This text is intended for all human beings have an opinion. Women and men who have "educated opinion" on any aspect of everyday life and not daily. Those people who think about Riquelme on films about politics, about sex, about drugs, music and more. The opinion is an expression of respect. As all manifestation of meaning, the opinion is a speech (as seen from a perspective veroniana, but of course, 10% of you reading know who Veron, the rest not so has been the lesson of semiotics). What we need to discern is what kind of speech. First, we must explain in simple language what is a discourse, that is, an expression of respect. Anything can be speech, because anything can tell someone something. For example, the shit, by color, texture, smell and consistency you can find out about food and health individual digestive deposited in the world that piece of shit. But let us not fuss, let us refer to refer to as discourses (just this once) to the production of meaning in human beings. Well, Call it a day they send you to write your opinion about the picketers. Here you have a speech for analysis. But what the hell is the speech opinion?. According to Veron, all speech recognition sense in other speeches, this means that all manifestation of meaning is marked (literally) for other languages. Call it, if I have to do a research about the carnival as a practice of popular resistance in the nineteenth century, I have to inform on that object. I have to read me all similar work or who speak of that object that are within my reach. Let's say that once I read it all and begin to create my own discourse about the carnival, which I will be doing is a particular vision of the nineteenth century carvanales. That is, I'll be talking about the object from a given time and space. From a sector of society, a time of life, a difficult week, a particular mood (Call it my old I threw the coffee on accidentally before starting to write.) When writing my speech about the carnival as a practice of resistance in the nineteenth century, I will be marked by all these factors. Indeed, perhaps because he is a fan of Rock festival, making a comparison between two objects. Even if right could say that Carnival is not a practice of resistance but downtime in which workers do not give a shit and put into fart and blablabla. All discourse is marked by other discourses (this too). But what is the difference between research in academic and everyday life view?. First, does my work for the power I have to cite the authors in which I relied to write. I have to quote correctly, but I can eat a lawsuit for plagiarism. In everyday life that does not pass, you do not walk around quoting what he says because it is virtually impossible (as it is impossible to give 100% all the speeches that I relied to do the job) to be conscious about what I draw to say that. But there is another difference that is a consequence of the first. Is not the same build on scientific research in scientific discourse as Pepe said, what I read in the newspaper once or saw in a movie. Academic work is marked by the academy itself. Instead, a speech either daily life is based on common sense. If we ask Rosa about the carnival as a practice of popular resistance in the nineteenth century it is likely that say nothing or say that the soldiers forbade the last dictatorship (and in this case would be smarter Rosa). But if you asked Rosa about Kirchner, on Bush, Chavez on Macri, about music, movies, drugs, etc.., Will have much to say (at least to be shy, if so, we serve a glass of Brandy and was). Why? Because we live in a constant barrage of information by the mass media. One may object ... is information. Yes, but it is information that is discourse and discourse is marked by another speech and ultimately is marked by the speech "political-economic interest" of the owner the media.
First conclusion: the opinion is a discourse that recognizes sense primarily on common sense. And if anything they are the media and other ideological apparatuses (such as school, church and family) are shapers of common sense. Common sense is not knowledge, not science, but is rather a bunch of prejudices and other atrocities that we use to interact with the capitalist world in which we live. Common sense helps us to know that the bank may have to queue as well as to not set fire to the operators of our heads because it is "bad."
Second conclusion: A Speech "academic" recognizes the conditions of production (which recognizes the speeches sense) in itself. The opinion shows itself as one speech on the subject, and that at no time recognized meaning in other languages. Imagine two Jehovah's Witnesses that you will touch the bell and say "hello, we are Jehovah's Witnesses, we want you to join us and give us money every month so we can continue to use cute outfits and break the rest of cherries neighborhood "instead of saying that God is good and what do I know that shit. Or that I say "I am a Marxist, I want to make the revolution" and then read all my texts (and as you see, I am a Marxist and I want to make the Revolution is something that I deal). That is, when one believes, is taking over, but common sense plays.
Third conclusion: if one had knowledge of X, each X talk about not giving his opinion but that would be sharing and building knowledge about X. The opinion does nothing but play and deeper sense, bourgeois ideology. The opinion is not what one thinks, one has to think before you say what you think, and the view is not to say what others say. And if you do not believe me, next time someone says something, ask what the hell it is based and will see how it will begin to falter.
Fourth Conclusion: The opinion is not knowledge. The opinion is ignorance. The opinion is the speech that appears in the middle of a talk about X and you have no idea what q is talking but heard something somewhere. One as you do not know, give your opinion. Rather than sit and listen, learn, give your opinion.
Overall conclusion: I'm studying social Universidad de Buenos Aires. That means I study and I have knowledge about certain things, basically social. Both my uncles are engineers. My aunt and my old doctor. When it comes to engineering or medicine, I am a listener. But when it comes to politics, society, culture and the world all agree. And that's something I hate. The opinion is ignorance. And in reliance on relativism, first you say "my opinion is valid" and then I branded as authoritarian. And there I think is the bottom line. Knowledge, knowledge, culture itself, are also tools and belongings that are not distributed equally in society. There are people who have little interest and that they are middle class and have access to certain cultural property. Cumbia sucks and is for ignorant ... obvious, because they hear the least cultural property received. Sure, and I, a student from Cs. Social authoritarian brand as me just because there is an unequal distribution among those with assets and there is a power relationship. If PC. study dentistry and love to spit their prejudices (ie the recovery of X before a trial and all that that implies ... that is the view, you say what you think of something you did not understand or jot about something), to I do not break balls. If you like to talk about life, he studied philosophy. If you want to talk about because X is as it is studying Psychology, etc. Even if you mean what you think, I first thought. Investigate, read, let yourself be guided by those who know more.
This text is to express my hatred of all the ignorant people who talk about things that do not know and think is the absolute truth when he discussed a one passes studying these things to pass subjects at the university. DEATH
IGNORANCE
First conclusion: the opinion is a discourse that recognizes sense primarily on common sense. And if anything they are the media and other ideological apparatuses (such as school, church and family) are shapers of common sense. Common sense is not knowledge, not science, but is rather a bunch of prejudices and other atrocities that we use to interact with the capitalist world in which we live. Common sense helps us to know that the bank may have to queue as well as to not set fire to the operators of our heads because it is "bad."
Second conclusion: A Speech "academic" recognizes the conditions of production (which recognizes the speeches sense) in itself. The opinion shows itself as one speech on the subject, and that at no time recognized meaning in other languages. Imagine two Jehovah's Witnesses that you will touch the bell and say "hello, we are Jehovah's Witnesses, we want you to join us and give us money every month so we can continue to use cute outfits and break the rest of cherries neighborhood "instead of saying that God is good and what do I know that shit. Or that I say "I am a Marxist, I want to make the revolution" and then read all my texts (and as you see, I am a Marxist and I want to make the Revolution is something that I deal). That is, when one believes, is taking over, but common sense plays.
Third conclusion: if one had knowledge of X, each X talk about not giving his opinion but that would be sharing and building knowledge about X. The opinion does nothing but play and deeper sense, bourgeois ideology. The opinion is not what one thinks, one has to think before you say what you think, and the view is not to say what others say. And if you do not believe me, next time someone says something, ask what the hell it is based and will see how it will begin to falter.
Fourth Conclusion: The opinion is not knowledge. The opinion is ignorance. The opinion is the speech that appears in the middle of a talk about X and you have no idea what q is talking but heard something somewhere. One as you do not know, give your opinion. Rather than sit and listen, learn, give your opinion.
Overall conclusion: I'm studying social Universidad de Buenos Aires. That means I study and I have knowledge about certain things, basically social. Both my uncles are engineers. My aunt and my old doctor. When it comes to engineering or medicine, I am a listener. But when it comes to politics, society, culture and the world all agree. And that's something I hate. The opinion is ignorance. And in reliance on relativism, first you say "my opinion is valid" and then I branded as authoritarian. And there I think is the bottom line. Knowledge, knowledge, culture itself, are also tools and belongings that are not distributed equally in society. There are people who have little interest and that they are middle class and have access to certain cultural property. Cumbia sucks and is for ignorant ... obvious, because they hear the least cultural property received. Sure, and I, a student from Cs. Social authoritarian brand as me just because there is an unequal distribution among those with assets and there is a power relationship. If PC. study dentistry and love to spit their prejudices (ie the recovery of X before a trial and all that that implies ... that is the view, you say what you think of something you did not understand or jot about something), to I do not break balls. If you like to talk about life, he studied philosophy. If you want to talk about because X is as it is studying Psychology, etc. Even if you mean what you think, I first thought. Investigate, read, let yourself be guided by those who know more.
This text is to express my hatred of all the ignorant people who talk about things that do not know and think is the absolute truth when he discussed a one passes studying these things to pass subjects at the university. DEATH
IGNORANCE
0 comments:
Post a Comment