seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from Ukraine
seen from Türkiye
seen from Netherlands

seen from Germany
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from Japan
seen from China
seen from Australia

seen from Australia
seen from Spain
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States

seen from United Kingdom
Bad German puns? My favorite assis? Here you go
Watching this dumbass cook makes me happy^^
Torben ist soo ein weicher Mensch^^ Obwohl er ständig nur vom Ficken und fiesen Sachen redetXD Ich mag euch.
A noun [for Aristotle] is proper when it has but a single sense. Better, it is only in this case that it is properly a noun. Univocity is the essence, or better, the telos of language. No philosophy, as such, has ever renounced this Aristotelian ideal. This ideal is philosophy. Aristotle recognizes that a word may have several meanings. This is a fact. But this fact has right of entry into language only in the extent to which the polysemia is finite, the different significations are limited in number, and above all are sufficiently distinct, each remaining one and identifiable. Language is what it is, language, only in so far as it can then master and analyze polysemia. With no remainder. A nonmasterable dissemination is not even a polysemia, it belongs to what is outside language. ‘And it makes no difference even if one were to say a word has several meanings, if only they are limited in number; for to each formula [logos] there might be assigned a different word. For instance, we might say that “man” has not one meaning but several, one of which would be defined as “two-footed animal,” while there might be also several other formulae if only they were limited in number; for a particular name might be assigned to each of the formulae. If, however, they were not limited but one were to say that the word has an infinite number of meanings, obviously reasoning [definition, discourse, logos] would be impossible; for not to have one meaning is to have no meaning, and if words have no meaning, reasoning with other people, and indeed with oneself, has been annihilated; for it is impossible to think anything if we do not think one thing; but if this is possible, one name might be assigned to this thing. Let it be assumed then, as was said at the beginning, that the name has a meaning, and has one meaning’ (Metaphysics). Each time that polysemia is irreducible, when no unity of meaning is even promised to it, one is outside language. And consequently outside humanity.
Jacques Derrida, Margins of Philosophy
A noun is proper when it has but a single sense. Better, it is only in this case that it is properly a noun. Univocity is the essence, or better, the telos of language. No philosophy, as such, has ever renounced this Aristotelian ideal. This ideal is philosophy. Aristotle recognizes that a word may have several meanings. This is a fact. But this fact has right of entry into language only in the extent to which the polysemia is finite, the different significations are limited in number, and above all are sufficiently distinct, each remaining one and identifiable. Language is what it is, language, only in so far as it can then master and analyze polysemia. With no remainder. A nonmasterable dissemination is not even a polysemia, it belongs to what is outside language. ‘And it makes no difference even if one were to say a word has several meanings, if only they are limited in number; for to each formula [logos] there might be assigned a different word. For instance, we might say that “man” has not one meaning but several, one of which would be defined as “two-footed animal," while there might be also several other formulae if only they were limited in number; for a particular name might be assigned to each of the formulae. If, however, they were not limited but one were to say that the word has an infinite number of meanings, obviously reasoning [definition, discourse, logos] would be impossible; for not to have one meaning is to have no meaning, and if words have no meaning, reasoning with other people, and indeed with oneself, has been annihilated; for it is impossible to think anything if we do not think one thing; but if this is possible, one name might be assigned to this thing. Let it be assumed then, as was said at the beginning, that the name has a meaning, and has one meaning’ (Metaphysics). Each time that polysemia is irreducible, when no unity of meaning is even promised to it, one is outside language. And consequently outside humanity.
Jacques Derrida, Margins of Philosophy
Nur noch wenige Tage bis zum YouTube User Congress in Berlin: Keoma verrät, wie man sich den YUC vorstellen muss und Interviewgast Tom von Rumblebeast666 berichtet aus erster Hand von seinen Netzwerk-Erfahrungen (Divimove). Außerdem lassen wir wieder den Lanz aus dem Sack und reden über den neuen Twitter Trend "Tweeria"!
Stumpfsinnige Wortspiele <3