Please help me understand this quote: "Language is part of the meaninglessn

Question: Please help me understand this quote: "Language is part of the meaninglessness of art" -Derrida!?
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments!. Man’s profound need of art lies in the fact that his cognitive faculty is conceptual, i!.e!., that he acquires knowledge by means of abstractions, and needs the power to bring his widest metaphysical abstractions into his immediate, perceptual awareness!. Art fulfills this need!.!.!.

"For instance, consider two statues of man: one as a Greek god, the other as a deformed medieval monstrosity!. Both are metaphysical estimates of man; both are projections of the artist’s view of man’s nature; both are concretized representations of the philosophy of their respective cultures!.!.!.

"As a re-creation of reality, a work of art has to be representational; its freedom of stylization is limited by the requirement of intelligibility; if it does not present an intelligible subject, it ceases to be art!."
Ayn Rand; various souces

Now, taking all that into consideration, what does it tell you about the state of art in today's world!? Perhaps it is the "intelligibility factor" of the subject of art about which nothing much can be said, therefore making language part of its meaningless!?

"As to the role of emotions in art and the subconscious mechanism that serves as the integrating factor both in artistic creation and in man’s response to art, they involve a psychological phenomenon which we call a sense of life!. A sense of life is a pre-conceptual equivalent of metaphysics, an emotional, subconsciously integrated appraisal of man and of existence!." Rand

Derrida did not have a "profound need of art" because "his widest metaphysical abstractions" do not contain an "integrated appraisal of man and of existence," but rather he sees man in the psychology of his (Derrida's) writings--but never directly or formally or in anything but "meaningless" subterfuge of language--as "a deformed medieval monstrosity!."

"I became the stage for the great argument between Nietzsche and Rousseau!. I was the extra ready to take on all the roles," Derrida wrote!. "In philosophy, you have to reckon with the implicit level of an accumulated reserve, and thus with a very great number of relays, with the shared responsibility of these relays!."

No argument between Nietzsche and Rousseau is necessary, and any philosopher who speaks of "reckon[ing] with the implicit level of an accumulated reserve" (without making explicit that "level" and that "accumulation" and that "reserve"--what are they!?) and "a very great number of relays" (what are those!?) and has the "shared responsibility of these relays" (with whom, and for what purpose, and what makes them shared!?) is a philosopher who does not know the meaning of "meaningless" words, let alone being able to call art "meaningless!."Www@QuestionHome@Com

Jacques is up to his nihilistic tricks!.

He is being arty, and using language to categorize language as meaningless as his art!.

It is an anti-Schopenhauer, anti-Nietzsche stance: art is meaningless!.

Language, for Derrida, reflects his alienation from his awareness of Truth (which was his philosophic Grail, and which he decided he had not ever found)!.

In point of fact, symbols, of which words (and sentences) are a major subset, reflect higher awareness!. To be confused or unclear about one's symbolic imagery and usage is not well-formed philosophy!. If you believe that all contact with art, including language, has been meaningless, then you are in the same general state as Derrida: "All is vanity!."

Nice, but likely ignorantly dismissive of the value art has given to you!.!.!.!.

"The Path of the Higher Self," Mark Prophet!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Language is not necessary to survive, as all enlightened being realize and spend many years some times the remainder of there lives with out uttering a word!. This is because nothing linguistically compares to the actual experience of reality as is when it is first realized!. Enlightenment is a rare state and little is known about it because of the abstract language these beings use to convey the condition!. I don't know if Derrida is enlightened or if this is what he meant!. also enlightened beings realize the dualistic nature that language brings up, such as the use of the term "I" which signifies self awareness and existence!. On the level of enlightenment I goes without saying and is only used by those of advanced awareness to convey meaning to the unenlightened to eliminate confusion!. The Buddha, like others, had the ability to speak to the level of comprehension of those in his presence, and thus consciously refrained from revealing what could be taken out of context!. Everyone knows what happened to Jesus, who was equal to the level of Buddha!. To this day Buddhism is the religion that remains the closest to its original teachings, through strict preservation and application to life!.Www@QuestionHome@Com