[lit-ideas] Re: Interpretation and Elision
- From: Robert Paul <robert.paul@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 19:10:41 -0800
Mike Geary wrote:
Or, expanding on Eric's thought, isn't every statement, perhaps even
every thought, an exclusion of the whole truth?
The whole truth about what? he wondered.
Shouldn't every thought include the universe itself, the universe in which it
is nestled and only within which it truly has any meaning?
Some of us think that thoughts are mental events, and that the universe
is mostly the other kind of stuff, no matter how far out you go. And
some outlaw band of us thinks that Brentano was right when he noted that
mental states (including thoughts) are of, or about something. My
thought of Mount St. Helens is about Mount St. Helens, not about The
World's Tallest Sitka Spruce. And, even if he wasn't right, we believe
that material things like those just mentioned are not about anything.
(Marx wasn't wrong because the true Revolution didn't happen; he was
wrong from the start, because there are no logical relations between
objects and states of affairs.)
> Every interpretation carries the baggage of the whole universe.
So, he wondered further how interpretations, which are thoughts,
expressed in words or other noises carry this baggage, seein' as how
it's doubtful that there are logical relations between snow's being
white, and my arm's being bent when I touch my nose with the tip of my
finger: I mean, the stuff in the universe doesn't carry it—why should my
thoughts about and interpretations of interpretable things carry it?
Robert Paul
amazed at the simplicity of it all
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:
