4 ms·
uhhh, as with most existentialist nonsense, this does not follow. _why was/is a name (or alias), not a role - it refers to a particular (awesome) dude, not a c
by tehwalrus 14y ago
uhhh, as with most existentialist nonsense, this does not follow.
_why was/is a name (or alias), not a role - it refers to a particular (awesome) dude, not a class of awesome dudes.
We don't all start calling each other "Steve Jobs" when we put on black polo-necks and start being mean to each other.
You can redefine it as a role if you want, but that's a semantic change to English that I can disagree with (and will.)
- steveklabnik 14y agoDeleuze was not an existentialist, to get that out of the way. He specifically thought that Hegel and dialectics was terrible, but I'll just leave it at this. Just because it is an alias does not mean that it cannot also be a role: roles have names, you know. ;) > We don't all start calling each other "Steve Jobs" when we put on black polo-necks and start being mean to each other. This is not even close to what I mean. You would say that someone that does that is 'acting like Steve Jobs' though, no?
- tehwalrus 14y agoI'm quite happy for you to say 'this person is acting like _why' :)
- chimeracoder 14y ago> You would say that someone that does that is 'acting like Steve Jobs' though, no? Right, metonymy is a rhetorical device that can be used for figures such as _why, but that doesn't mean that the figure is [just] a metonymic structure and not a person.
- zem 14y agoare you saying that "_why" is a metonym for the Man Himself? i don't think that's valid (in a linguistic sense) - he was _why in a much deeper sense than "_why" being some small part of him that was used as a stand-in for the whole. a metonym can derive from a role, but the role is not the metonym.
- saraid216 14y agoIs Batman a name or a role?