02.07.2013 Views

TABOO: THE ACTUAL MODERNIST AESTHETIC, MADE REAL A ...

TABOO: THE ACTUAL MODERNIST AESTHETIC, MADE REAL A ...

TABOO: THE ACTUAL MODERNIST AESTHETIC, MADE REAL A ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

of signification, of an impassive historical time; and once again the<br />

king is both man (the end of nature) and also the king (the symbol<br />

and bearer of significance). History becomes equal to signification<br />

in human language: this language is frozen in signification.<br />

There is no event or thing in either animate or inanimate nature<br />

that does not in some way partake of language, for it is in the<br />

nature of each one to communicate its mental contents. This use of<br />

the word ―language‖ is in no way metaphorical. (63)<br />

Through the word, man is bound to the language of things. The<br />

human word is the name of things. Hence, it is no longer<br />

conceivable, as the bourgeois view of language maintains, that the<br />

word has an accidental relation to its object, that it is a sign for<br />

things (or knowledge of them) agreed by some convention. (69)<br />

The linguistic being of things is their language; this proposition,<br />

applied to man, means: the linguistic being of man is his language.<br />

Which signifies: man communicates his own mental being in his<br />

language. However, the language of man speaks in words. Man<br />

therefore communicates his own mental being (insofar as it is<br />

communicable) by naming all other things. But do we know any<br />

other languages that name things? It should not be accepted that<br />

we know of no languages other than that of man, for this is untrue.<br />

We only know of no naming language other than that of man; to<br />

identify naming language with language as such is to rob linguistic<br />

theory of its deepest insights. – It is therefore the linguistic being<br />

of man to name things. (64)<br />

Lament, however, is the most undifferentiated, impotent<br />

expression of language. (73)<br />

Clearly, work needs to be done to tie together these various thoughts and<br />

qualifications that Benjamin uses to nuance his linguistic theory. In what follows I offer<br />

one such explanation. A ―mystical linguistic theory‖ would misunderstand words if it<br />

asserts that a word partakes in a thing‘s own and secretive essence. ―On Language as<br />

Such‖ makes the argument that things have no words independent of the agents who<br />

name them – Man and God. Man‘s word for things is an ambiguous approximation of<br />

19

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!