For Helen Keller, what kind of state is he in if there is no language (the kind that can communicate with the society around her)? What the movie shows to everyone is her irritability, willfulness, and wanton behavior, (pay attention to what is covered?) So the appearance of Miss Su Leiwen played a role in civilizing and domesticating Helen Keller, even though the movie has to tell The main theme is Su Levin's behavior as an educator and the role of love, but this is not to be discussed in this article, but to discuss language, the way to realize Miss Su Levin's education of Helen Keller.
The signifier and the signified here are different from the familiar sound-image and the indicated object, because the sound may be missing or only exist in the mind, but the image that represents the sound is there, even for For Helen, it is strengthened, not only in the process of gesturing, but also in the process of comparing signified in her heart. Signified (domesticated) is completely consistent with society, that is, when she can communicate with her society From that moment on, her society has been docked and consistent with the society under the rules of language.
Although Heidegger's "unconsciousness" or the "language is a game" of the French 60s was so shocking in the philosophical world, I myself believe in this transcendental power, as Foucault said: Transcend all specific boundaries through humans Helen’s mysterious ability to think, and actually manifests this ability to cause fatal vertigo. In Foucault’s view, this kind of “fatal vertigo” is often associated with madness, sex, and dreams. Helen did not accept language. The state of pre-education seems to the world to be a kind of madness. It is to be sent to asylum. Some people may object to whether Helen "thinks" at that time. Then when Helen first understood the babble when the baby was born. wa (water) Once again, at the moment when you can feel the water and wa wa is confirmed in the gesture (signifier), isn’t it a confirmation of the thought? Although the film is the most exciting at that moment, but The light that bursts out at the moment of the connection that it is trying to describe is no different from the kind of praise for the light of the Enlightenment that confirms rationality, and it is different from Foucault's praise of "the mysterious ability to think".
But the paradox is also here. If no practice (rationality-language) is established, how can it be represented even if there is a priori? Although the long-lasting argument of who language and thinking originated from seems to have some evidence in the previous paragraph, at least to me it seems to be a step forward. In other words, thinking is like a dark room of the soul, and language is illuminating (and possibly Is the light of destruction. If there is no language, how can a priori be settled? Foucault probably saw the undercurrent in this dark room (also derived from Kant), so he would go to another extreme experience from it. But on another level, if there is no language, how can there be the establishment of transcendental thinking such as Foucault's so-called "transcendence experience"? This is the biggest paradox I feel at the moment, and the most contradictory is probably the most maddening is the language-the original sin of reason that a non-mad person like me can't escape.
It seems to be such a process: "There is nothing" because of "being", and "being" is criticized because of the belief in "nothing."
View more about The Miracle Worker reviews
