Meaning of Words
Joe and Jane are sitting in class, English 101. The teacher’s eyes sparkle as she teaches, she truly believes what she is teaching. Then she says it. “There is no meaning in the written word. It is the reader alone who brings meaning to what he reads.”
English classes across the country are teaching children that meaning does not come from authorial intention, but reader interpretation. This is not all-inclusive of english classes nor is it limited to the english class, but as the subject issue is reliant on english it is where we see it most predominately. “What does this mean to you?” is the politically correct phrase used in most of these classrooms.
The problem with literary deconstructionism is simply that, it deconstructs literature. If the written word is not based upon what it was originally written for (authorial intent), then the purpose behind writing anything is usurped. Why should I write anything if it has no meaning? Even if I try writing something with meaning, if my readers do not believe my intentions have anything to do with the meaning of the text, then they can construe my intentions into anything they want. If I write “Up is up.”, my reader can say, “Oh, he means ‘Up is down’ because that’s what it means to me.” If literary meaning is not derived from the one who wrote it, then not only is the written word usurped, but language itself is demoted into a futile expense of energies. For what is the written word but verbal language put into physical preservation? The written word is no less and indeed derives itself from verbal language, therefore if the foundation of the written language has no meaning but what the reader says then verbal language has no meaning but what the listener says.
This is what they call a self-refuting claim. Let me give an example. A man was in a debate over this very topic. His opponent got up and gave his argument to why there is no meaning in a word but what the reader gives to it. He goes on and on proving his point. Once the man’s opponent finishes, the man gets up, goes to the podium, and simply says. “Thank you for agreeing with me that meaning can only come from the author’s intent.” - “That’s not what I meant!” his opponent objects, but to emphasize his point the mans says again, “Thank you for agreeing with Me that meaning cannot come from the reader but only from the author.”
Mess with the meaning of language and it will backfire. Usurp the foundation of conversation and everything will fall apart. In a classroom here in the United States a teacher was teaching literary deconstructionism. She said, “There is no meaning to the written word.” A very informed student raised his hand and simply asked, “Could you write that on the board for me please?”
Literary deconstruction does not only desecrate the meaning of every book ever written but it destroys the fundamental foundation of conversation of all kinds. It is okay to ask yourself what does this mean to me, but be wary that you do not create or concoct meaning that is not there. “What does this mean to you?” should be a question of application, not implication. Be very wary of literary deconstructionism. Communication itself hangs in the balance.
Jared Williams
English classes across the country are teaching children that meaning does not come from authorial intention, but reader interpretation. This is not all-inclusive of english classes nor is it limited to the english class, but as the subject issue is reliant on english it is where we see it most predominately. “What does this mean to you?” is the politically correct phrase used in most of these classrooms.
The problem with literary deconstructionism is simply that, it deconstructs literature. If the written word is not based upon what it was originally written for (authorial intent), then the purpose behind writing anything is usurped. Why should I write anything if it has no meaning? Even if I try writing something with meaning, if my readers do not believe my intentions have anything to do with the meaning of the text, then they can construe my intentions into anything they want. If I write “Up is up.”, my reader can say, “Oh, he means ‘Up is down’ because that’s what it means to me.” If literary meaning is not derived from the one who wrote it, then not only is the written word usurped, but language itself is demoted into a futile expense of energies. For what is the written word but verbal language put into physical preservation? The written word is no less and indeed derives itself from verbal language, therefore if the foundation of the written language has no meaning but what the reader says then verbal language has no meaning but what the listener says.
This is what they call a self-refuting claim. Let me give an example. A man was in a debate over this very topic. His opponent got up and gave his argument to why there is no meaning in a word but what the reader gives to it. He goes on and on proving his point. Once the man’s opponent finishes, the man gets up, goes to the podium, and simply says. “Thank you for agreeing with me that meaning can only come from the author’s intent.” - “That’s not what I meant!” his opponent objects, but to emphasize his point the mans says again, “Thank you for agreeing with Me that meaning cannot come from the reader but only from the author.”
Mess with the meaning of language and it will backfire. Usurp the foundation of conversation and everything will fall apart. In a classroom here in the United States a teacher was teaching literary deconstructionism. She said, “There is no meaning to the written word.” A very informed student raised his hand and simply asked, “Could you write that on the board for me please?”
Literary deconstruction does not only desecrate the meaning of every book ever written but it destroys the fundamental foundation of conversation of all kinds. It is okay to ask yourself what does this mean to me, but be wary that you do not create or concoct meaning that is not there. “What does this mean to you?” should be a question of application, not implication. Be very wary of literary deconstructionism. Communication itself hangs in the balance.
Jared Williams
