Even while holding this view, I did
not think that it could be combined with some form of critical monism.
Of course, this changed once I read the work of Robert Stecker. Stecker
supports a view of critical pluralism similar to my previous view; however,
Stecker also views the ideal of one correct interpretation as something we
should strive for. Instead of automatically throwing out this ideal as my
previous view did, Stecker views this as a legitimate goal. While we may not
always be able to reach this one correct interpretation, according to Stecker,
we should attempt to combine numerous held interpretations into one universal
interpretation.
Stecker
breaks down interpretations into two categories. An interpretation can be
either acceptable or truthful. An acceptable interpretation is one that is not
truthful, but it still adds something to our understanding of the work. Truthful interpretations are deemed that way
because they coincide with the actual meaning derived from the work.
Accordingly, the one, correct interpretations that should be aimed for is one
that is truthful. However, while few, truthful interpretations exist, there are
many acceptable interpretations.
I understand this about Stecker’s view, but I do not
fully understand how the concept of “acceptableness” works. Specifically, I am
wondering whether he would rank interpretations by their level of
acceptableness. My guess is that he
would not. It seems that acceptable is simply a label that can be put on interpretations,
and there is not a continuum that it is placed on.
0 comments:
Post a Comment