Pim: So you claim and others disagree. And why are you limiting
yourself to the 4 gospels ? The meaning of the words depend on the
reader especially since we do not have the authors available to explain
it to us.
Keithp: But even if the author were around to "explain" his intended
meaning to
us, wouldn't we still have to interpret his explanation? Or do you
really mean that you prefer your coffee with cream and sugar? At least
that's how I understood what you said. ;-) Pim, if you really believe
that the meaning of a written text is reader dependent, why do you
expend so much time and energy trying to communicate in an e-mail
discussion group?
Even with the authors around we have a problem agreed so there is not much
hope for an objective interpretation. The meaning of a written text is
reader dependent, one can only hope to correct any incorrect
interpretations by the reader.
Keithp: I don't know about anyone else on the list, but I really do find
you to
be a hard one to pin down. I would gather from some of your previous
posts that you believe that words are adequate vehicles for
communicating thoughts.
Adequate yes.
Keithp: Quotes such as these, along with your periodic quotes from the
scholarly
writings of others, lead me to believe that you are not as relativistic
about the meanings of words and the interpretation of verbal
communication as your most recent reply to CW might let on.
It depends on the issues. If claims are made of an objective morality then
I believe that words or verbal communication is insufficient to show the
existance of such a morality. If ideas are being communicated then verbal
communication is far less problematic. Especially if in a scientific arena
such ideas and interpretations of ideas can be discussed.
Keithp: It appears to me (an interpretive call to be sure) that when it is
convenient to you, you are a staunch proponent of the ability of words to
adequately convey the intended meaning of an author or speaker. On the
other
You are confusing two issues here, adequate conveyance of a message (and
in the cases quoted, scientific communication) and conveyance of an
objective morality (if such exists).
Keithp: hand, when it is not advantageous to your case, you resort to the
more
postmodern mindset that makes meaning dependent on the reader's/hearer's
interpretation rather than upon the author's/speaker's intention. So,
which way is it?
I don't believe it is related to being advantageous but being realistic
about the use of verbal and written communication to convey ideas. Such
communication is certainly unable to accurately convey an 'objective
morality' (if such exists) in any consistent manner.