Search the Lounge

Categories

« Federico Cheever (1957-2017) | Main | Van Tassel to Concordia »

June 26, 2017

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

anon

YOU refer to " revisionist history."

Now, there's a laughable remark.

I can't think of a better example than that demonstrated above of the "Twittering" mind of the clueless new version of an "intellectual" who seems to devour only popular media (sprinkled with a few bogus citations for show) and draws WILDLY inaccurate and twisted conclusions from a shallow pool of filthy partisan condemnations.

SUffice it to say that no true scholar could or would write anything resembling the above. It is nonsense to suppose that one can lump together individuals and smear them all with the same filthy brush, especially when that brush is dipped in the thin unseemly gruel that is derived from the current partisan pail: these nonsensical conclusions can't cover the lack of preparation and study that is so obvious in these posts, which will therefore wash away very quickly leaving only the faintest odor.

Doug L

Calvin is correct. The "originalists" have an implausibly narrow view of language that is understandable by the masses. They do not recognize that, as TS Eliot said, words won't stay in place, they slide, move. The ambiguity of language is too destabilizing for most people to accept; instead, there is comfort in the notion that words map clearly onto objects and stay there, and that meaning can be traced back to one place and the chain of signification stops there. Originalists have a strong sense of conviction, and that is what makes them dangerous.


The comments to this entry are closed.

Bloggers Emereti

StatCounter

  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad