[lit-ideas] Re: Interpretation and Elision
- From: Robert Paul <robert.paul@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 19:28:00 -0800
Sixty four years ago today, the day after the Japanese attack on Pearl
Harbor, FDR addressed Congress, and the American people.
Here are the first three paragraphs.
'Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United
States of American was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and
air forces of the Empire of Japan.
'The United States was at peace with that nation, and, at the
solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and
its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.
Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in
Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague
delivered to the secretary of state a formal reply to a recent American
message. While this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the
existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war
or armed attack.
'It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it
obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks
ago. During the intervening time the Japanese government has
deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and
expressions of hope for continued peace.'
In the third paragraph, he gives his reasons for finding it 'obvious'
that the attack had been planned 'many days or even weeks' beforehand.
This is, it seems to me, an interpretation of the Japanese actions; for,
it doesn't follow logically—in the strict sense in which Hume would have
said, 'the conclusion is in nowise necessary'—however plausible an
interpretation it is.
This leads me to wonder if this is true of all 'interpretations' of
actions and events. For if we had logical certainty regarding them, we
wouldn't need interpretations. It leads me to wonder further whether
it isn't a feature of the interpretations of e.g. Brahms' oeuvre,
Plato's intentions, and the meaning of 'the pursuit of happiness,' that
is, that where there is logical decisiveness (and not just good
grounds), there is no room for interpretation. But there is no such
decisiveness in the world. So, maybe those who think that it's
interpretations all the way down are right, for something like the
reasons Hume gives when he argues that no amount of propositions about
the past entails any proposition about the future, and that no amount of
propositions about what is entails anything about what ought to be.
Something like that.
Robert Paul
Reed College
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
