[lit-ideas] Popper's Infallibility
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 22:35:25 -0400 (EDT)
In a message dated 9/23/2013 5:53:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
"Something like this question [Popper raises about misunderstanding being
a necessity] is debated in Biblical Hermeneutics. One of the precepts of
the Reformation was that Scripture needs no priest to interpret it; it is
understandable as written to the layman. That position was apparently never
intended to be an absolute, but some laymen took it as such and advanced
heretical doctrines. Calvin and Luther both wrote voluminously in order to
supplement this perfectly plain Scripture and keep the layman on the
straight and narrow. Even today many assume that Scripture "clearly" defines
the
particular doctrine that their denomination advances. The conclusion
drawn by many in regard to Scripture, but also any text, is that "no text is
self-authenticating." Two people with the same sets of presuppositions
might go to the text and come away with the same interpretation, but if it is
at all complex the chance of that is slim. If the presuppositions are
different then the chance of even similar interpretations is markedly reduced.
Another way of putting this might be, "nothing can be said that precludes
someone from misunderstanding it.""
On the other hand, as a Wiki entry has it,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
there's
Papal infallibility
-- "a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that, in virtue of the
promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error
"when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all
Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a
doctrine
concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church".
It's odd that tautologies, which are assumed to be 'easy to be understood'
(at the level of what is 'said' -- since they say nothing) can yet invite
so much controversy, papal infallibility and all.
Take for example the alleged tautology:
"I will be what I will be"
"It is connected to the passage in Exodus 3:14 in which God gives his name
as אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה (Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh), translated most
basically as "I am that I am" (or "I Will Be What I Will Be", "I Will Be What
I Am"). יהוה with the vocalization "Yahweh" could theoretically be a
hif'il (causative) verb inflection of root HWH, with a meaning something like
"he who causes to exist" or "who gives life" (the root idea of the word
being "to breathe", and hence, "to live").[7] As a qal (basic stem) verb
inflection, it could mean "he who is, who exists".[6]"
I will be what I will be.
How can you _fail_ to understand that -- the Pope included?
Cheers,
Speranza
---
McEvoy wrote:
"Tried to google this and came up
http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/grace_notes/salinger.php where the
following quotation from Popper is used "It
is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood."
This [is] worth quoting..."
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
