>>46190
The point of language includes addressing subjectivity (using the modernist definition of the word, as we're not talking about a person, rather their experience with reality), yet the author of that review reduces that intelligible activity into something sensible (the passions from that activity). What's worse, the author of that review further degenerates the tools of language (its linguistic signs) into a metaphor for her how it makes her feel instead of how it's properly utilized.

That's just the first sentence in an incoherent paragraph that lacks proper punctuation. If we keep going, we see that she projects her sensible complex by telling the implied audience that it's intelligible for words from a language to be driven by feelings of unity and the discarding of reason. Finishing of that sentence, she asserts that there is no choice. Wonderful words from that woman, Kant and Luther would be proud... if only she had the decency to say those words to the billions of people who were tortured, enslaved, or murdered by her fellow followers of German Idealism.

That review gets really good from this point on. The author of the review then begins the next sentence by writing a beautiful metaphor (which she cannot differentiate from reality) to pose a sensible if statement which she will instrumentalize her attacks against human reason and humanity itself. Again, I will not speculate what part of her sexuality is directing this attack. By first stating that language might have been her first love, she again reduces language into something sensible; and by writing that it was her heartbreak, she tries to toss any reason and responsibility that goes with it. What's worse, the author of the review plays the victim (deja vu) and blames the structure of a language for her confusion. It gets even better because this aggressor against reason doubles down by claiming a desperate reconciliation of reason despite just telling us she rejected reason. The cherry on top is her utilization of the word "polysemic", which she bastardized from being rationally constructed into something that constructs meaning. Why does this inversion of truth feels familiar?

Her penultimate and antepenultimate sentence make up a cute story, with no place in an intelligible review. But she needs to end her propaganda with an exclamation. For any man that knows women, you know what that means in sex.