RSS

Response to Andrew (A preference for pluralism)

8:26 PM |

Response to Andrew (A preference for pluralism)

I certainly found Andrew’s response to the critical pluralism/ monism debate to be intriguing. Andrew centered his support of critical pluralism on its practicality. I certainly understand this viewpoint, as monism does seem to represent an unreachable idea.

This post does raise an interesting theme in regards to the two sides of this debate. It seems as though this debate could be framed in a way that associates pluralism with practicality, and monism with idealism. I think that it can easily be agreed upon that monism represents an ideal. If monism were true, the process of interpretation would turn into a sort of science. Of course, pluralism is beneficial in its own right because of the fact that it accepts a diverse range of interpretations, rather than scolding someone for arriving at the incorrect interpretation. However, this debate seems almost pointless because of the fact that, as Andrew points out, monism seems unpractical.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS
Read User's Comments(1)
Posted by Bryan A

Response to Q&A- Ranking “acceptableness”?

8:26 PM |




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. 

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS
Read User's Comments(0)
Posted by Bryan A

In Response to Avery (Answering All the Questions)

6:47 PM |

In Response to Avery (Answering All the Questions)

In response to Nehamas’ claim that an ideal interpretation is one that is able to answer every possible question raised about a text, and that this an impossible ideal, Avery states that this ideal is “quite possible”. Avery posits that, while a writer may not initially come up with all of these answers, it is possible over time.

I certainly agree with Avery that it would be an impossible task to answer all possible question related to a text in one draft. However, I question the statement that all questions can even be answered with an unlimited amount of drafts. As Avery states in his post, “one can raise a great deal, if not an infinite number of questions about any given text”. If this is true, it seems that it may be an impossible task (although a certain ideal) to develop an interpretation that can answer every single question related to a text.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS
Read User's Comments(0)
Posted by Bryan A

Questions from Q&A 10

8:52 PM |


Questions from Q&A-
2. Although Stecker’s view of interpretations combines critical pluralism and monism, is he more supportive of one of them?
(Actual Response is more of a general response to Stecker’s piece)
Subsequent to my reading of Stecker’s work, it was clear that he supported a view that combines critical pluralism and critical monism. However, it seems as though these two views are not actually compatible. Stecker is only able to amalgamate these two opposing views by placing them on separate planes. Stecker represents critical monism through ascertaining that truthful interpretations exist, and that every truthful interpretation can be combined to form one, comprehensive, correct interpretation. This seems by definition incompatible with a pluralist view. If there is only a single, correct interpretation then there cannot be many acceptable interpretations. Accordingly, Stecker represents a view in support of critical monism. However, Stecker argues that pluralism can still coincide with this monist account. How could this be possible, one might ask. It is only possible because Stecker treats his version of critical pluralism in a completely different fashion then he does with his pluralist view. Stecker claims to represent a pluralist view because, in his view, there are many “acceptable” interpretations. Consequently, according to Stecker, monism and pluralism can exist in harmony. Not so fast, Stecker. “Acceptableness” and “correctness”, as Stecker describes them, are two completely different terms. Saying that there is one “correct” interpretation, but many “acceptable” interpretations does not lead to the conclusion that these two opposing views can work in conjunction. In this case, there would still only be one “correct” interpretation; thus, illustrating support for critical monism. Stecker’s description of so-called acceptable interpretations does not tell me anything about whether I should deem an interpretation correct or not. Accordingly, it should be left out of this discussion. As a result of this, I view Stecker as primarily representing a view of critical monism.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS
Read User's Comments(0)
Posted by Bryan A
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)