Pim: Even with the authors around we have a problem agreed so there is
not much
hope for an objective interpretation. The meaning of a written text is
reader dependent, one can only hope to correct any incorrect
interpretations by the reader.
First off, I don't really think the primary issue is that of arriving at
an "objective" interpretation, but rather an accurate one; one which
reflects the author's intended meaning. That is, after all the goal of
communication, to transfer by means of words, a thought or idea that
exists in my mind, to the minds of others. I happen to believe that
authorial intent is capable of being discovered by the reader by paying
attention to such indicators as his/her use of words, sentence and
paragraph structure, context, etc.
Furthermore, what exactly is an "incorrect" interpretation according to
your view and who is justified in so judging another's interpretation?
If I were talking with the author of a particular text and arrived at an
interpretation different from what she intended to convey, at most, she
could say that I have not understood what she had hoped to communicate
but if meaning is truly reader dependent, she cannot tell me that my
interpretation is "incorrect." My interpretation can NEVER be incorrect
since I am the one who determines what the text means regardless of
whether the author is present. And if even the author of a text cannot
say that another's interpretation of her work is incorrect, then I
wonder how it is that a third party, such as yourself, can justifiably
claim that another party is incorrectly interpreting a written work. It
may be that you interpret it differently, but since the meaning of the
text depends upon the reader, you and the person whose interpretation
you disagree with are both "correct" even if your interpretations are
contradictory.
Keithp: Quotes such as these, along with your periodic quotes from the
scholarly
writings of others, lead me to believe that you are not as relativistic
about the meanings of words and the interpretation of verbal
communication as your most recent reply to CW might let on.
Pim: It depends on the issues. If claims are made of an objective
morality then
I believe that words or verbal communication is insufficient to show the
existance of such a morality.
But your original comments to Chuck Warman were not addressing a claim
to an objective morality but the overall meaning of the gospels. You
were challenged to read the gospels and demonstrate that their
cumulative meaning is unclear. It was in response to THIS that you made
your assertion about reader dependent meaning, not making any
distinctions.
Pim: If ideas are being communicated then verbal communication is far
less problematic. Especially if in a scientific arena such ideas and
interpretations of ideas can be discussed.
Isn't the claim that there exists an absolute standard of morality, an
"idea"?
When I think about it, this is all kind of humorous. Here we are
discussing propositions, ideas, meaning, etc.; things which, according
to your worldview don't have any "existence" since they cannot be
detected with the senses. You do realize that we're discussing matters
of linguistic theory (BTW, is there only one accepted definition for
this word? I looked in my little paperback dictionary and found at least
three there) which doesn't fall into the category of science, yet you
write as though you have knowledge of how language works. I'm also
curious about how it is that you alone have been able to rise above the
subjectivity of the masses so as to inform the rest of us what is really
the nature of the case.
Keith