Imminent FulfillmentImmortality,  Safety, Empowerment, Equality, KnowledgeUnity, Society

Intelligent, reasonable men of good will SHOULD be able to agree on things that matter.

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to
  one who is striking at the root."
- Henry David Thoreau
Site Sections, Subject List, Reading Sequence, and Article Synopses

Philosophical Issues

   Building Belief
Building Belief System
The Sound Foundation
Path to the Truth
   Philosophy Aspects
Axiomatic Philosophical Principles
Philosophical Methods
The Philosophical Branches
Modern Philosophy
Meaningful Epistemology
   Important Issues
Evil Just Illusion Issue
Freedom versus Liberty
Fundamental Issues
Games People Play
Philosophy of Power
Philosophy of Religion
Physical vs Spiritual Reality
The Ground of Creativity
Life Comes from Life
Life and Ethics
Closing of Scientific Mind
The Issue of Certainty
Sexual Intimacy
Volition Issues
Religious Freedom
Value of Consistency
Structuralism Rebuttal
Will versus Intellect
Fundamental Hypocrisy
Knowledge Categories
Definition of Time
Ethics versus Morality
Philosophies and Terms
Superstition & Myth
Something Meaningful
Meaning and Existentialism
Auguste Comte
Critical Thinking
Nature of Fear
Smug versus Straw Man
Philosopher Schopenhauer
Thought Laws
China & Imago Viva Dei
Interdisciplinary Study

Introduction Material
Introduction Articles
Word Definitions
Human Condition

Christianity Material
Bible/Canon Issues
Christendom Analyzed

Jesus Material
Jesus' Teachings
Aspects of Jesus
5 Gospels Canon

Philosophy Material
Paradigm Material
Philosophical Issues
Psychological Issues
Sociological Material
Theological Issues

Cosmology, Creation,
Geophysical Material

Cosmology Material
Creation Issues
Geophysical Material

Reconstruction &
Mythology Material
Chronology Revision
Misc Ancient Myth Material
Modern Mythology Material
Psycho-Catastrophe Articles
Saturn-Jupiter Material
Symbol Development
Venus-Mars Material
1994 Velikovsky Symposium

Miscellaneous Material
Book Critiques Links
Misc Biology Links
Misc Issues/Conclusions
Poetry & Fun Material
PDF Download Files
Lecture & Video Links
Spiritual Products online store



There are nowadays professors of philosophy, but not philosophers.
 - Henry D. Thoreau

Structuralism Rebutted
Updated: 02/21/2020

First, let me lay out a perspective. It is not philosophers–the seekers of wisdom–but
academic personnel, the clergy, and politicians that are largely in control of three of
the most powerful or influential facets of our society: education, religion and government. Secondly, let me say that I am proud that I was a friend of Ted Bond, who does the rebuttal below.

At 11:44 PM 2/6/99:

[Dave D. wrote] Pam, you were musing that rich & powerful countries can't get to the top and remain untainted. The Marxist maxim says it best though, n'est-ce pas?
(now I'm sure I've seen something on Interpres about Mercury & the origin of money, but I forget the details...)

[Pam wrote] This was not Karl Marx, Dave (HE didn't want to do away with money and property), it was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon–the first writer to declare himself an anarchist–in his "What is Property?" (1840).

[Dave D. wrote] Oh and Ted Bond, I was a bit disappointed that all you told me to do was read your original post to Wade. Obviously I didn't like the general drift of that or I'd never have tried to engage you on the merits of post-structuralism in the first place!

[Ted Bond* wrote] I don't think there was a general drift, Dave (unless you can name it), for it was, if nothing else, precise.

[Dave D. wrote] I appreciate that since you are a professor of philosophy, you must have thought about these things more times than I've had hot dinners already, and it would be daft for me to think I would suddenly change your mind or 'prove you wrong' or the like...However, it would be nice if you'd deign to share some of your expertise. Look at it this way: I'd like to think I had a good working knowledge of "all that French stuff" from Saussure onwards, and it seems to me to be an incredibly powerful and useful way of looking at the world around me... I'm just interested to know more about why you, as a real bona-fide academic in the field (well, office), see fit to call it 'silly', 'just a fashion' and so on.

[Ted Bond wrote] OK., I accept your challenge, but I will try to make it short.

Yes, Saussure started it all off, although I can't see that distinguishing among la langue, le langage, and les paroles is such a big deal. But anyway it set the tone for structuralism and its successor post-structuralism–a concern for language and its connection (if any) to the world (or what anglophone philosophers call 'semantics' [from Charles Morris's division of language into syntactics, semantics and pragmatics, semantics having to do with meaning, or the relation of language to the world]).

The trouble with Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard, Lacan et al., is that they see an inability to get from language to the world, from 'signifier' to 'signified' and they conclude that we are lost forever in a world of language and can never get to truth or objectivity. Their problem is that they see truth and objectivity or any linguistic contact with reality as only being possible if language can be shown to accurately map, picture, or otherwise represent reality. But this is their error. It is not the business of language to represent pre-linguistic realities in a 1-to-1 correlation.

Language is a human tool, serving human interests and purposes. But this understanding of language does not exclude truth! It is true for instance that today (as I am writing) is Monday, but there is no 'reality' independent of human convention that this true assertion corresponds to!

And this is equally true of the assertion (made today) that the president of the U.S.A. is now on trial in the Senate! All human convention, but nevertheless true! Even science is a specialized form of human activity and interest that cannot go beyond inter-subjectivity (our shared world). (The notion of truth, even inter-subjective truth, is dicier in theoretical science than anywhere else.)

What might be called 'metaphysical realism' is false; linguistic utterances cannot accurately match or picture some pre-linguistic reality. Give this point to the post-structuralists! But truth and objectivity do not require metaphysical realism. We can have a realism internal to language (as illustrated in the examples above) (internal realism), and this allows us to refer to things in our shared world or, if you like, the inter-subjective world, which will give us the only kind of objectivity and truth we're ever going to get. But that shouldn't worry us because it's the only kind of truth or objectivity through language that even makes sense. There is nothing inferior about it. The notion of language picturing or otherwise accurately representing a pre-linguistic reality was never anything but a dream! (We should all have listened to Wittgenstein!)

A similar mistake is made by the American philosopher Richard Rorty. He denies truth, but the only kind of truth he would recognize as the genuine article is truth as 'correspondence to reality'! In denying the validity of the correspondence theory of truth, he assumes it as a premise. Isn't this–wonderful irony–a beautiful Derridean deconstruction of Rorty!

Truth is tied to the semantics of a language and that in turn to the human purposes it serves. The United States–a social construct–does not exist in any metaphysical reality. Yet it does exist in our (inter-subjective) reality! And (you'd better believe it), it borders Canada and Mexico and it contains fifty states!

Welcome back the reality of our shared world and farewell to post-modernism!

* E.J.(Ted) Bond, Department of Philosophy, Queen's University,
Kingston, Ont., Canada

Home   Site Sections   Article Map   Contact   Store   Contributions   Survey