looking back on what i wrote a year ago, that i'd quite forgotton except for your potty gob comments, It is pretty good though isn't it? Thanks for reminding me. You should take note and learn instead of succombing to infantile convulsions, a nasty, anti social habit that will almost certainly condemn you to failure and despondancy should you reach maturity.
@eulex10 No. Kristeva is approaching psychoanalysis utilizing semiotical methods that were considered inadequate for explaining syntax after the 1950s . To make it more clear , semiotics have become an explanatory branch of their own , which can shed light to linguistics but not fully explain them (Chomsky's theories do a better job) .
However , one shouldn't criticize a branch for not being able to account for something it does not intend to.
furthermore, her thoughts on the split subject are not at all without substance, and i think she does a better job than lacan at explaining it. (although both are anticipated by sartre some 40 years prior.) subject positions are spaces we occupy that are opened by objects; therefore when we occupy those positions we are not a simple linguistic 'whole,' a transcendental ego, a unified subject, but a split subject given its place, name, identity, by the object. it's a legitimate thought.
kristeva is actually one of the more substantive post-structuralists i've encountered. as concerns the philistine comments--i fail to see why anything she's saying should be considered (a) difficult or (b) falsely erudite. the terminology used in post-structuralist writing is there *so that* you can follow what it's saying. philosophical language, despite what analytics will say, demands nuance; the flow of this kind of thought is necessarily complex--the content is in the form.
Basically, her answer is "yes" to the second choice in the question. Linquistics presumes to be the "science" of language & takes the separation of subject & object as a given. But the "art" of language, poetics, makes the separation of subject & object, problematic. It messes around with the separation of "I" & "you" like in baby talk or a drunken soliliquy in Finnegan's Wake. The differ"ance" is the difference between art & science & the problem of using one to explain the other.
0-2 years - you live in the pre-Oedipal state. You don’t use language and depend on your mother. But you communicate via the music, rhythm and bodily dependency. A lot of poets use this pre-lingual potential, and that makes their work beautiful
After 2, you start to use language, and enter the institutions. They eventually makes you a boring dude who insists everything should be summarized to 500 characters.
@naposletku100 You inhabit a different plane of existence. I prefer Dawkins' succinct analysis of fruitcakes like Julia:
"Suppose you are an intellectual impostor with nothing to say, but with strong ambitions to succeed in academic life, collect a coterie of reverent disciples and have students around the world anoint your pages with respectful yellow highlighter. What kind of literary style would you cultivate? Not a lucid one, surely, for clarity would expose your lack of content."
7:18 -- voyons donc -- she says "mystiques médiévales" -- "medieval mystics" and not "medieval linguists" as the subtitles would lead us to believe. Those medieval linguists are pretty anachronistic.
Je me trompe sûrement, mais ne me prétendrai jamais être psychanalyste bon, sinon efficace, quoique deviennent l'étendu de mes connaissances en matière d'analyse de l'esprit humain. En revanche, il me suffit d'observer cette femme pour comprendre que quelque chose ne tourne pas rond chez elle... Et quand je l'écoute, j'entends un individu qui ne semble pas s'intéresser au sens de ses propres paroles. J'entends en quelque sorte une prétendue épistémologiste qui aurait perdu tous ses sens.
Hé bien oui, Julia Kristeva, comment dire ? Un cruel manque d'humilité d'une personne de plus se prétendant habile à l'analyse de l'esprit d'autrui. Plus j'écoute ces soit disant psychanalystes, plus je me dis qu'ils sont à la fois le sauveur et le sauvé. Autrement dit, ils sont très habile à se contempler eux mêmes, s'écouter parler, et à refouler leur doutes dans le portrait qu'il dresse de l'autre.
It's so sad that the poor woman doesn't seem to realize Freud's psychotic oedipus bullocks infuses society with a degenerate and perverse view on toddlers and consequently on humanity. Do babies really want to f*** their mommies? Come on people!
The complexity she generates in neurotic attempts to grasp creativity leave her empty handed, especially since her premise that the unconcious is a dangerous and unknowable pool of horrors sees her utterly unequipped to grasp creativity,
Tautologies , contradictions and contigencies.None of you can prove her very sensible creative arguments as worthless. The entire world recognizes her contributions .What have any of you done.Go hide in our classrooms! None of you can even write well here.Pathetic.Only numbbrains comment on youtube it seems!
@lovesGenet I must miss those creative arguments you talk about. I dont see it - whats her point? In this video for example she doesn't really say anything.
@ILoveElena864 if you weren't such a lazy, irritable and partisan scholar, you would discover that your obsessive need to dismiss Kristiva as `shit' denotes you as a classic `Abjectifyer' - Somebody, for example, who finds the existence of the Duck billed platypus deeply offensive, taxonomically speaking. The fact, is you cannot deal with Kristeva objectively at all, can you? only Abjectively, dismissively, brutishly, without patience or sympathy but worst of all, without rationality.
Alain, you came back to whip us ?! Or worse... to write, make movies ?!
Please, go back to Brest !!!
To answer your question : Mallarme, as the clown in red says, has used words to make music instead of making sense. Everythin else she says is just pure nonsense.
You are a fucking nutjob sitting there spouting off utter fucking shit. You are laughing stock for anyone with functioning brain cells. Please don't stop your shit storms, they provide so much amusement for so many.
Hi there people, I am doing my dissertation on semiotics I have used the work of Barthes, but Kristeva is not sticking for me can someone please outline her basic idea, or the point she is making, I have tried to read various translated texts but the translation is not helpful , thanks
@ILoveElena864 thats a very useful point actually!! thank you. I will push it out of my mind in 3 weeks once its over with, then I can get a real life. thanks for your inspiration !!
@MsJupitergirl Start with Kristeva's Wikipedia article. I did my thesis on Irigaray - which is related to Kristeva. Comparatively, Kristeva is *much* easier than Irigaray to discern. In either case, you need to have a very basic understanding of Freud and 1960's-era feminism in France. Like I said - visit the Wikipedia page on Kristeva, and that will be well covered.
gahhh Julia Kristeva, you are the hottest European intelectual since Roas Luxemburg. But, as you say, "the pervert knows everything but learns nothing."
Is it me or does this video make people want to comment pushing their vocabularies to the limit? Relax, ladies and gentlemen! We all know you don't usually speak like that, who are you trying to fool?
Because language is fascinating, and it is among many major unifying factors among peoples across the planet. The study of language teaches us about how our brains work, and informs us of ways in which our words dictate cultural norms. Studying language is like any social, philosophical or psychological science. The study teaches us more about ourselves, how we interact with each other and how we see and interact with the world.
I take it you find linguistics boring/dull/pointless/useless?
I'm a linguistics student. I don't understand how this is a criticism of Linguistics though, the things she said about Linguistics just seems kind of obviously true. Was it "a criticism"? very interesting, whatever the case.
I don't take it as a criticism of the field of linguistics (as in, why bother, this field is useless), but rather as an expression of the limitations of language and its study (i.e. linguistics). Every tool that we use to communicate is limited, because there's no such thing as a perfect communication tool. Likewise, any means we use to go about studying our communication tools is going to be limited by the very fact that we're using our limited communication tools within that science.
It sounds like your saying that serious scholarship can just be repeating what people already know and have said but with different rhetoric, because its all just 'expression' anyway. I'm not sure what you mean by 'Communication tools', it sounds so broad to the point of triviality, you might just want to say our neurophysiological make up constrains the type of theories we can invent. But thats obvious unless your a Hegelian or something.
Communication tool = (for example) speech, writing, signing, facial expressions, body language, electrical impulses, telepathy - any means by which we communicate.
Yes, it is a criticism of linguistics that most anyone could probably come up with, including linguists, so in that sense, it's not overly "critical," and certainly not breaking new ground. This isn't exactly representative of Kristeva's "serious scholarship." She's certainly earned her stripes.
@bitterfly77 Yeah but theres interesting topics that we might want to discuss on the point of communication tools, if we are willing to make distinctions. First theres a huge difference between how I can communicate with you using mathematics say,
@bitterfly77 That we have different cognitive faculties for communicating different types of things is much more interesting than the fact (pointed out by Descartes and, if we're generous enough, Plato) that scientific theories are limited by the cognitive faculties which organize experience- That almost seems tautological.
@Algonkianist I think that our entire back and forth over the course of these 3 months has been largely tautological. We've been, more or less, spewing the same omphaloskeptic ideas back and forth over "communication tool" and "is this or is this not a criticism of linguistics as a field." I finally finished my Kristeva paper, but I have another due on linquistics and environmentalism, so perhaps we can take this banter in that direction over the next 3 months. :)
@ILoveElena864 I've spent plenty of time focusing on generativism. Noam Chomsky is one of my personal heroes - for more than just his linguistics pursuits. But to suggest that generativism is all that there is to linguistics is to betray your narrow-mindedness.
One word comes strongly to my mind from her manner: EVIL. She talks about songs but her tone is like a nightmare instead. She talks about beautiful sounding or at least accepted things but her manner is power oriented and threatening, like accusing the other one of existing, of having wishes, of living at all. That is typical: many people choose psychology as a profession because of their greed for unfair power over others. Such people should never ever be allowed to decide over others!
You obviously have not read her work and have no idea that she is one of the most brilliant minds alive today, so don't speak about things you know nothing about.
Khtervola: You are an idiot. You are not expressing an opinion. You are farting out loud. Go away and get educated. Then come back and argue you case.
I'm confused as to your rancor toward Kristeva with seemingly little, if any, understanding of who she is. She's not a perfect philosopher, by any means, but who really is? Her profession is not psychology. She's primarily an academic who has fused many different disciplines into her own vision of feminist-like philosophy. And more recently, she's become a novelist. She is no more in a position to "decide over others" than any other author. She has no prescriptive authority, just charisma.
Ah, the typical bow to authority so typical of continental types. Why the fuck should I care who you say she is when I'm busy slating the shit out of what she is saying? And who gives a fuck about psychology? We're talking about linguistics.
Now, this pretentious twit speaks nothing apart from the steaming shit. It is hot shit, freshly baked in her voice box, and comes pouring out every time she speaks. Why on EARTH do you take this utter, unpolluted sewage seriously?
@ILoveElena864 In any case - whether you are a drunken YouTuber, or a personality player, I don't really feel compelled to play this game with you anymore. And therefore, I'm going to block you - meaning that anything you say to me here, I will not receive or be able to view. But if you care to speak to me as a human and take me up on my coffee offer, I'm available at the e-mail address with this same username paired with the Yahoo! email suffix.
I don't know what Wal-Mart you go to, but I think that's a bit of a compliment to the Wal-Mart staff. Most people who study the humanities at the graduate level (myself included) are paid by the university with fellowships and assistantships. In other words: you won't find me at Wal-Mart, Starbucks, etc.
Wow, they must have great workers at wal mart. Where I live we only have rednecks and foreigners working at grocery shops. Once again, US takes it all!
As an artist I feel a strong approach to what she is saying. Although I can also understand the sceptisism of scientists. This rational sceptisism sometimes defended in a so aggresive and unrational manner.
That's silly. First of all, if you consider "linguistics" and "psychology" sciences (as opposed to a fields of study), then she most definitely is a scientist. Secondly, let's presume that her title does not accurately fit under the arbitrary *linguistic* moniker of "scientist." If that is the case, it does not mean that she "can therefore have nothing to say about linguistics." A three-year-old can have something to say about "linguistics proper," regardless of her training. Goodness!
You haven't got a fucking clue what you're talking about. Psychology is not a science, no idea what you're blabbering about here, but you know nothing about either linguistics or the scientific method.
Kristeva is not a scientist, and can therefore contribute nothing to our understanding of linguistics. Where are her testable *theories*, and the repeatable experiments testing those theories? They don't exist. She's just spewing off a tonne of shit.
@ILoveElena864 As I have said before, your personal rancor toward Kristeva perplexes me, and your need to personally invalidate me as a human is further enigmatic. My suspicions are that you are a drunk-YouTube commenter, as I've found is surprisingly common! Or you are evincing some "artificial" personality that gives you some pleasure online, but barely represents your true persona. Maybe we should meet for coffee sometime and sit down. I'd love to know the "real" you. :)
You condescending sow. There is a world of difference between gibberish and technical jargon. The latter can be explained trivially in easy-to-understand language; the former cannot - must not!
Take something I know something about like maths. You meet these things called Banach spaces. Now, using the term 'Banach space' in normal conversation with someone merely demonstrates my own idiocy. A bit like talking in Polish with someone whom I know doesn't speak it - sheer idiocy
I can, however, trivially explain the idea of a Banach space to someone in everyday English in a very short amount of time. I've never seen anyone capable of doing the same with JK's truly ludicrous garbage.
I doubt very much that JK's 'theories' (you still haven't given me an example of a testable theory by her) are any harder than the stuff I've studied, nearly all of which can be summarised in plain English.
Coffee? You live in Canada, dear! Let me know if you're ever in London.
There is a spirit in her opinion that makes her a worthwhile speaker/intellectual.
Lets hear/see your opinion with an interview on video concerning this subject. Since you have decided to dominate this post with your opinion, why not bring it out in the open?
Tell us!!! send me the link when you post it ...I will watch it.
When you make broad generalizations about her not making any sense, without anything specific, and then ask for definitions to words that you can easily find in the dictionary. It makes me think that you are more interested in defaming someone than conversing.
You seem to want to define your world in binary terms.
Her French is pretty simple, and she speaks incredibly slowly. I'm in French 102, and I got most of it. She clearly understands English well--hell, she's read Finnegan's Wake by Joyce, par example--but she probably feels more comfortable speaking in French than English.
@pescador1 In a lot of places around the world, people are multilingual, but still continue to prefer speaking in their "mother tongue." I'm finding this to be very true living in Montreal - a francophone/anglophone bilingual community. It is very common here (and also in places in England and France, for sure) to have one person speaking in French and the other speaking in English, and meanwhile the conversation is entirely mutually intelligible for all participants.
Translating her Freudian mythology a bit, the prelinguistic musicality of language is not only a mark of our narcissistic fragility but also of our imaginative strength; the "dependence on the Mother" is another myth that expresses the primary role of the archetypal psyche, which speaks its symbolic "infantile" language in a world where the Gods have not died but continue to dwell within the living matter of existence, individual affirmations of the divine in existence as poetry and art.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Speaking of narcissistic. Howbout pretentious, cultish, trivial, tautological jibberwoky. Just goes to show that a high IQ doesn't prevent foolishness. Your gonna have to translate a bit more if you want anyone of intellectual integrity to have any idea what the hell your talking about
You're right... the language in mitohistoriador's comment is overly opaque, probably with some intention. But I take the translation to be this: before we develop language, we're fully selfish and dependent, because we lack communication skills adequate to acknowledge the needs and expressions of others. There is some similarity between the sound of infant non-speech and some forms of art (music, especially), and mito has suggested that there is some form of the Divine in this non-speech.
I detected no translation whatsoever, just another dose of puerile crap. Here's a hint: when I was in school my teachers taught me something called 'expressing yourself clearly' and 'justifying your answer'.
To translate her Freudian (or more accurately, Lacanian) assertions into the admittedly more toothsome Jungian mode isn't necessarily to simplify the issue...
The split between the subject and object can also be found in the works of Plato, who not only introduced the subjecive contra the outer objective world, but also dualism although as a epiphenomenalistic theory in his dialogue Phaidon.
salaam by the way If you studied philosophy you would know what i was talking about as I was just using some technical terms that we use, so in a sense it might be gibberish for some, because we are all trained differently. However i did also study classical greek, so i can give you an etymological analysis of the words if you like.
@CallousViciousness I'm sorry that you resent the fact that language evolves into jargon. In any field, it evolves into jargon. Engineers, construction workers, programmers, medical professionals, all use jargon. Jargon has a purpose of simplifying complicated concepts into simple words or phrases that are recognizable to people who regularly get use out of those complicated concepts. You're getting bent out of shape about a particular jargon and calling it "nonsense" out of context.
Expand on what you mean more clearly. If your first use of 'understand' is different from when you later say 'understanding', then it will answer your question if I tell you that Aristarchus apparently knew of the Earth's rotation in the 3rd-century BC (Newton wasn't born till the 17th century AD). If it was meant in the same sense as when you said 'understanding', then the answer to your question is, "Of course not."
J.K. brings up a nice point. Yes,linguistics at this point in time is quite traditional in is approach to language and "limited" as she says in terms of its objectives. However, the reason for this is that until we are able to fully understand and grasp the fundamental intricacies of our I-Language, how can we even fathom accounting for all the other factors that may come into play, notably the dynamics of language within society.
""limited" as she says in terms of its objectives."
Pray tell, what are the limitations? Generative linguistics, and other fields, attempt to understand and explain human language, and related problems, using the scientific method. Perhaps you can tell me what other objective linguistics should have and some other suggestion of the means used to obtain this objective. And justify your answer without a meaningless sequence of 90-syllable words.
My first sentence is a paraphrase of an I.A Richard's statement: "Completest" is a word. If you were thoroughly familiar with English grammar (or read a few more books) you'd know that to begin a sentence with 'And' is not only accepted, it is common. Nice to see you reck your own rede btw (viz. your own 2nd sentence). AND if you have a comment to make about me have the courage to address it to me.
Not really, of course. Even having linguistics as my major study focus, I'm not sure what you would call someone with no first language. Generally, we assume that they are multilingual (bilingual, trilingual, etc...), but it brings up the possibility that there could be someone who has no first language. Other than referring to them as alingual or "without language," I'm not sure what you would call a person with no first language. I happened to Google it, and "Sarah Palin" kept coming up.
By the way, given your perfectly decent command of at least one language (English), you are clearly not alingual. I suspect you have grown up speaking multiple languages, thus, you are bilingual, trilingual or whichever, and thus your "first language" consists of more than one.
Poetry is the completest mode of utterance; not a refined form of infantile babbling! Her invoking of Joyce and Mallarme - done to vindicate her twaddle - reflects carelessness that borders on stupidity! And ignorance too, cloaked in a haze of verbiage!
Its true that she talks a lot of giberish, but she has a point when she points out the problems of the radical distinction between subject and object in cartesian linguistics and the assumption of a solid consciousness. Chomsky denies that language is to communicate but to express thought and this leaves the problems of speach completely aside.
And just look at that interviewer trying so hard to pay attention to what she's saying, taking it all so seriously when he could just be crying with laughter! Hahaha!
OK here's a specific request: One J.K. fan explain to the doubters here (like me) what 'the dynamics of subjective symptoms' are in English, and how their consideration leads to a new, deeper theory of linguistics which encompasses, but extends, generative linguistics.
What makes you emotionally involved? Tone. "Educate YOURself."
You and he/she are not Lacan or Derrida, so keep a dictionary near. I think the element of snobbery is coming from you. I simply responded to an unimaginatively expressed criticism of people who watch video clips of Julia Kristeva.
Her concept of the semiotic is pure genius. Those who have experienced the dissolution of the "speaking subject" (through meditation, drugged states etc.), and experienced its subsequent reformation, should appreciate what the "point" is.
Hahaha, this is the best comment yet! "Those who have experienced the dissolution of the "speaking subject" (through meditation, drugged states etc.), and experienced its subsequent reformation, should appreciate what the "point" is." So now "getting pissed" and "having a hangover" are to be respectively known as "dissolution of the speaking subject" and "reformation of the speaking subject." Incredible.
@CallousViciousness Umm... if you were to equate "being drunk" with "a hangover" and "drugged states" and "meditation," then you're not well-versed in the art of being drunk, drugged, meditative or hungover. You've been drinking some bad booze, sir. And you're not even approximately in the same universe of knowing what the dissolution of the speaking subject is.
I could never understand why people pay money to characters like JK who can go on with such profound gibberish forever. This is of course not science but (quite pathetic) journalism. One can line up here the whole post-WW2 French intellectual tradition: Lacan, Derida, et al. I myself grew up intellectually in the "continental" tradition of philosophy but could never understand what the point was. For starters, where are the arguments?
umm...I think all of these people were trying to explain / understand human communication in all of its various manifestations - beyond what is normally taken for granted.
I believe they all have something valuable to offer and you certainly don't have to buy into everything to find some profound insight.
@brooklyn358 It's unfair to ask that question in a forum that prohibits an answer. We have 500 characters to respond here, and you can't present the "arguments" of the Continental philosophers (not even one of them!) in under 500 characters. Do your own homework if you really want your question answered. Or admit to what you're doing here - blowing off steam.
@bitterfly77 Haha, "you can't present the "arguments" of the Continental philosophers (not even one of them!) in under 500 characters". This says it all. I bet you can't present it in 5000 characters either. See where I'm going?
@tozzila Yes, I see where you are going. And where you are going is called Twitter.
And, you are right. I can't even present one of their arguments in 5000 characters. Basically, I need 5000 words to get started on the simplest of the continental philosophers' views - such as Simone de Beauvoir (simple 2nd wave feminist views).
If you want to criticize a philosopher for not being able to be summarized in under 500 characters, then consider U.S. politics for a career!
@bitterfly77 "If you want to criticize a philosopher for not being able to be summarized in under 500 characters, then consider U.S. politics for a career!" What a great piece of advice! I will.
kristeva is a challenging genius. it's too bad this comments board got taken over by just the sort of children obsessed with the portmanteau sounds that she's talking about, but maybe it would be fitting if the sound of their posts as read aloud weren't as hideous as their meaning. :p
I watched the video and had difficulty discerning JK's main claims. Perhaps this reflects some inadequacy on my part, or perhaps those who claim JK uses obscure expression because she has nothing of substance to say are onto something. Honestly, I just don't know. Seeing as you think she is a genius, could you summarize in a couple of sentences what her main claims are? Cheers.
Good luck with this one, mate! You'll get nothing out of any Kristeva fan for the very reasons you gave: she just dresses her steaming turds of 'theories' with 90-syllable words to make her vacuous prattling sound impressive. See my comments here for some recommended reading.
Can the Kristeva drones here give me, Guaguanco and Brooklyn a single potentially-verifiable prediction which this laughing-stock-in-human-form has ever made?
Does she even bother to even make predictions? I haven't bothered to read her work to find out, worthless crap that it doubtless is.
@CrowbarUpsideTheHead "I haven't bothered to read her work to find out, worthless crap that it doubtless is."
You've answered your own question and betrayed your own cause. If you really want answers, go research it yourself. People who appreciate and/or understand Kristeva are often too busy to summarize her theories in whole on YouTube. That would require a different sort of population.
I saw her holding a seminar on Feminine Genius, one of her latest research interests, a couple of years ago. She is an extremely extremely extremely intellectually charming woman.
The correct spelling is "you're" (contraction of you and are), ridiculous, not "rediculous." Who are "you all?" Invest in a dictionary, admit that you don't understand everything, redirect your self loathing into educating yourself.
in point of fact,the notion of correct spelling is a matter of normative standardisation.By the way, have you ever checked lacan's spelling? Or Derrida's? You will find that they do not resort to anything as unreliable as a dictionary when deciding how to spell a word. Educate YOURself.
Ah, I do love it how the Derrida-Foucault-Kristeva crew like to state the bleeding obvious with 500-syllable words viz. "correct spelling is a matter of normative standardisation." I mean, what can you say? Just speak in English. If you want to learn about linguistics, MIT have Chomsky's full, draft PhD thesis online. You can download it for free, though I doubt any of the gibberish-utterers on here could hope to understand it. Perhaps that's why they stick to pretentious gibberish.
If you don't understand something it's gibberish. Chomsky is a theorist of language in the brain (universal grammar), not language usage- your comment is completely inappropriate.
the allocation "nothing to understand" is a hypothetical abstraction that does not exist in a physical realm, for matter is the substance of all actions. it can be a deliberate "gibberish" that can be understood as deliberate gibberish through a dialectical method, self-understandable to non-translatable gibberish is understanding it with some translation capability, etc
Pray tell, what actually is there to understand? There is nothing here but the most puerile gibberish. It's incredible that this sort of bullshit gets taken seriously, let alone so seriously.
Provide examples, Callous, of statements that stink of puerile gibberish. I will embrace your position and gleefully shit all over the bitch with you.
It's not science this play of language, signs and concepts. So why take it so seriously if, as your "tone" seems to suggest, you do. And sure, be more specific. I liked your comment: "correct spelling is a matter of normative standardisation." Where did get that? mitohistoriador makes sense.
You're quite right, it's not science! There we can most certainly agree. In which case the validity of her 'linguistics' rests upon science not being the appropriate way to investigate the world.
"Why take it seriously?"
I can assure you I do not.
"[B]e more specific."
A perfectly reasonable request. Here's one: "[T]he notion of the unconscious allows her to create a more dialectical model where language emerges from musicality..." (mitohistoriador)
looking back on what i wrote a year ago, that i'd quite forgotton except for your potty gob comments, It is pretty good though isn't it? Thanks for reminding me. You should take note and learn instead of succombing to infantile convulsions, a nasty, anti social habit that will almost certainly condemn you to failure and despondancy should you reach maturity.
menacetohighsociety 2 months ago
shes a cute thinker, like very soft. instead of no im right its POWER RAPE THE CHILRDREN IM FAUCOULT.
gen6k 4 months ago
A real piece of incomprehensible crap
poetas84 6 months ago
Comment removed
poetas84 6 months ago
watch?v=CuQHSKLXu2c#at=991
MyMeatYearns4Andrea 6 months ago
is she opponent to Chomsky's theory of language?
eulex10 7 months ago
@eulex10 No. Kristeva is approaching psychoanalysis utilizing semiotical methods that were considered inadequate for explaining syntax after the 1950s . To make it more clear , semiotics have become an explanatory branch of their own , which can shed light to linguistics but not fully explain them (Chomsky's theories do a better job) .
However , one shouldn't criticize a branch for not being able to account for something it does not intend to.
SonytoBratsoni 7 months ago
@SonytoBratsoni are u linguist?
eulex10 7 months ago
@eulex10 Nope , I just have innate curiosity with linguistic inclinations :) .
SonytoBratsoni 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Quelle conne... We see the physiological limitation of women in philosophie
floplande 7 months ago
Comment removed
floplande 7 months ago
furthermore, her thoughts on the split subject are not at all without substance, and i think she does a better job than lacan at explaining it. (although both are anticipated by sartre some 40 years prior.) subject positions are spaces we occupy that are opened by objects; therefore when we occupy those positions we are not a simple linguistic 'whole,' a transcendental ego, a unified subject, but a split subject given its place, name, identity, by the object. it's a legitimate thought.
jdriscoll2000 9 months ago
kristeva is actually one of the more substantive post-structuralists i've encountered. as concerns the philistine comments--i fail to see why anything she's saying should be considered (a) difficult or (b) falsely erudite. the terminology used in post-structuralist writing is there *so that* you can follow what it's saying. philosophical language, despite what analytics will say, demands nuance; the flow of this kind of thought is necessarily complex--the content is in the form.
jdriscoll2000 9 months ago
Word choices are dictated by the blissful sound of language. We can chose from a lot of vocabulary. But the one that is most blissful wins out.
Israe5l 11 months ago
Basically, her answer is "yes" to the second choice in the question. Linquistics presumes to be the "science" of language & takes the separation of subject & object as a given. But the "art" of language, poetics, makes the separation of subject & object, problematic. It messes around with the separation of "I" & "you" like in baby talk or a drunken soliliquy in Finnegan's Wake. The differ"ance" is the difference between art & science & the problem of using one to explain the other.
bondurango 1 year ago
Ah, good old postmodernists. Spewing vapid nonsense with a straight face and utmost self-satisfaction.
chapaev36 1 year ago
I can summarize her in 500 characters.
There are two periods in human life.
0-2 years - you live in the pre-Oedipal state. You don’t use language and depend on your mother. But you communicate via the music, rhythm and bodily dependency. A lot of poets use this pre-lingual potential, and that makes their work beautiful
After 2, you start to use language, and enter the institutions. They eventually makes you a boring dude who insists everything should be summarized to 500 characters.
naposletku100 1 year ago 29
@naposletku100 wow.
Tchaikov 11 months ago
@naposletku100 You inhabit a different plane of existence. I prefer Dawkins' succinct analysis of fruitcakes like Julia:
"Suppose you are an intellectual impostor with nothing to say, but with strong ambitions to succeed in academic life, collect a coterie of reverent disciples and have students around the world anoint your pages with respectful yellow highlighter. What kind of literary style would you cultivate? Not a lucid one, surely, for clarity would expose your lack of content."
MyMeatYearns4Andrea 7 months ago
7:18 -- voyons donc -- she says "mystiques médiévales" -- "medieval mystics" and not "medieval linguists" as the subtitles would lead us to believe. Those medieval linguists are pretty anachronistic.
simonmatthewbrown 1 year ago
To FCSH com amor parte 2
menc73 1 year ago
Je me trompe sûrement, mais ne me prétendrai jamais être psychanalyste bon, sinon efficace, quoique deviennent l'étendu de mes connaissances en matière d'analyse de l'esprit humain. En revanche, il me suffit d'observer cette femme pour comprendre que quelque chose ne tourne pas rond chez elle... Et quand je l'écoute, j'entends un individu qui ne semble pas s'intéresser au sens de ses propres paroles. J'entends en quelque sorte une prétendue épistémologiste qui aurait perdu tous ses sens.
MrKhelkun 1 year ago
Hé bien oui, Julia Kristeva, comment dire ? Un cruel manque d'humilité d'une personne de plus se prétendant habile à l'analyse de l'esprit d'autrui. Plus j'écoute ces soit disant psychanalystes, plus je me dis qu'ils sont à la fois le sauveur et le sauvé. Autrement dit, ils sont très habile à se contempler eux mêmes, s'écouter parler, et à refouler leur doutes dans le portrait qu'il dresse de l'autre.
MrKhelkun 1 year ago
It's so sad that the poor woman doesn't seem to realize Freud's psychotic oedipus bullocks infuses society with a degenerate and perverse view on toddlers and consequently on humanity. Do babies really want to f*** their mommies? Come on people!
The complexity she generates in neurotic attempts to grasp creativity leave her empty handed, especially since her premise that the unconcious is a dangerous and unknowable pool of horrors sees her utterly unequipped to grasp creativity,
or HUMANITY...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
Tautologies , contradictions and contigencies.None of you can prove her very sensible creative arguments as worthless. The entire world recognizes her contributions .What have any of you done.Go hide in our classrooms! None of you can even write well here.Pathetic.Only numbbrains comment on youtube it seems!
lovesGenet 1 year ago
@lovesGenet I must miss those creative arguments you talk about. I dont see it - whats her point? In this video for example she doesn't really say anything.
tokotokotoko3 1 year ago
@ILoveElena864 if you weren't such a lazy, irritable and partisan scholar, you would discover that your obsessive need to dismiss Kristiva as `shit' denotes you as a classic `Abjectifyer' - Somebody, for example, who finds the existence of the Duck billed platypus deeply offensive, taxonomically speaking. The fact, is you cannot deal with Kristeva objectively at all, can you? only Abjectively, dismissively, brutishly, without patience or sympathy but worst of all, without rationality.
menacetohighsociety 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@menacetohighsociety Blah, blah, blah... Who gives a shit about your fucking shit?
andreaandrewmilnefan 1 year ago
Comment removed
menacetohighsociety 1 year ago
who was mallarmé?? Did he was a K1-Fighter or UFC?
alainrrobbegrillet 1 year ago
@alainrrobbegrillet
Alain, you came back to whip us ?! Or worse... to write, make movies ?!
Please, go back to Brest !!!
To answer your question : Mallarme, as the clown in red says, has used words to make music instead of making sense. Everythin else she says is just pure nonsense.
Mallarme is one of the founder of western death.
YunaBonbeurre 1 year ago
Dear Julia,
You are a fucking nutjob sitting there spouting off utter fucking shit. You are laughing stock for anyone with functioning brain cells. Please don't stop your shit storms, they provide so much amusement for so many.
Yours sincerely,
ILE864
ILoveElena864 1 year ago
@ILoveElena864 You had a very difficult relationship with your mother, right? =)
Supercrespo69 3 months ago
Hi there people, I am doing my dissertation on semiotics I have used the work of Barthes, but Kristeva is not sticking for me can someone please outline her basic idea, or the point she is making, I have tried to read various translated texts but the translation is not helpful , thanks
MsJupitergirl 1 year ago
Dear MsJupitergirl,,
Stop wasting your life on this rubbish!!!
Best,
ILE864
ILoveElena864 1 year ago
@ILoveElena864 thats a very useful point actually!! thank you. I will push it out of my mind in 3 weeks once its over with, then I can get a real life. thanks for your inspiration !!
MsJupitergirl 1 year ago
Dear MsJupitergirl,
You are most welcome! I'm always aiming to stop people wasting their valuable time on people like Kristeva and Derrida!
All my love and kisses from overcast London,
ILE864
ILoveElena864 1 year ago
@MsJupitergirl Start with Kristeva's Wikipedia article. I did my thesis on Irigaray - which is related to Kristeva. Comparatively, Kristeva is *much* easier than Irigaray to discern. In either case, you need to have a very basic understanding of Freud and 1960's-era feminism in France. Like I said - visit the Wikipedia page on Kristeva, and that will be well covered.
bitterfly77 1 year ago
gahhh Julia Kristeva, you are the hottest European intelectual since Roas Luxemburg. But, as you say, "the pervert knows everything but learns nothing."
SandraBullcocked 1 year ago
Is it me or does this video make people want to comment pushing their vocabularies to the limit? Relax, ladies and gentlemen! We all know you don't usually speak like that, who are you trying to fool?
tomski3 2 years ago 2
Bravo, tomski3!
ILoveElena864 1 year ago
I thought Julia Kristeva was more beautiful....
thediasman 2 years ago
y would ne one major in Linguistics???
trufiend138 2 years ago
Because language is fascinating, and it is among many major unifying factors among peoples across the planet. The study of language teaches us about how our brains work, and informs us of ways in which our words dictate cultural norms. Studying language is like any social, philosophical or psychological science. The study teaches us more about ourselves, how we interact with each other and how we see and interact with the world.
I take it you find linguistics boring/dull/pointless/useless?
bitterfly77 2 years ago
I'm a linguistics student. I don't understand how this is a criticism of Linguistics though, the things she said about Linguistics just seems kind of obviously true. Was it "a criticism"? very interesting, whatever the case.
Algonkianist 2 years ago
I don't take it as a criticism of the field of linguistics (as in, why bother, this field is useless), but rather as an expression of the limitations of language and its study (i.e. linguistics). Every tool that we use to communicate is limited, because there's no such thing as a perfect communication tool. Likewise, any means we use to go about studying our communication tools is going to be limited by the very fact that we're using our limited communication tools within that science.
bitterfly77 2 years ago
It sounds like your saying that serious scholarship can just be repeating what people already know and have said but with different rhetoric, because its all just 'expression' anyway. I'm not sure what you mean by 'Communication tools', it sounds so broad to the point of triviality, you might just want to say our neurophysiological make up constrains the type of theories we can invent. But thats obvious unless your a Hegelian or something.
Algonkianist 2 years ago
Communication tool = (for example) speech, writing, signing, facial expressions, body language, electrical impulses, telepathy - any means by which we communicate.
Yes, it is a criticism of linguistics that most anyone could probably come up with, including linguists, so in that sense, it's not overly "critical," and certainly not breaking new ground. This isn't exactly representative of Kristeva's "serious scholarship." She's certainly earned her stripes.
I'm generally anti-Hegelian.
bitterfly77 2 years ago
@bitterfly77 Yeah but theres interesting topics that we might want to discuss on the point of communication tools, if we are willing to make distinctions. First theres a huge difference between how I can communicate with you using mathematics say,
Algonkianist 1 year ago
@bitterfly77 That we have different cognitive faculties for communicating different types of things is much more interesting than the fact (pointed out by Descartes and, if we're generous enough, Plato) that scientific theories are limited by the cognitive faculties which organize experience- That almost seems tautological.
Algonkianist 1 year ago
@Algonkianist I think that our entire back and forth over the course of these 3 months has been largely tautological. We've been, more or less, spewing the same omphaloskeptic ideas back and forth over "communication tool" and "is this or is this not a criticism of linguistics as a field." I finally finished my Kristeva paper, but I have another due on linquistics and environmentalism, so perhaps we can take this banter in that direction over the next 3 months. :)
bitterfly77 1 year ago
Comment removed
bitterfly77 1 year ago
If you're a linguistics students, focus on actual linguistics like generativism, not this fucking shit.
ILoveElena864 1 year ago
@ILoveElena864 I've spent plenty of time focusing on generativism. Noam Chomsky is one of my personal heroes - for more than just his linguistics pursuits. But to suggest that generativism is all that there is to linguistics is to betray your narrow-mindedness.
bitterfly77 1 year ago
Joyce fascination with the feminine image cast him right into the pre-Oedipal phase... ha ha ha
poetics74 2 years ago
@poetics74
I agree, ahahahahahaha! IT's fucking hilarious, isn't it?
ILoveElena864 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
One word comes strongly to my mind from her manner: EVIL. She talks about songs but her tone is like a nightmare instead. She talks about beautiful sounding or at least accepted things but her manner is power oriented and threatening, like accusing the other one of existing, of having wishes, of living at all. That is typical: many people choose psychology as a profession because of their greed for unfair power over others. Such people should never ever be allowed to decide over others!
khtervola 2 years ago
You obviously have not read her work and have no idea that she is one of the most brilliant minds alive today, so don't speak about things you know nothing about.
heisthelord 2 years ago
One of the most brilliant minds?! Ahahahahaha! Oh, you nutters make me laugh!
ILoveElena864 1 year ago
ur projecting
hegshegshegs 2 years ago
Khtervola: You are an idiot. You are not expressing an opinion. You are farting out loud. Go away and get educated. Then come back and argue you case.
Sado.
pseudonym1964 2 years ago 2
I'm confused as to your rancor toward Kristeva with seemingly little, if any, understanding of who she is. She's not a perfect philosopher, by any means, but who really is? Her profession is not psychology. She's primarily an academic who has fused many different disciplines into her own vision of feminist-like philosophy. And more recently, she's become a novelist. She is no more in a position to "decide over others" than any other author. She has no prescriptive authority, just charisma.
bitterfly77 2 years ago
Ah, the typical bow to authority so typical of continental types. Why the fuck should I care who you say she is when I'm busy slating the shit out of what she is saying? And who gives a fuck about psychology? We're talking about linguistics.
Now, this pretentious twit speaks nothing apart from the steaming shit. It is hot shit, freshly baked in her voice box, and comes pouring out every time she speaks. Why on EARTH do you take this utter, unpolluted sewage seriously?
ILoveElena864 1 year ago
@ILoveElena864 In any case - whether you are a drunken YouTuber, or a personality player, I don't really feel compelled to play this game with you anymore. And therefore, I'm going to block you - meaning that anything you say to me here, I will not receive or be able to view. But if you care to speak to me as a human and take me up on my coffee offer, I'm available at the e-mail address with this same username paired with the Yahoo! email suffix.
bitterfly77 1 year ago
I'd like to see the entire interview...is it possible?
elsegno 2 years ago
No.
RationalEmotive 2 years ago
I would kiss anyone if they were dying, if they requested it, I wouldn't be so mean as to deprive someone of their dying wish.
Raffzeee 2 years ago
the only point studying humanities is to refine skills in an eventual attempt for deeper research....while working at wal mart.
trufiend138 2 years ago
I don't know what Wal-Mart you go to, but I think that's a bit of a compliment to the Wal-Mart staff. Most people who study the humanities at the graduate level (myself included) are paid by the university with fellowships and assistantships. In other words: you won't find me at Wal-Mart, Starbucks, etc.
rellman 2 years ago
Wow, they must have great workers at wal mart. Where I live we only have rednecks and foreigners working at grocery shops. Once again, US takes it all!
deterdetsamma2 2 years ago
As an artist I feel a strong approach to what she is saying. Although I can also understand the sceptisism of scientists. This rational sceptisism sometimes defended in a so aggresive and unrational manner.
aina7 2 years ago
Kristeva is not a scientist, and can therefore have nothing to say about linguistics proper.
VicicousCallousness 2 years ago
That's silly. First of all, if you consider "linguistics" and "psychology" sciences (as opposed to a fields of study), then she most definitely is a scientist. Secondly, let's presume that her title does not accurately fit under the arbitrary *linguistic* moniker of "scientist." If that is the case, it does not mean that she "can therefore have nothing to say about linguistics." A three-year-old can have something to say about "linguistics proper," regardless of her training. Goodness!
bitterfly77 2 years ago
Dear bitterfly77,
You haven't got a fucking clue what you're talking about. Psychology is not a science, no idea what you're blabbering about here, but you know nothing about either linguistics or the scientific method.
Kristeva is not a scientist, and can therefore contribute nothing to our understanding of linguistics. Where are her testable *theories*, and the repeatable experiments testing those theories? They don't exist. She's just spewing off a tonne of shit.
Best,
ILE864
ILoveElena864 1 year ago
@ILoveElena864 As I have said before, your personal rancor toward Kristeva perplexes me, and your need to personally invalidate me as a human is further enigmatic. My suspicions are that you are a drunk-YouTube commenter, as I've found is surprisingly common! Or you are evincing some "artificial" personality that gives you some pleasure online, but barely represents your true persona. Maybe we should meet for coffee sometime and sit down. I'd love to know the "real" you. :)
bitterfly77 1 year ago
Dear @bitterfly77,
You condescending sow. There is a world of difference between gibberish and technical jargon. The latter can be explained trivially in easy-to-understand language; the former cannot - must not!
Take something I know something about like maths. You meet these things called Banach spaces. Now, using the term 'Banach space' in normal conversation with someone merely demonstrates my own idiocy. A bit like talking in Polish with someone whom I know doesn't speak it - sheer idiocy
ILoveElena864 1 year ago
I can, however, trivially explain the idea of a Banach space to someone in everyday English in a very short amount of time. I've never seen anyone capable of doing the same with JK's truly ludicrous garbage.
I doubt very much that JK's 'theories' (you still haven't given me an example of a testable theory by her) are any harder than the stuff I've studied, nearly all of which can be summarised in plain English.
Coffee? You live in Canada, dear! Let me know if you're ever in London.
ILE864
ILoveElena864 1 year ago
Comment removed
bitterfly77 1 year ago
I'll deal with the rest of you later, I've got coooking to do.
VicicousCallousness 2 years ago
more more... can you please upload the whole thing? that's amazing
groovakos 2 years ago
I pity you so terribly.
CallousViciousness 2 years ago
I see you have a bone to pick with JK..
There is a spirit in her opinion that makes her a worthwhile speaker/intellectual.
Lets hear/see your opinion with an interview on video concerning this subject. Since you have decided to dominate this post with your opinion, why not bring it out in the open?
Tell us!!! send me the link when you post it ...I will watch it.
xpez 2 years ago
Comment removed
VicicousCallousness 2 years ago
subjective symptoms are symptoms that are imprecise to measure because, for everyone, they could be different. Physical pain is a subjective symptom.
The other words are so pedantic, it would be a waste of energy to write the definition. That makes me question the sincerity in your position.
xpez 2 years ago
When you make broad generalizations about her not making any sense, without anything specific, and then ask for definitions to words that you can easily find in the dictionary. It makes me think that you are more interested in defaming someone than conversing.
You seem to want to define your world in binary terms.
Yes-no ...right wrong...good bad..truth lie....fact fiction...
Living life this way creates misery.
xpez 2 years ago
By the tone of all of your comments, you don't seem very happy.
xpez 2 years ago
:D :D
VicicousCallousness 2 years ago
I actually like you xpez, you sound nice.
I take back every comment I've made in response to what you've said.
VicicousCallousness 2 years ago
:D :D
VicicousCallousness 2 years ago
:D :D
VicicousCallousness 2 years ago
Comment removed
VicicousCallousness 2 years ago
He asks in English she responds in French and they understand each other???
pescador1 3 years ago
Her French is pretty simple, and she speaks incredibly slowly. I'm in French 102, and I got most of it. She clearly understands English well--hell, she's read Finnegan's Wake by Joyce, par example--but she probably feels more comfortable speaking in French than English.
onlywinter 3 years ago
@pescador1 In a lot of places around the world, people are multilingual, but still continue to prefer speaking in their "mother tongue." I'm finding this to be very true living in Montreal - a francophone/anglophone bilingual community. It is very common here (and also in places in England and France, for sure) to have one person speaking in French and the other speaking in English, and meanwhile the conversation is entirely mutually intelligible for all participants.
bitterfly77 1 year ago
Translating her Freudian mythology a bit, the prelinguistic musicality of language is not only a mark of our narcissistic fragility but also of our imaginative strength; the "dependence on the Mother" is another myth that expresses the primary role of the archetypal psyche, which speaks its symbolic "infantile" language in a world where the Gods have not died but continue to dwell within the living matter of existence, individual affirmations of the divine in existence as poetry and art.
mitohistoriador 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Speaking of narcissistic. Howbout pretentious, cultish, trivial, tautological jibberwoky. Just goes to show that a high IQ doesn't prevent foolishness. Your gonna have to translate a bit more if you want anyone of intellectual integrity to have any idea what the hell your talking about
a5dr3 3 years ago
Hooray! A sane voice in the wilderness.
CallousViciousness 2 years ago
You're right... the language in mitohistoriador's comment is overly opaque, probably with some intention. But I take the translation to be this: before we develop language, we're fully selfish and dependent, because we lack communication skills adequate to acknowledge the needs and expressions of others. There is some similarity between the sound of infant non-speech and some forms of art (music, especially), and mito has suggested that there is some form of the Divine in this non-speech.
bitterfly77 2 years ago
I detected no translation whatsoever, just another dose of puerile crap. Here's a hint: when I was in school my teachers taught me something called 'expressing yourself clearly' and 'justifying your answer'.
CallousViciousness 2 years ago
To translate her Freudian (or more accurately, Lacanian) assertions into the admittedly more toothsome Jungian mode isn't necessarily to simplify the issue...
DarKool81 2 years ago
The split between the subject and object can also be found in the works of Plato, who not only introduced the subjecive contra the outer objective world, but also dualism although as a epiphenomenalistic theory in his dialogue Phaidon.
sulle07 3 years ago
Again, nothing but unadulterated, pretentious gibberish. Retype it in English the way your teachers taught you when you were a teenager.
CallousViciousness 2 years ago
salaam by the way If you studied philosophy you would know what i was talking about as I was just using some technical terms that we use, so in a sense it might be gibberish for some, because we are all trained differently. However i did also study classical greek, so i can give you an etymological analysis of the words if you like.
sulle07 2 years ago
Huh, yes, I agree, forgive my comment, I was just typing furiously. I didn't even read what you put. Yeah, Phaidon is a helpful suggestion.
VicicousCallousness 2 years ago
@CallousViciousness I'm sorry that you resent the fact that language evolves into jargon. In any field, it evolves into jargon. Engineers, construction workers, programmers, medical professionals, all use jargon. Jargon has a purpose of simplifying complicated concepts into simple words or phrases that are recognizable to people who regularly get use out of those complicated concepts. You're getting bent out of shape about a particular jargon and calling it "nonsense" out of context.
bitterfly77 1 year ago
Could scientist understand planetary revolution without a solid understanding of the laws of gravity?
xXxkingofgamesxXx 3 years ago
Comment removed
CallousViciousness 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Expand on what you mean more clearly. If your first use of 'understand' is different from when you later say 'understanding', then it will answer your question if I tell you that Aristarchus apparently knew of the Earth's rotation in the 3rd-century BC (Newton wasn't born till the 17th century AD). If it was meant in the same sense as when you said 'understanding', then the answer to your question is, "Of course not."
CallousViciousness 2 years ago
J.K. brings up a nice point. Yes,linguistics at this point in time is quite traditional in is approach to language and "limited" as she says in terms of its objectives. However, the reason for this is that until we are able to fully understand and grasp the fundamental intricacies of our I-Language, how can we even fathom accounting for all the other factors that may come into play, notably the dynamics of language within society.
xXxkingofgamesxXx 3 years ago
""limited" as she says in terms of its objectives."
Pray tell, what are the limitations? Generative linguistics, and other fields, attempt to understand and explain human language, and related problems, using the scientific method. Perhaps you can tell me what other objective linguistics should have and some other suggestion of the means used to obtain this objective. And justify your answer without a meaningless sequence of 90-syllable words.
CallousViciousness 2 years ago
Brilliant. I wish a good samaritan would post up a video of her discussing 'abjection' though.
This is the only interview on youtube with an english translation though, so i am happy nonetheless.
priertoujours 3 years ago
I cry tears of sadness for you.
CallousViciousness 2 years ago
GENIUS. we should all read JK
xpez 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NO! Stop WASTING your life on this rubbish.
CallousViciousness 2 years ago
Alguien entiende a Kristeva. No se ha suicidado aun?
akenaton97 3 years ago
@akenaton97 haha
bitterfly77 1 year ago
DarKool81,
Completest? Your grammar is as refined as your intellect. And never start a sentence with 'and'.
Bolinas1971 3 years ago
Grammar this, grammar that.. keep ur perfect grammar in school it has nothing to do with the real world... im fuckin tired of these racist shit
foecunditatis 3 years ago 3
My first sentence is a paraphrase of an I.A Richard's statement: "Completest" is a word. If you were thoroughly familiar with English grammar (or read a few more books) you'd know that to begin a sentence with 'And' is not only accepted, it is common. Nice to see you reck your own rede btw (viz. your own 2nd sentence). AND if you have a comment to make about me have the courage to address it to me.
Now go fuck off and learn some English!
DarKool81 2 years ago
Irish is my first language,
miss.
Bolinas1971 2 years ago
Papiamentu is mine
DarKool81 2 years ago
- i used to have a trout farm
in Aruba
Bolinas1971 2 years ago
Antu, paso bo ta un kens, miho bo bai beck einan - bo no tin nada mas pa hasi den bo bida toch!
DarKool81 2 years ago
I have no first language. Damn, what does that make me?
deterdetsamma2 2 years ago
English
DarKool81 2 years ago
I think that makes you Sarah Palin.
bitterfly77 2 years ago 2
Wow, that was insightful!
deterdetsamma2 2 years ago
Not really, of course. Even having linguistics as my major study focus, I'm not sure what you would call someone with no first language. Generally, we assume that they are multilingual (bilingual, trilingual, etc...), but it brings up the possibility that there could be someone who has no first language. Other than referring to them as alingual or "without language," I'm not sure what you would call a person with no first language. I happened to Google it, and "Sarah Palin" kept coming up.
bitterfly77 2 years ago 2
By the way, given your perfectly decent command of at least one language (English), you are clearly not alingual. I suspect you have grown up speaking multiple languages, thus, you are bilingual, trilingual or whichever, and thus your "first language" consists of more than one.
bitterfly77 2 years ago 2
Poetry is the completest mode of utterance; not a refined form of infantile babbling! Her invoking of Joyce and Mallarme - done to vindicate her twaddle - reflects carelessness that borders on stupidity! And ignorance too, cloaked in a haze of verbiage!
DarKool81 3 years ago
"Her invoking of Joyce and Mallarme - done to vindicate her twaddle - reflects carelessness that borders on stupidity!"
Hahaha!
VicicousCallousness 2 years ago
Its true that she talks a lot of giberish, but she has a point when she points out the problems of the radical distinction between subject and object in cartesian linguistics and the assumption of a solid consciousness. Chomsky denies that language is to communicate but to express thought and this leaves the problems of speach completely aside.
Chemoliano 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
horny lol? yerrr i am! my names Kayla fancy a webcam chat wher i might treat u!!!!! cum join me _ Play-Cam(.COM) _
popoff82 3 years ago
And just look at that interviewer trying so hard to pay attention to what she's saying, taking it all so seriously when he could just be crying with laughter! Hahaha!
OK here's a specific request: One J.K. fan explain to the doubters here (like me) what 'the dynamics of subjective symptoms' are in English, and how their consideration leads to a new, deeper theory of linguistics which encompasses, but extends, generative linguistics.
Get typing, J.K. fans, we just can't wait!
CrowbarUpsideTheHead 3 years ago
What makes him/her a loser? "your all dicks...."
What makes you emotionally involved? Tone. "Educate YOURself."
You and he/she are not Lacan or Derrida, so keep a dictionary near. I think the element of snobbery is coming from you. I simply responded to an unimaginatively expressed criticism of people who watch video clips of Julia Kristeva.
edcherrylawn 3 years ago
What makes him/her a loser, and me emotionally involved? Could there be an element of snobbery?
mulmoher 3 years ago 2
Her concept of the semiotic is pure genius. Those who have experienced the dissolution of the "speaking subject" (through meditation, drugged states etc.), and experienced its subsequent reformation, should appreciate what the "point" is.
Maldororisdead 3 years ago 2
Pure genius? Pure steaming turd, more like.
CrowbarUpsideTheHead 3 years ago
Hahaha, this is the best comment yet! "Those who have experienced the dissolution of the "speaking subject" (through meditation, drugged states etc.), and experienced its subsequent reformation, should appreciate what the "point" is." So now "getting pissed" and "having a hangover" are to be respectively known as "dissolution of the speaking subject" and "reformation of the speaking subject." Incredible.
Quit wasting your life on this rubbish.
CallousViciousness 2 years ago 3
@CallousViciousness Umm... if you were to equate "being drunk" with "a hangover" and "drugged states" and "meditation," then you're not well-versed in the art of being drunk, drugged, meditative or hungover. You've been drinking some bad booze, sir. And you're not even approximately in the same universe of knowing what the dissolution of the speaking subject is.
bitterfly77 1 year ago
I could never understand why people pay money to characters like JK who can go on with such profound gibberish forever. This is of course not science but (quite pathetic) journalism. One can line up here the whole post-WW2 French intellectual tradition: Lacan, Derida, et al. I myself grew up intellectually in the "continental" tradition of philosophy but could never understand what the point was. For starters, where are the arguments?
brooklyn358 3 years ago 2
Bravo!
CrowbarUpsideTheHead 3 years ago
Haha! Brilliant!
CallousViciousness 2 years ago
umm...I think all of these people were trying to explain / understand human communication in all of its various manifestations - beyond what is normally taken for granted.
I believe they all have something valuable to offer and you certainly don't have to buy into everything to find some profound insight.
xpez 2 years ago
@brooklyn358 It's unfair to ask that question in a forum that prohibits an answer. We have 500 characters to respond here, and you can't present the "arguments" of the Continental philosophers (not even one of them!) in under 500 characters. Do your own homework if you really want your question answered. Or admit to what you're doing here - blowing off steam.
bitterfly77 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bitterfly77 Haha, "you can't present the "arguments" of the Continental philosophers (not even one of them!) in under 500 characters". This says it all. I bet you can't present it in 5000 characters either. See where I'm going?
tozzila 1 year ago
@tozzila Yes, I see where you are going. And where you are going is called Twitter.
And, you are right. I can't even present one of their arguments in 5000 characters. Basically, I need 5000 words to get started on the simplest of the continental philosophers' views - such as Simone de Beauvoir (simple 2nd wave feminist views).
If you want to criticize a philosopher for not being able to be summarized in under 500 characters, then consider U.S. politics for a career!
bitterfly77 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bitterfly77 "If you want to criticize a philosopher for not being able to be summarized in under 500 characters, then consider U.S. politics for a career!" What a great piece of advice! I will.
tozzila 1 year ago
kristeva is a challenging genius. it's too bad this comments board got taken over by just the sort of children obsessed with the portmanteau sounds that she's talking about, but maybe it would be fitting if the sound of their posts as read aloud weren't as hideous as their meaning. :p
rock on julia! ba ba boo boo mew mew.
highway234 3 years ago
I watched the video and had difficulty discerning JK's main claims. Perhaps this reflects some inadequacy on my part, or perhaps those who claim JK uses obscure expression because she has nothing of substance to say are onto something. Honestly, I just don't know. Seeing as you think she is a genius, could you summarize in a couple of sentences what her main claims are? Cheers.
Guaguanco11 3 years ago 5
Good luck with this one, mate! You'll get nothing out of any Kristeva fan for the very reasons you gave: she just dresses her steaming turds of 'theories' with 90-syllable words to make her vacuous prattling sound impressive. See my comments here for some recommended reading.
CrowbarUpsideTheHead 3 years ago
Can the Kristeva drones here give me, Guaguanco and Brooklyn a single potentially-verifiable prediction which this laughing-stock-in-human-form has ever made?
Does she even bother to even make predictions? I haven't bothered to read her work to find out, worthless crap that it doubtless is.
CrowbarUpsideTheHead 3 years ago
@CrowbarUpsideTheHead "I haven't bothered to read her work to find out, worthless crap that it doubtless is."
You've answered your own question and betrayed your own cause. If you really want answers, go research it yourself. People who appreciate and/or understand Kristeva are often too busy to summarize her theories in whole on YouTube. That would require a different sort of population.
bitterfly77 1 year ago 2
1.2.3 thats enuf of that!
jalomy 3 years ago 2
Hahaha!
CallousViciousness 2 years ago
I saw her holding a seminar on Feminine Genius, one of her latest research interests, a couple of years ago. She is an extremely extremely extremely intellectually charming woman.
dglekjofg 3 years ago 4
So basically she chats nothing but complete codshit, but you want to bone her cos she's got nice cheekbones?
CallousViciousness 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
your all dicks....seriously this is rediculous.....you all sit at desks and dont live so you can all fuck off! your all yuppies!
thegoldenz 3 years ago
The correct spelling is "you're" (contraction of you and are), ridiculous, not "rediculous." Who are "you all?" Invest in a dictionary, admit that you don't understand everything, redirect your self loathing into educating yourself.
edcherrylawn 3 years ago 2
id rather kill myself...
thegoldenz 3 years ago
in point of fact,the notion of correct spelling is a matter of normative standardisation.By the way, have you ever checked lacan's spelling? Or Derrida's? You will find that they do not resort to anything as unreliable as a dictionary when deciding how to spell a word. Educate YOURself.
mulmoher 3 years ago
You sound too emotionally involved much like the loser you are defending.
edcherrylawn 3 years ago
Ah, I do love it how the Derrida-Foucault-Kristeva crew like to state the bleeding obvious with 500-syllable words viz. "correct spelling is a matter of normative standardisation." I mean, what can you say? Just speak in English. If you want to learn about linguistics, MIT have Chomsky's full, draft PhD thesis online. You can download it for free, though I doubt any of the gibberish-utterers on here could hope to understand it. Perhaps that's why they stick to pretentious gibberish.
CallousViciousness 2 years ago
If you don't understand something it's gibberish. Chomsky is a theorist of language in the brain (universal grammar), not language usage- your comment is completely inappropriate.
mulmoher 2 years ago
Actually, Dante Alighieri was the first to pose the idea of universal grammar and its cognitive origins.
zekal10 2 years ago
No, gibberish is when there is nothing to understand.
qwertyubiofhd 2 years ago 2
the allocation "nothing to understand" is a hypothetical abstraction that does not exist in a physical realm, for matter is the substance of all actions. it can be a deliberate "gibberish" that can be understood as deliberate gibberish through a dialectical method, self-understandable to non-translatable gibberish is understanding it with some translation capability, etc
gen6k 2 years ago
"[A]dmit that you don't understand everything..."
Pray tell, what actually is there to understand? There is nothing here but the most puerile gibberish. It's incredible that this sort of bullshit gets taken seriously, let alone so seriously.
CallousViciousness 2 years ago
Provide examples, Callous, of statements that stink of puerile gibberish. I will embrace your position and gleefully shit all over the bitch with you.
edcherrylawn 2 years ago
I have hinted at many such examples, this comments section is replete with them. I would be delighted to be more explicit if you so desire =)
CallousViciousness 2 years ago
It's not science this play of language, signs and concepts. So why take it so seriously if, as your "tone" seems to suggest, you do. And sure, be more specific. I liked your comment: "correct spelling is a matter of normative standardisation." Where did get that? mitohistoriador makes sense.
edcherrylawn 2 years ago
Comment removed
VicicousCallousness 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You're quite right, it's not science! There we can most certainly agree. In which case the validity of her 'linguistics' rests upon science not being the appropriate way to investigate the world.
"Why take it seriously?"
I can assure you I do not.
"[B]e more specific."
A perfectly reasonable request. Here's one: "[T]he notion of the unconscious allows her to create a more dialectical model where language emerges from musicality..." (mitohistoriador)
VicicousCallousness 2 years ago