You are on page 1of 1

Achmad Ridwan Noer - 180410100225 A Response to My Previous Response In my previous response, I argued about what Plato meant, something

is a representative of something in such way. After these several discussions in class after I posted the first response, I would like to develop my own argument, that I have seen that existence really matters. If "what is a representative of what and how" is applied, then it is undeniable that what we need is something we can observe, or, in short, we need a "sight". By having one of these so-called sight, I think one might be able to perceive something, even if the sight does not come from the very source itself. Like in "Ion", the nearest one to the very source is the one who can perceive the best, on the other hand, one that is near (not the nearest to the very source)can only comprehend less than the nearest. However, one's interpretation on what's there also depends on what vantage point is being used. In the discussion of "structuralism" I understood, but not quite, that to be able to understand something, what one needs is the "thing" for the first requirement, the ability to see the "thing" as plain as possible (without any theories, perhaps), and any other helping stuffs, like notes. Then, after discussing about "deconstruction", I would like to ask a question I have not been able to understand: what are the possibilities that we could perceive, even not quite much, any deconstructed idea using the deconstruction technique(s) or even the "defamiliarisation" technique like Tolstoy used, since a "thing" would be separated into pieces using the "deconstruction" technique?

You might also like