![]() This is dangerous for, what makes a classic book classic, is that it can be read repeatedly-not just in one lifetime, but down the centuries-while continuing to yield new and interesting interpretations. Over generations, these interpretations can harden into dogmas we are taught the “received interpretation” of a philosopher, and not the philosopher himself. Even if an interpreter is excellent-quoting extensively and making qualified assertions-his interpretation is, like all interpretations, an argument from authority to interpret a text is to assert that one is an authority on the text, and thus should be believed. When a philosopher’s views are being explained to me, I feel as if I’m on the wrong end of a long game of telephone. Thus, we must be very careful when relying on secondary literature for what is secondary literature but a collection of interpretations? Personally, I don’t like anybody to come between me and a philosopher. An interpretation can be reasonable or unreasonable, interesting or uninteresting, compelling or uncompelling but an interpretation, by its very nature, can never be false or true. ![]() In matters philosophical, it is wise to be skeptical of interpretations. I created a podcast version of this review, which you can find here:Įvery valuing, even where it values positively, is a subjectivizing. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |