William Elliot wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
>
> > As we all know, it was comrade Stalin's brilliant and objective
article
> > _Marxism and linguistics_ in 1951 (IIRC) that established conclusively
> > that language is not a part of the superstructure, and hence formal
> > logic is a legitimate non-ideological discipline.
>
> What's the superstructure?
<quote>
In social sciences, superstructure is the set of socio-psychological
feedback loops that maintain a coherent and meaningful structure in a
given society, or part thereof. It can include the culture,
institutions, power structures, roles, and rituals of the society. It
is that which, through conditioned behaviors (both interpersonal and
situational), enforces a set of constraints and guidelines on human
activity in a stable and effective fa****on, such that it engenders a
society's characteristic organization, and it is that characteristic
organization itself. </q>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstructure
Stalin's proof was quite simple; put in roughly it went:
1. The superstructure of a society is determined by its economic
relations. (by definition)
2. All the economic relations in the U.S.S.R. changed after the
revolution. (by definition)
3. Therefore, all the superstructure relations in the U.S.S.R. changed
after the revolution.
4. But the language did not change after the revolution.
5. Therefore language is not part of the superstructure.
Only Stalin could have produced such a proof. Had anyone else done so,
they would have been killed and their work suppressed.
> > "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
> > - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
> >
> If it's worth quoting, is it worth translating?
|
