Quoting John Wager <jwager@xxxxxxxxxx>: > Walter C. Okshevsky wrote: > > Criticisms of such a Hermeneutic should be > > curtailed, for if literary critics did not have such interpretive > > licentiousness, the world of literary production would be sorely affected. > > Without literary criticism, how would the world discover the true meanings > of > > our author's writings? (This of course does not apply in the world of > > philosophy since a critic of philosophy is herself writing philosophy. > There > > may well be something spooky about such a state of affairs. > > Is this philosophy or literature? > > Wine comes in at the mouth; > And love comes in at the eye; > That's all we shall know for truth > Before we grow old and die. > I lift my glass to my lips; > I look at you, and I sigh. > > --W. B. Yeats, 1916. I would say "Literature" - if only because we are not clear on the actual semantic content of the propositions here being implied, insinuated, tangentially gestured at, smoke-signalled, by the poem. Is it not the case that people become literary writers or poets instead of philosophers or scientists because they aren't clear on what they believe to be true or right? Or because they believe that "true" and "right" do not apply to their (or anybody's) views on world, others and self? Or because they lack the courage of their convictions, should they have any? Stepping on toes left, right and centre due to the intolerable heat wave hitting The Avalon, Walter O. MUN > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html > ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html