[lit-ideas] Re: Vedr: (un)dusting one's glasses
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 23:54:23 +0100 (BST)
From start to finish, I find this post hard to understand - that is, to
understand its point or argument. In addition, it is unclear to me how it is a
response to any of the points in my post - that is, how it addresses them.
________________________________
From: Torgeir Fjeld <torgeir_fjeld@xxxxxxxx>
>The question this raises isn't so much whether we can arrive at some formal,
>"non-human" language in which to couch our objective insights, but the extent
>to which statements ("propositions") in this language would be exempt from
>ordinary issues related to reading and meaning.>
Where was it suggested that we can "couch.. objective insights" in some
"formal" "non-human" language (whatever this might mean)? And what argument or
point is there in saying the question is whether statements in "this language"
["this language" being some "formal", "non-human" language?] "would be exempt
from ordinary issues related to reading and meaning"? This opening sentence is
either something that could be expressed much more clearly or is just opaque
academic-soundingtalk of little consequence - except the consequence of putting
the issue in terms of a "formal", "non-human" language, which is not any kind
of language mentioned or implied in my post.Insetting the question in these
terms this opening also fails to indicate which side would be correct on such a
question: the side who think "this languagewould be exempt from ordinary
issuesrelated to reading and meaning" or the side who think it wouldn't be
exempt? It might also help to know who are
the representativesof these respective sides or even who might suggest both
sides are partly right and partly wrong. And it might help to have some
indication as to what are the so-called "ordinary issues related to reading and
meaning".
> One common measure of democracy is acceptance of more than one reading of the
> same situation -- what we often refer to as a variety of (more than one)
> subject positions -- and while this would certainly undermine the validity of
> any thesis of an objective nature of a formal language of truth, it would
> have the benefit of allowing more than one experience of the -- theoretically
> speaking -- same phenomena to be voiced and accepted into the annals of
> science.>
For starters, the common understanding of "democracy" is as asystem where there
are free elections to decide who shall govern: never have I understood that
"(o)ne common measure of democracy is acceptance of more than one reading of
the same situation". But this starting-point leads nowhere except to the opaque
and unexplained claim that this "democracy" "would certainly undermine the
validity of any thesis of an objective nature of a formal language of truth".
Even ifthis opaque thesis were validly argued, I do not see how it would reveal
any weakness in the points in my post.
>Human beings are known for our capacity to engender meaning from situations
>that may be experienced as challenging. How would soccer players of different
>teams make different meanings of -- making differently meaningful -- a game in
>which they were confronted -- one ending up winning, the other losing -- given
>that both players have an interest in making meanings that validate their
>vision of life?>
Here my guess is this: most "soccer players", whatever their "capacity to
engender meaning from situations that may be experienced as challenging", would
find it too much of a challenge to "engender meaning" from this final
paragraph. And this is not at all to slight "soccer players": we might assume
they are quite capable of handling "ordinary issues related to reading and
meaning" (for example, they are literate enoughand understand ordinary language
wellenough) - what they can't handle is the kind of opaque talk that might get
one a Phd somewhere but which leaves most people cold, "soccer players"
included.
I'm with the "soccer players" on this - and am somewhat bemused that even where
terms are used that we might understand as a matter of "ordinary issues related
to reading and meaning", such as "variety of...", we are deemed to need a
clarification of this so that we understand that"a variety of...positions"
means "more than one" position. I think if I asked a group to soccer players to
collectively take up "a variety of...positions" within the penalty box, they
would know - without needing further clarification - that I was asking them to
take up "more than one" position. And not only would they regard any such
further clarification as otiosebut they might regard me as something of an
idiot if I offered it.
Donal
No-Phd
Other related posts:
