Comments on: WHAT IS LANGUAGE?

By: thesonking1

thesonking1 — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 06:32:38 +0000

Rock on.
In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with GOD and the WORD was GOD, and the WORD became flesh and dwelt among us. Get ready for the WORD to shine forth miracles and wonders like never before.

By: halessaregis

halessaregis — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:41:55 +0000

That’s really cool. I already knew Ferdinand’s theories but not about Lacan. If you know any book that I could read more about, send me the name pleeeease! I was studying that in the college…
I’m reading Geoffrey Flinch now…

Well, anyway, nice explanations!

By: iyerranjit

iyerranjit — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:41:01 +0000

Very nice video and explanations. My interest in language came about very recently as a sort of realization about what the limitation of language could be. I realized that each time i’d try to consolidate my world-experiences I was restricted to using words like illusory, evil, benevolent, meaningless, only those concepts that language offers. Can there be limits of what language offers? looking forward to your lectures..thanks.

By: ZombieJesusBrainz

ZombieJesusBrainz — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:30:00 +0000

why are there so many relegious folks hanging around the philosophy stuff on youtube? It must be an american thing! I hate it when they put relegion and philosophy togeather in a bookstore as much as when they put philosophy and self help togeather (ouch!)

when theology enters a debate, i really think it has no relevance to any of the issue at hand.

By: sallysall

sallysall — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:14:55 +0000

Love this video, great work, friend! In an excellent class on Cultural Studies currently and came across your link in the recommended links section. So lovely to hear God’s name mentioned along with the names of great human thinkers. May He bless you richly, and keep up the great work
sally b

By: CJM052

CJM052 — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:44:35 +0000

this is very interesting, thank you for posting it. i feel the assertion that language is arbitrary seems to make a lot of sense. however, it seems that there is at least one exception- onomatopoeia. the words ‘moo’ or ‘buzz’ were created with a very specific purpose in mind- to emulate a sound. is there anyway you could clear that up for me?

also, just a side note- the idea that one’s ability to communicate a ‘thing’ defines that ‘thing’ itself is an absolutely terrifying thought!

By: bbkingzor

bbkingzor — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:08:10 +0000

To me, language is a matter of definition. Every form of life has some form of language or communication, even insects.

By: elenahwow

elenahwow — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:12:46 +0000

thank you very much for this lecture, you are very good!

By: Israe5l

Israe5l — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:27:07 +0000

I been thinking of language between the binary: empirical language (collection of all the empirical objects) and conceptual language (the word given by the system of language). And the two merge in the structure of the structuralism. (Well, I really don’t know what structurealism is. So, I am just throwing it out there so that someone will correct me.) (signified=empirical. signifier=conceptual.)

By: Israe5l

Israe5l — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 07:57:33 +0000

“language is arbitraray seems to make a lot of sense.” I am not sure you got it. The connection between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary. (Signifier is the spelling/vocalizing of the word. Signified is the actual object. Signified is the actual structure in the world. Nothing arbitrary about it.)