/lit/ - Literature

>>1790661
>>1790661

I agree with you on this point, but then you must admit that if language cannot be properly analysed synchronously and that you will never be able to truly determine the original signifier then you shouldn't call literary criticism objective in the same way you do engineering. It will never be crystalised in objectivity to nearly the same degree as engineering is.

That's why I've always felt that literary criticism has strong parallels with psychiatry which also will never be truly objectively analytical.

>>1790673

You are so egotistical it's unbelievable, sometimes I think you make vague statements purposely so that you can gloat over our inability to understand you. Delusional.

>>1790675

I never said it would be within our grasp anytime soon.

But until it is don't call it truly, materialistically objective.

>>1451678

It can't be expressed because it's infinite.