Being one of those few who suspect that rather the opposite is true, that is, that there is no inherent meaning and order within Universe, Lovecraft built his stories around instances wherein the Nomos is forced into a contact with an extra-nomic element which deconstructs the former’s self-proclaimed notion of being the source and origin of reality as such. The problem however is that the Nomos is prone to a totalizing immanent hegemony of positing the whole of Being as only what the Nomos deems it to be – meaningful, ordered, recognizable, anthropocentric – thereby suppressing anything that exists outside of it, as evidenced by mankind conceiving other entities as well as other modes of reality in a priori similar-to-human, and thus relatable, terms. Its core argument revolves around Peter Berger’s concept of Nomos, a human-constructed world, that mankind is existentially necessitated to create. The purpose of this thesis is the analysis of the key works of the American author and founder of the so-called “weird” fiction Howard Philips Lovecraft in terms of their incorporation of the notion of ontological Negativity.
Hillis Miller, Butler, Foucault, and Rorty. The chapter discusses the theoretical contribution of de Saussure, Barthes, Whorf, Derrida, J. Poststructuralism adds to this principle the suggestion that sign systems are deployed in the temporal flow and are therefore inherently unstable-a principle that defeats the realist ambition to assess the state of the world in the light of truth. Instead, Saussure-later followed by Edward Sapir, Benjamin Lee Whorf and Roland Barthes-argued that the objects of perceptions are defined within sign systems, not outside of them-an insight that voids of all substance the pursuit of the adequation of language and world.
From the outset, Saussurean linguistics rejected the hypothesis according to which language acts as a replica of a non-linguistic world.
The classic structuralist objections against mimesis, it is argued, focus on the semiotic structuring of perception. This paper analyzes the radical critique of mimesis articulated by classic structuralist and poststructuralist theoreticians.
0 kommentar(er)
