Re: MD On Faith+understanding (Rorty/Bhaskar)

From: Chris Vlaar (C.C.Vlaar@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Oct 25 2004 - 13:59:47 BST

  • Next message: Sam Norton: "Re: MD On Faith"

    Hi David:

    On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:46:45 +0100, David Morey
      
    Often the teacher will be able to tell the student that they
    > have the wrong interpretation
    > from the generally accepted one and will try to guide them towards making a
    > new leap until
    > if they are lucky they get it. This seems to be the dynamic component
    > relating to the individual
    > with respect to attaining what we otherwise may look on as common/universal
    > structures
    > of meaning.

    Chris:

    In my opinion this has nothing to with a dynamic component - what is a
    dynamic component anyway? - relating to the individual, all the more
    likely is it, to me, and some others, that this has everything to do
    with the 'dynamic nature' of words itself: everytime we use a word it
    has a different meaning, some analytical philosophers such as Searle
    believe that texts have a fixed meaning and we have access to it, or
    that names 'rigidly designate' (Kripke), or that words in general
    'refer' to something in the world, this seems a fundamental
    misunderstanding of what language is, and is based on the idea that we
    are the 'father of language', or that words are somehow an instrument
    freely for us to use.

    David:

    'Bhaskar also points out the realist assumption that there is an
    undivided/
    uninterpreted real world to which we relate our interpretations and will
    either fit or
    resist our interpretations'

    This point Baker makes sounds plausible, but I am not too sure whether
    this world he mentions is somehow undivided, and if so, how to say
    something about this undivided world; rather, to me it seems, it is
    the present 'structure' of language that hinders fundamental changes.
    This is not a FIXED structure but more like a varying paradigm. A
    paradigm which cannot be SUBJECTed to change, but is nevertheless
    changing - much like inflation.

    I don't know if this makes any sense to you?

    Chris

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 25 2004 - 14:14:19 BST