[lit-ideas] Re: Interpretation and Elision
- From: "Phil Enns" <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 17:28:47 -0500
Mike Geary had written:
"I can imagine RP responding to me thusly: all we have is our experience
of the world to go on."
to which I agreed. This was confusing. I am agreeing that all we have
is our experience of the world.
Robert Paul wrote:
"What I'm claiming is that if 'A causes (caused) B,' doesn't express a
logical connection between A and B (so that one might say, 'The presence
of A entails the presence of B'), then 'A caused B,' is our
interpretation of 'Nature.' No inductive argument will get us beyond
that either."
My claim is that Robert seems to be suggesting that if one cannot have
logical connections, then one must be doing interpretation. I don't see
why it is one or the other. I also don't know how one interprets
Nature, or even 'Nature'. Interpretation belongs to semantically-laden
signifiers, not rocks. A look, a poem, or the phrase 'ding an sich' are
the stuff of interpretation, not quartz. To interpret is to take
something that is meaning-full and give it another meaning.
On the other hand, Robert might be more of a mystic than he has let on.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Toronto, ON
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
