When it comes to arguments about semantics, the idea is self defeating. They say words have no meaning. They used words to tell you this. Therefore what they just said had no meaning. If “words have no meaning” has no meaning, then why should I act as if it does by believing it? The person is forced to admit the absurdly castrated nature of their idea or deny it outright. Either instance carries no weight.

Does the poststructuralist have an alternative? Likely it’d be something like the image/video/media, but this idea neglects the fact that observations aren’t enough to give us substantial truth- it must be communicated by language.

Basically the issue seems to boil down to the question of absolute truth and the existance of immutable logic that permeates the cosmos. Once these are arrived at, it’s only a short step to understanding how language is the logic of terms that reflect the world.

Good way to engage the readers by asking questions, btw.

So what do the rest of you guys think?