On the one hand, structuralism justly claims to be the critique of empiricism. But at the same time there is not a single book or study by Levi-Strauss which does not offer itself as an empirical essay which can always be completed or invalidated by new information. The structural schemata are always proposed as hypotheses resulting from finite quantity of information and which are subjected to the proof of experience.(Keesey 360)
Now I got a strong intertextuality tone in it. Which could be argued as hisorical criticism. I don't know if its just me, but all these criticisms seem to use other types to stand on their own. The quote above talks about prior knowledge to look and understand a topic. So that is in itself intertextual-even if you don't want to admitt it, and by default(without all the background info) a form of historical criticiam. I just keep seeing all these ideas blurring together to try and stand alone.
Comments (1)
Hi Mitchell!
I'm a Philosophy student at University of Salamanca (Spain). I'm working now on a presentation on Derrida, and as I've seen that
you work on one as well last term, I was wondering whether we could maybe get in touch and talk about Derrida.
So if you find the proposal attractive, my email id is: shiard[at]hotmail[dot]com
Also, I have checked out on the net Setonhill and, in a certain way, it looks to me
quite similar to my high school: the Mahindra United World College of India (www.uwc.org)
Along these lines, I'm also really into Literature, so I feel we might easily get on well.
Looking forward to your answer, and being pleased to meet you,
Pedro.
Posted by Pedro | October 8, 2007 8:28 AM
Posted on October 8, 2007 08:28