attitude that emphasizes the dignity and worth of an individual. A basic premise of humanism is that people are rational beings who possess within themselves the capacity for truth and goodness. I see myself as a being a humanist through everyday life. I always try to see the good in a person when he/she makes me angry or sad, and say I to myself that maybe that person has had a bad day and living life is difficult at the moment. Socrates was even an early humanist of sorts. He can be quoted as saying, "to know the good is to do the good." He believed that nobody voluntarily commits an evil act because evil comes from ignorance, ignorance being not stupidity, but having a lack of knowledge. If all people thought as humanists, would peace be spread across the globe?
The third perspective is humanistic, which is primarily focused on making oneself and the world innately better. In a journal by E.M Robertis, says, “Humanism is being accused of having con- tributed to selfishness in American culture”. This statement I disagree with however. I think that could be a valid argument saying that the approach creates us to focus too much on ourselves causing us to be selfish. My argument to this would be that this approach is to, yes, help us become better, but to also help the world around us become better as well. The fact that we can help ourselves become better and help the world do the same makes this not become so internalized and selfish. I connect with this approach because of this. I always have strived