Sunday, April 8, 2012
Infinity
There was some doubt as to whether or not there was an infinite number of descriptions of a pencil. This depends on a central question: Does an altered perspective, if there is no aesthetic difference, beget, necessarily, a distinct description? I think not. While the space around the pencil is infinitely divisible, the altered perspective of a fraction of a degree will not translate to a visible change. While we cognitively understand that we are viewing a different section of the pencil, we may not be able to articulate such a fine distinction in our actual description. Our senses are not so acutely honed; therefore, while there is an infinite number of perspectives from which descriptions and interpretations are begotten, there is a finite number of descriptions and interpretations.
Q&A 10 - Question 2: Contradiction
Does the nature of claims about literature differ in a significant enough manner to afford them the luxury of being able to accept contradictions, or are they held, also, to the logical restrictions of all other propositions?
Aristotle on non-contradiction: "It is impossible for the same thing to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect" (Metaphysics IV 3 1005b19-20). This is possibly the single most basic axiom of logic, and yet, it seems, interpretive pluralism denies this. According to the theory there is no one correct interpretation of a text and as such there can exist two contradictory interpretations that are equally correct? Either the nature of literary interpretation is significantly different than regular propositions, or interpretive pluralism is demonstrably false.
Is the nature of interpretation thus different?
Aristotle on non-contradiction: "It is impossible for the same thing to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect" (Metaphysics IV 3 1005b19-20). This is possibly the single most basic axiom of logic, and yet, it seems, interpretive pluralism denies this. According to the theory there is no one correct interpretation of a text and as such there can exist two contradictory interpretations that are equally correct? Either the nature of literary interpretation is significantly different than regular propositions, or interpretive pluralism is demonstrably false.
Is the nature of interpretation thus different?
Q&A 10 - Question 1: Interpretation
Must an interpretation attempt to explain the whole text or can an interpretation subsist merely on a selection from the text?
This question was begotten by a remarkable lack of clarification and specification as to what interpretation really is. More specifically, however, it was class discussion that really rendered necessary this inquiry. In objection to the hypothesis of an infinite number of perspectives from which to describe a pencil, someone said "well that would be describing a part of the pencil, not all of it." I wonder, though, if that is a reasonable distinction to make. If I were to say: "The cover of our textbook is teal." have I not described our textbook? Certainly a comprehensive description would go on to note that there are other colors, a certain number of pages...etc... The point is, though, that I did describe the textbook while describing only a part of it. Comprehensive interpretations may exist, though ambitious, but most interpretations are, I think, interpretations of parts of literary works.
This question was begotten by a remarkable lack of clarification and specification as to what interpretation really is. More specifically, however, it was class discussion that really rendered necessary this inquiry. In objection to the hypothesis of an infinite number of perspectives from which to describe a pencil, someone said "well that would be describing a part of the pencil, not all of it." I wonder, though, if that is a reasonable distinction to make. If I were to say: "The cover of our textbook is teal." have I not described our textbook? Certainly a comprehensive description would go on to note that there are other colors, a certain number of pages...etc... The point is, though, that I did describe the textbook while describing only a part of it. Comprehensive interpretations may exist, though ambitious, but most interpretations are, I think, interpretations of parts of literary works.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Retrieval
Wollheim fails to either explicate the nature of a creative process or the manner by which we can reconstruct them. He fails to adequately respond to the first objection that it is impossible to recreate the creative process absent the fortunate circumstances of either being the artist (in which case interpretation would be unnecessary) or being privy to the artists process. Absent these extremely rare exceptions, I would maintain that it is impossible to recreate the creative process, but mainly because I am not presented with a definition, of any kind, of a creative process. Is it the mental thoughts while creating a piece? Maybe it is simply the mechanical operations of the artist's limbs while painting...etc...
Wollheim's thesis fails due to insufficient evidence.
Wollheim's thesis fails due to insufficient evidence.
Context
On Wednesday we discussed the merit of incorporating context of various sorts into interpretations and understanding of works of literature. There is merit but there is also danger. Understanding the tumultuous nature of France and England during that time aids in an understanding of A Tale of Two Cities.
However, I think we ought to be careful about which type of context can be helpful. There are certainly facts about an author's life for instance that would prove irrelevant. Furthermore, and the true danger, is that additional information can as easily corrupt as it can enlighten. Interpretation is always imprecise but being bogged down with irrelvant information may tempt us to look for analogs in the story and maybe even create a few.
However, I think we ought to be careful about which type of context can be helpful. There are certainly facts about an author's life for instance that would prove irrelevant. Furthermore, and the true danger, is that additional information can as easily corrupt as it can enlighten. Interpretation is always imprecise but being bogged down with irrelvant information may tempt us to look for analogs in the story and maybe even create a few.
The Correct Interpretation
I would like to posit that there is a correct interpretation of a work of literature. The correct intepretation of a work of literature is that which the author intended to communicate to the extent that it is not contradicted by the denotation of the work.
For instance: I cannot write a work "The Cat is Red" and then maintain that the correct intepretation of the work is that the cat is not red. If my intention was to convey that the cat is not red and attempt to do so by writing "the cat is red" than there is no correct interpretation because my intent and the denotation was contradictory. I would also maintain that I would be an idiot, but that is of less relevance here.
This is not to say that we cannot interpret material that the author did not intend. There is great merit in recognizing implications that may have arisen by accident, and there is nothing wrong with that. But the work means what the author meant it to mean.
Nota Bene: this is not the product of long deliberation and is very open to comment and revision.
For instance: I cannot write a work "The Cat is Red" and then maintain that the correct intepretation of the work is that the cat is not red. If my intention was to convey that the cat is not red and attempt to do so by writing "the cat is red" than there is no correct interpretation because my intent and the denotation was contradictory. I would also maintain that I would be an idiot, but that is of less relevance here.
This is not to say that we cannot interpret material that the author did not intend. There is great merit in recognizing implications that may have arisen by accident, and there is nothing wrong with that. But the work means what the author meant it to mean.
Nota Bene: this is not the product of long deliberation and is very open to comment and revision.
Paradox?
Nehamas, early in the article, attempts to invoke paradox to counter the view of Corngold. "But of course Corngold's view is reached thorugh an interpretation which must be itself correct if it is to explain why there cannot be a correct intepretation of the story."
This is a valid counterpoint, and a paradox indeed. He continues: and this paradox of method is parallel to a paradox of content. He claims that if the point of Metamorphosis was that literature cannot succeed in conveyance then a paradox occurs. "But if it succeeds in communicating it, it communicates that it fails to communicate..." Again, a valid paradox and thus refutation, but then he steps slightly too far: "...and if it fails, since this failure is what it communicates, it succeeds." He is close here,a nd I undersatnd why he errs, but an error noneltheless. If the story fails to communicate that literature cannot communicate, this does not prove that literate cannot communicate; it is only that this one case failed, so it does not ultimately succeed and there is no paradox there. It is a subtle distinction, but a valid one. Indeed, Goldcorn's position falls victim to the first two paradoxes, but Nehamas is not entitled to the third.
This is a valid counterpoint, and a paradox indeed. He continues: and this paradox of method is parallel to a paradox of content. He claims that if the point of Metamorphosis was that literature cannot succeed in conveyance then a paradox occurs. "But if it succeeds in communicating it, it communicates that it fails to communicate..." Again, a valid paradox and thus refutation, but then he steps slightly too far: "...and if it fails, since this failure is what it communicates, it succeeds." He is close here,a nd I undersatnd why he errs, but an error noneltheless. If the story fails to communicate that literature cannot communicate, this does not prove that literate cannot communicate; it is only that this one case failed, so it does not ultimately succeed and there is no paradox there. It is a subtle distinction, but a valid one. Indeed, Goldcorn's position falls victim to the first two paradoxes, but Nehamas is not entitled to the third.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)