Paul Cella has an interesting article in the American Spectator Online, which concerns (broadly) the difficulties of interpretation. It appears to be a slightly-condensed version of a recent entry Paul’s outstanding blog.
Paul isn’t the first, of course, to touch on how difficult it can be to read a certain text “correctly” (or, indeed, whether any reading can be termed “correct”).* But I can’t help but relate his piece to my work. I’m a patent litigator, mostly, and a lot of what I do requires me to construe and apply frightening-vague patent claims. I know the limitations of the written word all too well. An old case, AutoGiro, put it best:
An invention exists most importantly as a tangible structure or a series of drawings. A verbal portrayal is usually an afterthought written to satisfy the requirements of patent law. This conversion of machine to words allows for unintended idea gaps which cannot be satisfactorily filled. Often the invention is novel and words do not exist to describe it. The dictionary does not always keep abreast of the inventor. It cannot. Things are not made for the sake of words, but words for things.
*Which is not to say that some interpretations are not “more correct” than others.
A lot of arguments on blogs boil down to someone using their own definition for a word… another problem with the written word is that it usually misses the tone and nuances associated with the wording by the author.
Language, of course, is a communication tool, and it works best when we have easily understood definitions for words. English is massively open to interpretation; even when we have lots of words whose meanings vary slightly, many people misuse them.
It’s maddening the amount of times arguments on the Web end turn out to have been misunderstandings, which normally would take a minute or so to resolve in a spoken conversation. But, then, a spoken conversation isn’t as easily referenced and/or edited.
There was an article in the New York Times Magazine about copyrighting names that made me think of you Von (I’m not sure it’s available on line any more without paying, but it’s reprinted here…which may be its own copyright issue). It noted that
This stood out for me because I’m often accused of “mindreading” on blogs for opinions I feel are self-evident. I’ve learned to try and avoid the practice (not always to everyone’s satisfaction, obviously), but I’m relieved to see there’s a recognition of the need for the practice in some quarters.
It is your asterik which is important. Many people hop lightly from the idea that good interpretation is difficult to the idea that it is impossible and/or that all interpretations are equally valid.
I don’t imagine there are many admirers of Leo Strauss among the contributors to this fine blog,* but I think his insistence that the object of scholarship in philosophy is to understand a thinker “as he understood himself,” is a very real and valuable contribution — a contribution that helps to rescue us from the obscurantism that rises in the gaps produced by radical skepticism and relativism.
Thanks for the link, Von.
* I do indeed admire him, but cautiously.
Ahh, Strauss, I love his waltzes, especially “Perpetuum immobile.”
Levi Strauss wrote waltzes?
I don’t imagine there are many admirers of Leo Strauss among the contributors to this fine blog
I wouldn’t say I’m an admirer, no. But I was greatly influenced in my thinking by an admirer of Strauss. So I’m a vicarious admirer, perhaps.
Many people hop lightly from the idea that good interpretation is difficult to the idea that it is impossible and/or that all interpretations are equally valid.
Quite right: The post-modern critique was absolutely correct as a crtique (indeed, even its “opponents” have fully absorbed and applied its lessons). But it fails miserably as a philosophy.
The post-modern critique was absolutely correct as a critique.
I don’t think the post-modern critique can be “absolutely” anything. {grin}
I am intrigued: Which Straussian influenced you, Von?
I don’t think the post-modern critique can be “absolutely” anything. {grin}
Aaarrgh.
Which Straussian influenced you, Von?
George Anastaplo. Though I’m not sure if I’d categorize him as a strict Straussian.
A lot of arguments on blogs boil down to someone using their own definition for a word
Notably, of late: mercenary.
Apologies in advance for any threadjacking resulting from this post.
Spent half an hour on the Anastaplo site; downloaded a bunch of stuff for rereading(and providing links to the original page); doesn’t appear to be the most conservative gentleman I have ever seen, but read quickly.
….
Spending a little of my time trying to grasp a little of the “post-modern critique”….looks tough, I think I resist it….looking at Rorty and Davidson
…..
“object of scholarship in philosophy is to understand a thinker “as he understood himself,”
Uhhh, why would this ever come into question? I remember a class where I stood against 30 others in insisting that the “Wife of Bath” did not demonstrate that Chaucer was a modern feminist. I convinced noone, I am afraid.