Language cannot exist in a vacuum, so I think he's right.
I believe Saussure was advocating that there are no novel ideas in the world; That is, a new idea is not only based within a old idea, and so on, but that even the language used to communicate new ideas is 'not free'.
As language is a continuum, there are always going to be connections, aren't there?
So nothing can be truly revolutionary?
As pessimistic as it may sound, we are living in a plagiarised world.
Isn't the revolutionary, by definition, reacting against something. Therefore, the revolutionary text, while advocating a break with the past, is far from free of it.
Thoughts of each man have some sort of link to that of others. One cannot escape from this phenomenon when one express any thing.
language forms a continuum, so that there is a sequence of relatedness all through texts, it's why i agree with Saussure.
Well, I don't know whether I disagree or not, as I haven't a bloody clue what he's saying (or even what he's trying to say).