While reading Jonathan Culler’s explanation of Ferdinand Saussure’s linguistic theories, I could not help but feel it echoed much of what Nietzsche spoke at length about in his piece, “On Truth and Lying”. Both writers attempt to draw focus to the fact that the means of communication and identification man has implemented and “improved” throughout the course of time, are meaningless. And they are kind of harsh about it (Nietzsche significantly more so, however): Nietzsche condemns our act of subduing ourselves and our liberty to  through the construction of a “prison house” of language, while Culler, paraphrasing Saussure, claims, “[our] predecessors failed to think seriously about what they were doing” in reference to the process of putting together an acceptable means of exchange. 

Culler goes on to explain the meaning behind Saussure’s “arbitrary signs” – that the names of objects are merely subjective to who it is that is doing the referring and that they are a “sequence of sounds no better suited to that purpose than another sequence”. There is much truth in that phrase, I believe. But how can it be determined that, in choosing another sequence or sound, that that sequence will or will not be better suited? How is the right “signifier”, as Saussure calls it, going to be identified? WILL it ever be identified?

I agree with the direction Saussure takes the discussion in when he begins to explore a scope at different languages, more specifically English and French. He considers the translation of words from one of the languages to the other and brings up an interesting notion: That the reason behind why things are labeled what they are in each respective language depends primarily on the factors you are considering in order to differentiate between a selection of words that essentially refer to things in the same category. I understood the point Saussure wishes to make here: that the meaning of something can be more truly examined and understood if we consider what that something is NOT.

His look at varying languages prompted me to consider how the meanings of certain words also develops with time and how the context in which they are used changes considerably. For example, the word “tramp” is no longer popularly associated with “urban nomads” and a “troll” is no longer just a grotesque under-bridge-dweller. But I noticed this development most clearly during Islamics class in primary school, where we would learn the verses of the Qura’an. Trying to explain the lessons of each “ayah”  to myself using word-for-word translation proved really hard: the meanings I associated with certain words was not the meaning it conveyed when the book was written. It felt hopeless to even try to come to terms with such outdated  literature. For a while, I was reading and learning the verses just to get nods of approval from well-meaning teachers. And also stickers. But then I went back to trying because the opposite of “fun” should not be “hard”: then no one would have finished reading Moby Dick. ANYWAY, semantic changes over time, as well as across languages, could deem language a flimsy foundation to base a whole mode of exchange on.      

After reading essays that dealt with how language fails to understand “the true nature of an object”, I wondered to myself: “Yeah. So?” Why should it matter if the essence of what we are describing is not surfacing through our description or labeling of it? Does that matter? If we are merely concerned with highlighting a global way of identifying certain things – animals or planets or what have you – then why should it be of any concern to us whether we have stumbled upon what those objects are actually referred to as? I feel that this argument of “what we are doing is incorrect” could easily pass into the conversation regarding any other matter we take part in during our time: Business, tennis, the focus of our philosophical contemplation, etc. How can anyone be sure that what we do and how we go about doing it is completely right? Or irrefutably accurate? Perhaps I have misunderstood the focus of the piece, but these are the thoughts I was left with as I completed the reading.

Saussure pries deeply into what language really is. One of Saussure’s points is, certainly, that language goes beyond what many people view it as, an enormous list of words with a corresponding meaning or definition. He complicates the idea, although not unnecessarily, that linguistic sign serves to unite, “not a thing and a name, but a concept and a sound-image” (852). Saussure interestingly separates language from speech, showing that language is not at all dependent on speaking, although it may seem hard to do so. Saussure uses a rather interesting example, that language is always communicated within one’s mind to oneself, in which case, doesn’t require speaking.
Saussure stresses the arbitrary nature of sign, firstly stating that “the bond between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary,” (854) which I suppose, is true. Surely, any given person can create a bond between the signifier and the signified, and resulting sign serves a purpose for that person. What confuses me about this section is what Saussure states later, “the individual does not have the power to change a sign in any way once it has become established in the linguistic community.” Signs may be created and used personally, but that arbitrary power is no longer present in the context of a community. That being said, the arbitrary nature of sign that Saussure stresses is rather limited, although I may just be misinterpreting the passage completely.
Saussure next talks about the coupling of thoughts with sound, which reminds me of his view between language and speech. Coupling a thought and sound is that of giving a word its pronunciation. Although it is not a necessity for one to be with the other (language and speech), they surely compliment each other very well.
Saussure tackles the linguistic value from a material viewpoint. Similar to how bills and coins reflect different values depending on the monetary value they are created as, the linguistic signifier establishes its value by having its unique sound-image. Money of vastly different value can be created using the exact same material, just as language is created with a set of letters and sounds, the value is dependent on the people who utilize them. Viewing language from a material viewpoint, giving it a “tangible element,” is an interesting concept. Seldom do we consider how language is given to us, we take it for granted, and we accept it with little questioning.

Over time, language as we know it evolves. New words form and old words gain different connotations. In his “Course in General Linguistics”, Ferdinand de Saussure discusses his views on language and linguistics as a science. Saussure discusses his theory of the sign, signifier and signified. This theory states that a sign unites a signifier (sound) and signified (image). However, Saussure points out that the relationship between the signifier and signified is actually arbitrary. That is to say that there is no particular reason that one signifier should stand for a particular signified. However, language, according to Saussure is more than just a naming system for different objects and ideas.

Saussure emphasizes the social aspect of language. He believes that language cannot change intentionally, nor can it be changed by one single individual. The changes that occur must be acknowledged and accepted by all members of the community. This makes sense, since language is used as a tool to communicate with one another. Saussure believes that language “…exists only by virtue of a sort of contract signed by the members of a community”. In this way, there needs to be some sort of agreement between the speakers of any particular language. This made me think of the several instances in the movie “Mean Girls” when the character Gretchen tried to introduce a new slang word –“fetch”– into casual conversation and her friend Regina George rejects it, stating that its never going to happen. There was no agreement there and so, fetch never actually became a “thing”.

In addition, Saussure believes that, language is not just a naming system because every sign is only significant in relationship to another sign. These signs are interdependent; each word in a language helps give the next word meaning. He uses the example of trying to teach someone about the color brown by only showing them brown objects. Hey will not be able to distinguish the meaning of this word unless they know what is not brown. This is what Saussure means when he says that “in language, there are only differences”. He goes on to explain that “the value of a term may be modified without either its meaning or sound being affected, solely because a neighboring term has been modified” and he states that “all values are apparently governed by the same paradoxical principle. They are always composed…of similar things that can be compared with the thing of which the value is to be determined.” He gives the example of the French word “mouton” which has the same meaning as “sheep” but refers to the actual meat, which is what we refer to in English as “mutton”. One example of this I could think of is that in Arabic, the word “telj” (this is obviously a transliteration) has the same signification as the word “ice” in English. However, in conversation, this word in Arabic also describes a weather condition which in English we would call “snow”. In this way, I can see how “ice” and “snow” have different values when you put the two terms side by side.

Language is a system that can be thought of or used for various purposes. As it is expressed in Saussure’s essay, a common misconception of language is that it only serves as a system for naming things. However, in Saussure’s words, “This conception is open to criticism” (pg 852). Furthermore, when regarding language as the process of naming things, or giving names that correspond to the object or thing we are talking about a lot of problems ensue.This notion limits people’s understanding of language to something “superficial” or very much on the surface and therefore not permitting the full grasp, nor the more profound meaning or purpose of using language. In my opinion language can be used for various different practices. One of the most important practices of language is simply communication. Through language people have found a way to interact with each other. In addition humans have also found the way to not just name things through language as it is commonly described, but we have found a way to explain much deeper concepts and also to give meaning to our feelings. In his essay Saussure explains, that by studying language as a single entity; or simply linguistics one could find that language or the signs and names that people often attribute to language are a combination of what he calls a [concept+sound image]. What this simply means is that certain names such as the example he gives of the [tree] are only understood as a sign or form of language because the [concept] of it being a tree is psychologically attached to the word (pg. 853). Therefore the sound-image or the sign which is what is commonly known  as would not be recognized as a form of language if the psychological connotation of it being a [tree] would have not previously existed. This is why understanding that language is not just a way to give names to things is of much significance when trying to understand language and how it is created through meaning. Sound-image or the impression a word causes to the mind when it is heard by a person are only able to be filtered by the brain to create meaning because the psychological meaning of that particular sound is embedded or implanted through the concept that language is able to make a part of itself.

T.S. Eliot starts off the essay talking about tradition in English writing that pertain to absence, science of archaeology, etc. He elaborates on science of archaeology talking about race and nation (his example uses the French people) about how they have their own way of thinking, criticism and how the French can be oblivious to someones genius thought other then their own. When I read this, I started thinking about this pertaining to society instead of just individual talent because people have different ways of thinking and when people do not agree on something, they will either think the other person is crazy because they have no idea what they are talking about, or be stubborn thinking that the other person is stupid. Besides the science of archaeology, T.S. Eliot talks about past right writing and about his own writing, which he refers to as “simultaneous order.”

This “simultaneous order” that he talks about in the essay helps the combine old and new thoughts into different people’s writing. Not only does the “simultaneous order” does that, it also causes awareness of innovativeness. So to me, the science of archaeology and “simultaneous order” is similar as in involving the past with present day but contrast when the order gives off another point to itself and the writing. “Simultaneous order” seems like what we as college student look into when studying English because professor want us to interpret authors, like Virginia Woolfe and Shakespeare, and their literary works.

Eliot actually mentions Shakespeare in his essay, “…a mind which he learns in time to be much more important than his own private mind-is a mind which changes, and that this change is a development which abandons nothing en route, which does not superannuate either Shakespeare, or Homer… That this development, refinement perhaps, complication certainly, is not, from the point of view of the artist, any improvement.”

After Eliot talks about Shakespeare and Homer, he talks about criticism and appreciation. It is funny how that we are supposed to be reading English related things when so far I have read are a social science, actual science, artists and Greek writing in this essay. The article sounds more of human personality towards the beginning of the essay. Further reading, the essay becomes separated of emotions and thoughts of how someone may be speaking in first person. This thought arise since other subjects come at hand in the essay to focus the readers into a new direction. This comes to show that the English language is more difficult than expected.

First Saussure summarizes the characteristics of language stating it is “where an auditory image becomes associated with a concept… [that] we easily assimilate their linguistics organisms: dead languages, a union of meanings and sound-images and is concrete” (pg. 850).

According to Saussure, “language is a system of pure values consisting of two elements, ideas and sound” without language thought would be very vague (pg. 856). Language is a structural system of linguistic unit that organize the mass of confused thoughts that filled our minds. There are two parts, like Saussure states, “…an idea becomes fixed in a sound and a sound becomes the sign of an idea,” the concept (meaning) and sound-image (signified and signifier). Meaning you cannot separate the thought from the sound nor the sound from the thought.  I may or may not be correct but, the nature of linguistics sign is basically tied between the signifier and the signified. Based on what I’ve read, Saussure’s idea on the nature and value of the linguistics sign disapprove on the belief that things come first then words follow after, to replace actual referential reality with the signified. What the signifier points to is not only something that exists outside of language, but maybe to a meaning that is limited within our human minds. In other words Saussure main idea is that everything gains its meaning out of being entirely placed opposite to its relations.

By being arbitrary, the lingual sign shows that different languages have different signs for the same explicit meaning, but according to Saussure, language is not just a random naming scheme, the signs also have values. Language does not simply describe what you see as in reality, but is in fact something separate and independent from it. Saussure in a sense probably meant that anyone can make up words but signs are all conventions that are within society, or the linguistic sign is arbitrary but is not open for refills, its meaning is forced on us by the linguistic environment.

As Saussure wrote, it is as in any system of signs; the linguistic system is consisting of strings of differences in sounds put together with differences in ideas. The difference that distinguishes one sign from the others, “create the character and the value of the unit,” as a result composes the system. The overall value of the linguistics sign is based on its concept and sound within the language, the combination with other words in linguistic way and its differences and similarities to other language signs.

Another note that I was very interesting was the Syntagmatic and Associative Relations. The Synatagmatic Relations is based on the placement of the words; it links each word to each other like chains. It is a linguistic structure whereas the associate relations link words based on similar association.  For example the word purification and any other word that ends with ‘-tion’ or associated with it, like cleansing, sanitation, etc. is attached to it. If you pull purification out of a basket the other words associated with it will follow. The associate relations break the whole grammatical relations and open the door for a more symbolic/metaphoric expression.

Deception is intertwined in our very being, both biologically and mentally in almost every way. Our cognitive ability begins its deception early on during the very act of processing the information which we receive. As we take in stimuli it passes through many different conversions until it finally reaches our body through the many channels we use to absorb information, ie. Our eyes, ears, nose, mouth and finally our brains. The final product our bodies create for us and finally feed to our brains is merely a form that we can understand not what the thing originally is, in and of itself, and that is deceptive. Calling what we see and hear deceptive might sound like a far-fetched and highbrow understanding of the world but a conclusion like that is the very reason why Nietzsche’s observations are true. We constantly re affirm our perceived superiority to everything around us and refuse to accept any form other than the one we see, we are stubborn, and limited when it comes to our understanding of the world around us.

The mental picture of a rock is the best possible version of the image of a rock our eyes can make. A rock is insignificant and hard, it is cold and only a small part of our existence. Though what we understand to be a rock is only a concept of a thing that exists in our world, not what it truly is, and sadly we will never know what a rock, and all things that exist in this world truly are because we can only perceive it as a human. This argument to me is about as frustrating as the concept of omnipotence. Because it is all encompassing and almost impossible to grasp because it reveals the very limitations of what we are (not who we are). (P.767 Note 1) (P.767 Note 2)

Truth is an army of metaphors and anthropomorphisms, in other words: truth is what we as humans have created through using our methods of filtering out what we cannot see or understand and simplifying reality and existence into a human concept that we can all understand. This seems almost a joke to me, it is almost as if Nietzche is saying that truth is what we choose to be the simplest and easily digestible form of what we see. My conclusion is that truth is the lowest common denominator of understanding that we have come to accept as the ultimate form of what we see, and we run with. 

What Nietzche observations tells us may at first seem rather depressing and would even make some feel small but it is rather a beautiful way to look at things. I see this as a tool to understand what it is we see and how we can look further into what we perceive as real and take in even more than we ever could by truly appreciating the world around us. If one can truly appreciate the limited world we can see through our eyes, then we can move further and understand it on a deeper level as well.

After reading Terry Eagleton’s “The Rise of English” I can clearly see that yes it is true that the article tends to explore an outside view of the the relationship between Literature and Religion. However, to my understanding after reading your response I believe you have failed to explain the connection between these two entities. Allow me to help you understand the article a bit more clearly. What Eagleton is trying to tell us, is that Literature by the 1900s had become a weapon, a massive destructive weapon that threaten governments and religions alike. Middle class working individuals, who had the capability to read and educate themselves, became more engage in Literature, opening their eyes and mind to a whole different world and perspective. This perspective (Literature) they have learned would allow many middle class individuals to challenge their own government, by question their authorities; they would also challenge and question their own religion, the very same religion that they saw as a law and or ideal model to follow in their lives. The model (Religion) however, was a model used to control the people, as Eagleton clearly mentions that “Religion is for all kinds of reasons an extremely effective form of ideological control”, this can clearly be seen a form of propaganda used by the Victorian ruling class, the Victorian upper class used religion to maintain order in their towns and to create submission, fear and acceptance of their laws. The Victorian class created a form of “social cement” as Eagleton says, cement that holds people together under fear and submission. But when people started to see the true reality, the religion form of fear used by the Victorian upper class started to fall apart in pieces; it had spread from town by town. Society as a whole was moving outside of the religion realm. The best solution to this problem was to introduce the English literature, like religion, “[literature was] a suitable candidate for this ideological enterprise” Eagleton says because English Literature would introduce a new set of “human values”. Through the many forms of literature, the people would experience a better quality of life. English subject was once considered simply a “Gossip” subject but it became an important academic subject to study in many universities and colleges; it became an arena, an art that would change people’s perceptions through the imagination and teaching of English studies. So when religion was no longer a tool to use to control and have power over the people, the Victorian society introduced the Ideology of literature, a substitution for Religion. The predictions or hopes by George Gordon, became a reality “England is sick and…English Literature must save it. The churches (as I understand) having failed, and social remedies being slow, English Literature has now a triple function: still, I suppose, to delight and instructs us, but also, and above all, to save our souls and heal the state”. England was sick and the rapid expansion of English Literature saved the country from the chaos. I personally question myself, how can the world possibly survive without an English subject? How would people operate without the many fantastic fiction and nonfiction stories written for our pleasure? After all I believe English Literature helps us become a better individual, it helps us spread kindness, love, respect, and most of all unity, it instructs nations to become better allies.