BG--09/08 (This Post Makes No Sense)

In class, we discussed how language is completely arbitrary and the meaning is socially constructed. One of the core concepts of Semiology is that “In language, one can neither divide sound from thought, nor thought from sound.” De Saussure said, “…in language there are only differences.” By this, he was referring to the concept of binary opposition. All of these ideas and beliefs reflect an epistemological school of thought known as empiricism.

Empiricists believe that all knowledge comes from personal experience. In linguistic terms, an empiricist would say that our understanding of language is learned from interaction with other people and the physical world. The community creates language, and language creates meaning, and we learn the meaning of language through its differences (“…in language there are only differences”).

Now my problem with the Semiology material that I have encountered so far is that it all fails to address a lot of ancient philosophy that inherently contradict empiricism, and therefore contradict some of the core tenets of Semiology. The notion of binary opposition suggests that we understand good as the opposite of evil, right as the opposite of wrong. In philosophy, there is a set of seven principles known as the Hermetic Principles. One of these is the Hermetic Principle of Polarity.

The Hermetic Principle of Polarity acknowledges that everything has its opposite. However, this principle states that “opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree.” This means that in reality, although good and evil are at opposite ends of a spectrum, they still exists on the same spectrum. This “spectrum” is comprised of the combined meaning of good and evil. Language cannot capture this all-encompassing sort of concept. We can understand the idea of good and evil, but we cannot articulate (with symbols) the universal combined meaning.

This segues into Plato’s notion of Forms. Forms are absolute and embody true reality. Plato said that Forms cannot be experienced or learned through human sensation, but rather we only experience blurry photo-copies of these manifestations of universal reality. Plato also referred to Forms as Ideals. The best way for me to explain the Theory of Forms is from an example off Wikipedia:

“There are countless tables in the world but the Form of tableness is at the core; it is the essence of all of them. Plato held that the world of Forms is separate from our own world (the world of substances) and also is the true basis of reality. Removed from matter, Forms are the most pure of all things.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forms)

What does this all mean in relation to Semiology and the concept of binary opposition?

It means that the notion of the Sign and binary opposition are the highest level of existence that we can capture and reflect through language. They are the highest level of reality that we as humans, know (or at least express). However, this does not mean that they are the highest level of reality that exists. If we combine the notion of the Hermetic Principle of Polarity and Platonic Forms, we have the idea of “good-evilness.” Good and evil represent different ends of the “good-evilness spectrum.” Because we cannot linguistically express the Form of “good-evilness,” we are forced to express this notion by refereeing to specific degrees of this spectrum (i.e. bad, evil, sinister), rather than the actual underlying Form. This example illustrates the limitations of symbolic expression.

I don’t necessarily agree with the ancient philosophers, and personally, I have a specific stance in the a priori versus a posteriori debate, but I feel that it is important to acknowledge both sides and their relation to the material that we are studying.

Is there understanding or meaning beyond the limitations of language, or are we only capable of knowing that which we can symbolically articulate?