Saussure is important as a linguist (although many of his theories have since been put out to pasture) ... but he is most important for his contributions to the theory of Structuralism (and, later, Poststructuralism). His idea that you could not study language as individual units, but rather had to examine it as a structure and study how the units interacted within the structure, was enormously influential in modern and postmodern philosophy.

This book is not particularly difficult; it's a bit dry, but what can you expect from a linguistics class? If you read it carefully, you'll have no problem grasping what he is saying... and, when you are done, you will be well on your way to understanding what people like Lacan, Derrida and Foucault are trying to say. (You'll also be well along your way to understanding Claude Levi-Strauss, who attempted to do for anthropology what Saussure did for linguistics). If you want to understand modern philosophy, Saussure is as indispensible as Marx or Freud. Combine this with *Saussure for Beginners* and you'll pick up Saussure's train of thought in no time.

This book is the manifesto of structural linguistics. But it has been widely read outside linguistics for it served as corner stone of structuralism. It was not intended to be published. In fact Saussure never wrote any book. It was principally a lecture. So lines of the book are easy to follow and clear-cut. But the power of the statement could be felt even now. It set off the mighty paradigm.
As Foucault said in his work, ¡®The Order of Things¡¯, the history of thoughts is the history of models. For example, the biology, in particular Darwin¡¯s evolutionism, served as model to thoughts of the 19th century: beliefs in progression of Marxism and liberalism drew on the analogy between society and evolution of organism. Functionalism in social sciences also utilized that analogy. The 19th century is the age of biology. The linguistics of that time also took the organic model as the fountain of inspiration: the language is a organic entity which evolves though time. Phoneme and word change, in other word evolve over time. In Saussure¡¯s term, it¡¯s the diachronic aspect of phoneme and word. The linguistics of the 19th century was the history of them. But Saussure contended that phoneme and word have no memory: at any point of ¡®parole (the language in practice)¡¯, each word has only one meaning. In everyday life, etymology doesn¡¯t make sense at all. The reality of language lies not in diachrony but in synchrony. This is the point where Saussure redefined the linguistics: the object of linguistics is not diachronic (or historical) fact but synchronic system (langue, in Saussure¡¯s term).
Phoneme and word make sense not in their own, but against systemic background like grammar. The object of the linguistics is not phoneme or word in practice (parole) but the system that gives meaning them (langue). Phoneme and word have meaning only in the way how they are different from each other. The langue is the system of that difference. Here comes in the very concept of structure that give rise to French structuralism. Structuralism is the thoughts based on the model of language which Saussure redefined, that is the system of difference

Ferdinand de Saussure and his students in Geneva at the turn of the century articulated in notes, critical insight attributed to Saussure in that "The sole object of study in linguistics is the normal, regular existence of a language already established." A tall order no doubt. Taking Saussure's insight as an assumptions, we are compelled to examine the system itself and guess as to its characteristics. In this, Saussure's most influential work is the Course in General Linguistics (1916), a compilation of notes on his lectures. In this book Saussure articulates a simple way to describe language in that it is a system, involving at least two people, who transmit conceptual material from the mind of the speaker to the mind of the listener. Taking it one step further, saying that it is a system which accomplishes this task through the oral articulation of sounds and the auditory interpretation of those sounds. From this point of view, the process is opaque, it is a process by which the mechanisms are obscured from our sight and we are compelled to guess how it all happens.

Here is an attempt to understand the process outlined in the book. There are two spots where a mental process is taking place: "A", which is somewhere between the "mind" and the mouth, and "B", which is somewhere between the ears and the "mind". We can really only speculate as to the process by which this is done. The next best approach is way to take notice of "WHAT" the process "IS". This is where Saussure and his students are are their finest - both the process in A and the process in B is a pairing between a sound and a concept - A is a process changing concepts into sounds and A is a process changing sounds into concepts. "What is the process by which sound signals are transformed into conceptual information?" This question could be said to be at the very core of just about every sub-discipline in present-day linguistics and Saussure's notion of the "linguistic sign" seems to be the foundational assumption.

The key to understanding Saussure is to view the linguistic sign a process rather than a thing. It is a mental relationship between a sound pattern (Signal) and a concept (Signification). Other literature would say Signifier and Significant - but in keeping to this literature we will stick with Signal and Signification. To Saussure, the "linguistic sign is not a link between a thing and a name, but between a concept and a sound pattern. The sound pattern is not actually a sound; for a sound is something physical. A sound pattern is the hearer's psychological impression of a sound." It is the link between the signal and the signification that comprises the sign. It is not just a relation, but a relation from an abstract entity to an abstact entity. It is easier to understand the abstraction if you take into account that the signal and the signification to be processes rather than things.

Language function in the realm of a community. Saussure takes language, "considered in itself and for its own sake", to be the "only true object of study in linguistics." Okay, then the linguistic sign is a helpful device in explaning language, but it does not represent the wholeness of language, which is the object of study. Here is where the community aspect comes in - "individual, acting alone, is incapable of establishing a value", there should be some larger system to which linguistic signs belong - a framework. Saussure posits that to "think of a sign as nothing more would be to isolate it from the system to which it belongs.

Another key area of consideration that I will not endeavor to explain but count as important for future consideration is the relation of synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Saussure distinguished synchronic linguistics (studying language at a given moment) from diachronic linguistics (studying the changing state of a language over time); he further opposed what he named langue (the state of a language at a certain time) to parole (the speech of an individual). Saussure is foundational in understanding the methods of Structuralist and Post-Structuralist like Claude-Levi Strauss and Michel Foucault. To engage in these realm without having the foundation with Saussure is only making things difficult for yourself. I recommend this book highly.

Miguel Llora

The scientific study of human nature is primarily a semantic one. This book is a wonderful analysis of consciousness and existence. Check this one out. To Sarte, tally hoe!!!!!!

Maurice Solovine explains in his introduction to this book how he came to meet Albert Einstein in Berne, when he was teaching physics for three francs an hour. At their first meeting, Solovine explained that he was "studying philosophy, but wanted to delve into physics so as to acquire a thorough understanding of nature". On the third day of their meetings, Einstein told Solovine, "As a matter of fact, you don't have to be tutored in physics; our discussion of problems that stem from it is much more interesting. Just come to see me and I will be glad to talk with you." Thus began the long friendship of Maurice Solovine and Albert Einstein -- and this book is a compilation of many letters from Einstein to Solovine, with photocopies of the German originals and translations to English following. While physicists may be somewhat disappointed to find that these letters to Solovine contain very little discussion of physics, most fans of Einstein will be enchanted to see him express his feelings about his family, his work, his peers, and politics.

I've read the White Notebook, but have not been able to get hold of the Black notebook as of yet. Even so, I'd definitely make the recomendation! Gide published the White Notebook at age 20, and never looked back on it with displeasure, though some of his views either changed slightly, or developed further with time. It's an insightful work - both into human nature, in general, and the author, in particular. Also, Baskin's footnotes and introduction are enormously helpful. A delight to the Gidean scholar.

Well what can I say about this book....well for one it has a poor title for what this book is real about.If you are looking for a book on satanic philosify and rituals,then don't buy this book.What this book actually is,a: A to Z book of satanism.You could call it a satanic dictionary.It's a great reference book,but for the price it's not worth it.

well,as i saw the title i had the passion to read it.i found it in a friends house,and i finished the book in 3 days. not a worthy book for me,but a good start for an outsider,it gives you somehow the feel of the satanism.and beside nice paintings.over all something intresting to read,but not as a source or a ceriouse guide.if you're looking for a guide to give you the feel of the satanists,start with the most famouse one: The satanic bible.