In interpreting the words of Umberto Eco, Italian author and semiotics of postmodern bestseller 'Name of the Rose', the Russian philosopher and cultural studies, Alexander Piatigorsky, in his essay on the AP says'(…) Umberto Eco writes, that in this postmodern desperately tries to explain, to explain themselves to another – a friend, enemy, peace, to anyone, because he will die at a time when no one will explain. But explaining yourself to another, he is trying to do and how another, rather than as himself. Explaining the reception of postmodern explanation, Eco says: Well, imagine that you are cultured and educated man, want to explain to love a woman you consider not only the cultural and educated, but also smart. Of course, you could just say, 'I love you madly', but you can not do this because she knows that these words were just told to Anne of Austria in the novel by 'Three Musketeers'. Filed under: Jill Wittnebel. Therefore, in order to protect yourself, you say, 'I'm madly in love you, in the words of Dumas' Three Musketeers'.
Yes, of course, a woman, if she smart, understand what you mean and why do you say it that way. But quite another thing, if she really so smart, if she wants to answer is 'yes' to a declaration of love? " (Italics here and below in quotes belongs to Pyatigorsk. – VR). Another fundamental principle of the AP – the refusal of the truth. Miscellaneous philosophical trends in different ways to understand the truth, but the PA refuses to recognize and solve this problem – except as a problem of language game in the spirit of the late Wittgenstein (see analytic philosophy), they say, the truth – it's just a word that means what it says in the dictionary. It is important – not the value of the word and its meaning (see the logical semantics, the sign), its etymology, then, as it was used before.