Livestream

The thought experiment you refer to isn't actually necessarily post-structuralist, it is already there in structuralism. It's true that the more objects you point to clarifying "x" or "not-x", the more clear the meaning becomes, but the point the structuralists were making is precisely that this meaning isn't defined positively, but by what it is NOT (its "not-x). In other words, signifiers are defined through their difference from other signifiers. For the structuralists, the sum of all signifiers, despite being made out of negative differences, still builds up a stable linguistic system of meaning, where every signifier is negatively related to every other signifier. This is the part that post-structuralists tended to disagree with, as they denied that such a stable system actually existed, and so the stability of meaning was a lot more problematized by them. I hope that answers your question!

Cuck Philosophy

Hi, I have a question, but I guess it's more on the technical side of things : regarding post-structuralism, I suppose the starting point is the thought experiment "if somebody speaking an unknown language points a thing and says 'x', then you can't know what is 'x', therefore the meaning of words is relative to other words". But I thought : if the same person points to a lot of different things and say 'x' or 'not x', then you can deduce what 'x' means. Now I wonder if this 'counter-thought-experiment' has already been pointed out by other people, and wether other people responded to it. (btw even if the starting point can be argued, I still think other deductions such as the "evolution of concepts" of things like that (by Deleuze I guess) are quite insightful)

404 Error - Just Undo It

Yep, I think I'll leave it up after it ends, unless I end up doing something extremely embarrassing.

Cuck Philosophy

I won't be able to join, but I really want to be catch it. Will it be archived in some way? Even temporarily?