Logocentricity

Logocentricity

By the way, Logocentrism, I came to ponder the philosophy of Berdyaev. And, partly, choosing adjectives for the Kyiv revolution. “They talk all the time, talk, talk,” and not so much in Solliptically oratorial as the dialogs, trialists, tetralists ...

And I found that I like this word extremely.

Finally I found a word that I would love to introduce:
Logocentrist, log center.

I was sometimes called an idealist, but I doubt it. I love ideas, I have ideals, but there is no fanaticism in me because of ideals. Yes, I recognize matter (although I do not quite understand what it is). I feel like a realist (who does not feel like a realist? Every healthy person considers himself understanding reality at least in something. Even an unhealthy person).

What is logocentrism, in what context is this word used today? About context - somehow later.

Logocentrism is for me this is a recognition that the world rotates around the word.

Not around the East or West, not around the States or Germany or Russia, not around the Israeli state, not around any nation, not around the world backstage. And around the word.

I used to write about religion and science.

Science confirms this thought well. It was science that changed our world in the century. Was the most powerful force. And it was she who was the citadel of log centrism.

The scientist believes in the significance of the words he said. Words in science often have the form of equations, formulas, or extremely difficult to connect logical constructions among themselves. The scientist believes that he can comprehend something significant, can express it in some understandable way for another person and this expression is meaning.
I say that such a faith is the “practical logocentrism” of science by the scientist himself can contemptuously say “all the words”, in the sense, empty chatter, “formulas, accurate definitions are important”, but the whole way of action of the scientist is log -centric, he simply discardes those words that he considers empty, for the words of the language that he considers genuine and clear.

So, the successes of science confirm the logocentricity of the universe.

Another confirmation (if any confirmation is needed here, and the fact that a person pronounces is at least soundless, in the mind - more words than breaths and exhalations do not convince the logocentricity, if not the universe, then at least our life) is given by the history of the 20th century.

This is especially evident in Bolshevism.

The Bolsheviks themselves, of course, would deny the logocentricity of the universe.

But the first thing they began to do was to introduce censorship and ban enemy newspapers.
To establish your own propaganda, and I must admit: propaganda was a long time for their strongest place. The Bolsheviks, with all their declarative materialism - were practicing log centrists.

Setting a new word "log centrist" I thought about a female family. Needless to say, “log -centered”, “log center” or, according to the norms of the language, there is no need to form a special form for the feminine.

Original

Logocentric Party (Party)

I wrote about the "context of log centrism." If you believe Guglu, this word first appears in the philosophy of postmodern, in the doctrine of deconstruction. If so, this is even strange - the word is so natural. But another is more important. It is more important to compare postmodern and the intellectual life of the 19th century. This will help us to see ourselves, at least it helps me to see us, even politically see.

The critical thought of the 19th century is largely represented by socialism. Looking around the existing economic order, socialist thought is distinguished by the general that is in all the economies of its time and calls it "capitalism." There is no other economic way at that time in Europe, and socialism offers him a cardinal alternative: Marx, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, the English Fabian movement and many other socialist trends.

After a hundred about a hundred years, European thought criticizes not an economic way, but all European cultural experience. And postmodern calls logocentrism the common denominator of the entire European millennium culture. And just as “capitalism” brings a negative meaning for the socialist, and “logocentrism” for postmodernism is a negative concept, what needs to be overcome (as a socialist - capitalism, the Nietzschean is “human, too human”). Of course, in postmodern no less directions than in socialist thought, and the art of the twentieth century in its large part is “spontaneous postmodernism”, comprehending which (as Marx comprehended spontaneous socialism) and theoretical postmodernism arises with the central concept of “deconstruction”. The concept of deconstruction is being built to Heideger and Derrida.
We are talking about deconstruction of the text, any log -centric system.

Few people can quite worthy of understanding the intricacies of deconstruction theories. I am not one of them.

I am interested in how I, an unknown Petersburger on Onega’s banks, playing in words and having come to the word logocentrism, unexpectedly discovered in the dialogue a diverse flow of modern (or already obsolete? I do not think) European thought.
I really like the words “logozzetricism, log centric”. There are eccentricity, and the logo, and the logo, and the log-centric party (party) and all the elements in them.

Original