we probably would have learned not science, only history"<$F Ibid., III, p. 86.>. Then the text ceases to be part of the signs and forms of truth; language is more is neither one of the figures of the world, nor the designation of things which they are bound from time immemorial. The truth finds its the manifestation of your sign in evident and distinct perception. The words should Express it, if they can do it: they no longer have the right to be her luck. Language is removed from the scope of forms of existence, to usher in the age of its transparency and neutrality. This is one of the patterns of culture XVII century, more significant than the exceptional success cartesiana.
we probably would have learned not
ReplyDeletescience, only history"<$F Ibid., III, p. 86.>. Then the text
ceases to be part of the signs and forms of truth; language is more
is neither one of the figures of the world, nor the designation of things
which they are bound from time immemorial. The truth finds its
the manifestation of your sign in evident and distinct perception.
The words should Express it, if they can do it: they
no longer have the right to be her luck. Language is removed from
the scope of forms of existence, to usher in the age of its transparency and
neutrality.
This is one of the patterns of culture XVII
century, more significant than the exceptional success
cartesiana.