What do you call this?
What do you call it when someone behaves contrary to what (to serve as an example) the Bible preaches and yet the person acts in the name of religiosity? I don't think hypocrisy nails the issue on the head adequately enough. I want to say it's willful ignorance, but that's not right either. The very fact that one would behave contrary to what something teaches indicates some lack in understanding of some facet or feature of an ideology or doctrinal truth. What is meant by "contrary" and "understanding" in this context?
It just seems to me that you have a body of work, take again, for example, the Bible, with the potential to create inconsistency and misgivings about interpreting it that one never knows when they have the right understanding of it without divine intervention. So, how do you know when you've got it right, so to speak?
I have an inkling that this is postmodernism incarnate. Namely, for anything that requires an interpretation of something (that 'something' being truth or 'Truth'), then there's always a chance for confusion to arise. Is this correct?
It just seems to me that you have a body of work, take again, for example, the Bible, with the potential to create inconsistency and misgivings about interpreting it that one never knows when they have the right understanding of it without divine intervention. So, how do you know when you've got it right, so to speak?
I have an inkling that this is postmodernism incarnate. Namely, for anything that requires an interpretation of something (that 'something' being truth or 'Truth'), then there's always a chance for confusion to arise. Is this correct?
Comments (36)
Now, that you call it modern science, then I can't help but agree. Case closed?
It's not so much as fallibility, as the rejection of any proper interpretation of things. I don't feel like it's fallibility though if that makes sense?
Yeah.
Quoting ?????????????
Possibly.
Quoting ?????????????
Yes.
Perhaps.
There is nothing wrong with doubt in the face of truth, as long as it fuels the impetus to seek that truth.
Not necessarily, the person may just be struggling to overcome contrary tendencies in their psyche. "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak," and all that.
The key thing about most religious understandings is that they take man to be imperfect and his situation somewhat tragic. That's why hypocrisy isn't such a great evil to religious people, but something one can be forgiven for (within reason) provided they show contrition. That's why redemption is possible in most religious systems.
That, and because God is understood to be the ultimate arbiter and judge, not other human beings (for one thing, God knows the real facts of the case, including all the sinner's hidden thoughts and deeds).
Well you should just hope there's some other background information that gives clues about the author's intended meaning. Either way this idea there is no right interpretation is wrong... authors write with intended meaning - the proper interpretation is in line with whatever the intended meaning is.
Yes; but, what about extending this argument to non-religious texts? Then can one ever be said to know something unless he or she isn't the author of it? It's as if a body of knowledge dies when the author does too. It's as if to present something contrary to what someone has spoken of, that misunderstanding arises. So, how do you prevent misunderstanding, then?
I'm not a Christian but, or and, I don't understand the Bible as a consistent body of work that preaches one thing rather than another. Actually I find some of the most enjoyable sections, like the Song of Solomon or the parables of Jesus, to be where the narrative seems nothing like a guide to how one is to behave.
So I feel that you target is more likely a person who avows one thing one day, and a contradictory thing another day, and won't see that they're contradictory. Faced with such people I confess that lately I am a bad Samaritan and pass by on the other side.
So, the absence of contradiction is indicative of understanding a text, correct?
Then, shouldn't every text be made so that there's the least amount of possibility of contradiction in it, therefore someone may feel as though they understand it appropriately? But, how do you ensure this important feature of any text???
I'm not sure it's indicative of understanding; maybe you can have more than one logically valid interpretations of a text but they'd all be equally plausible as the meaning. You can only have understanding if you have direct access to the author's intended meaning.
Well, yes. The absence of non-sequiturs implies that one understands something. Therefore, how do you lessen the chance of a non-sequitur from arising at all? Through consistency? But, how do you arrive at consistency without contradictions?
I confess I feel rather the opposite. Why should texts obey some principle of non-contradiction? This would be the dream of an authoritarian, surely? Non-contradiction happens in logic, perhaps, but as soon as we use natural language it creeps in. And creeps, and creeps.
Certain texts may be regarded as some sort of guidance to behaviour, but how are humans to be governed in this way? As soon as I read 'Thou shalt not'...' written say by some stuffy patriarch, I want to go looking for a fellow-transgressor.
Hello again, btw, Posty. Hope you're well.
To ensure consistency and the least amount of misunderstanding? Sure, such texts are boring since there's nothing to criticise, but, at least they are logically sound.
Quoting mcdoodle
You can call it mathematics, or the laws of nature if there's such a negative connotation with associating humans with it.
Quoting mcdoodle
Well, yes, formal languages are devoid of this feature. So, then why are non-formal languages so rife with the possibility for inconsistency?
Quoting mcdoodle
Nice to see you mcdoodle. It's a shame the Wittgenstein reading group thread died; but, oh well.
I'm not sure I understand the bolded. Wouldn't consistency imply lack of contradiction. Also I think what's really important to avoid presence of multiple, plausible, consistent interpretations is specificity and clarity in writing as opposed to ambiguity.
Doesn't it depend on the purpose of the text? If it's an artwork then it's fine to have contradictions on the literal meaning level, the writing expresses some latent concept or emotion then it's understandable. If it's an expository work intended to communicate some specific information then it shouldn't have contradiction right
Well yes, I think so. But what do you call it when someone commits an error in interpreting it as consistent but behaves inconsistently with regards to it? Is that some error or fallacy?
I think it'd be an error. He may be behaving consistently with respect to his interpretation but ultimately it's an error.
But, can't this be said of everything epistemological? When can there be certainty when we don't know when no further contradictory statements can arise? It's almost as if wanting to have your cake and eat it too...
Well, suppose that we're talking about some doctrinal truth, and we both have perfect knowledge of it. We're we to discuss it we could go on for ages without ever making an error in consistency.
How do we know that what we're talking about is true and accurate if no inconsistency ever arose?
We'd know because we can contrast our consistent statements with imagined contradictions, e.g possible statements that contradict our doctrine.
What if the doctrine in principle could not have contradictions? Is that something possible? Everything would simply flow effortlessly.
It seems to me more of an unconscious thing, due to lack of knowledge or such rather than an activity.
I guess. But, since you can't put a finger on the epistemic component of the issue, then is morality involved at all?
Again, I bring up the issue of not knowing something unless a contradiction can be spotted.
Non-formal languages are languages of communication. There was a notion from Frege onwards that somehow a more 'scientific' language might be developed, but it never comes to pass.
There is, for utmost clarity, the language of mathematics. There is, for how we get along, natural language. The latter is just untame-able. Why would it not be? What would be the virtue of inconsistency, certainly in matters other than factual ones?
Cognitive dissonance?
I think that would be impossible, for every proposition, there is some other proposition that contradicts it.
It is what it isn't.
It is what it is?
Depends on what the definition of it is.
I don't think you can prevent misunderstanding by an means "internal" to rational discourse itself, "being on the same page" comes from having shared traditions, reference points and culture, and to some extent genetics (ethnicity, race); and that provides a launching pad for people having some basis for understanding each other.