tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9189981194016418049.post8003584680912136413..comments2024-03-08T16:52:11.999-06:00Comments on APOLOGIA: It's all interpretation? (Part 1)Hendrik van der Breggenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04149481975577863835noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9189981194016418049.post-80983746318091260632011-01-07T22:58:39.908-06:002011-01-07T22:58:39.908-06:00P.S. I have an afterthought: If interpretation mus...P.S. I have an afterthought: If interpretation must come into the picture when communication of what was simply seen takes place, I think that our knowledge of the distinction between <i>simple seeing</i> and <i>seeing as</i> will help us discern the extent of the <i>seeing as</i>. When it comes to reports about what was seen and heard and touched, we know that some interpretive lenses are thicker than others. But this, it seems to me, doesn't preclude the possibility of the clear communication of what was truly seen and heard and touched. Police interrogators and lawyers are good at distinguishing between <i>simple seeing</i> and <i>seeing as</i>—and they can often cut through the latter to get at the former. I think scholars can do the same.Hendrik van der Breggenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04149481975577863835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9189981194016418049.post-50813517259171719342011-01-07T22:53:50.437-06:002011-01-07T22:53:50.437-06:00Hi Daryl (Climenheise),
Thanks for your thoughtfu...Hi Daryl (Climenheise),<br /><br />Thanks for your thoughtful and supportive comment concerning the importance of simple seeing. I agree with you that without simple seeing, critical realism collapses into some sort of instrumentalism or pragmatism that's disconnected, knowledge-wise, from the real world. Also, I agree with you that if we attempt to describe what we're simply seeing, then interpretation—i.e., seeing as, seeing that—can enter the picture. But on this last point of agreement, I think we should add the following note of clarification.<br /><br />We can still communicate simple seeing via ostensive definition. Ostensive definition is definition by pointing. Such pointing can be done physically (with, say, one's index finger) or verbally (with written or spoken instructions). Via ostensive definition we can connect language to the simply seen extra-linguistic world.<br /><br />For example, you and I could be standing together outside, and then I say "dog" while I point to an actual dog, and we keep doing this with various dogs until you get the idea of what I mean by "dog" (which includes you distinguishing the simply seen dog from whatever other associations/ interpretations you might have added). Or we could be standing beside various people, and I say "live body" and point to each of those actual living people—and we keep doing this until you get the idea.<br /><br />Or I could direct you verbally as follows: Daryl, please go over to the library, find my book <i>An Enquiry Concerning Human Abortion</i>, look at the top of page 33, look at the black ink squiggles in the heading. If you follow my directions (my verbal pointing), you will place yourself physically within a foot or two of an object called a book (written by me), and on page 33 you will see black ink squiggles that look very much like the following black electronic squiggles (but without the quotation marks): "Isn't the question of when life begins simply a matter of interpretation?" When you've followed my written directions (my pointing), you will simply see the squiggles, and then the squiggles' particular shapes and sizes will guide you in your subsequent interpretation vis-à-vis the English language game whose rules you (and I) know well. (Read pages 33-36 of my book if you want the answer to my question.)<br /><br />I think that we can go further. I could write a book about the dogs that I've studied (let's assume, for argument's sake, that I'm a dog expert) and in the book describe the simply seen aspects that you and I saw when I used ostensive definition to teach you all you know about dogs. By making references to previously simply seen situations in which our senses have been "appeared to dogly," I could, it seems to me, tell you and others much of what is simply seen of dogs. In fact, books about dogs seem to do exactly that. They appeal to a common ground of what has been simply seen, and they communicate the ideas via a common ground of simply seen squiggles/print.<br /><br />Similarly, I think I can communicate, via writing, certain simply seen features of the bodies of living people. (But I won't do so here, for the sake of propriety.)<br /><br />In view of the above note of clarification, I think the following point is significant for Christian apologetics (and the connecting of Christian theology to the actual world): written reports arising from eye witnesses to Jesus' resurrected body can communicate, minimally, that which was simply seen, and this allows us subsequently to look for the best interpretation of the simply seen contents of those reports—which may be that which the original witnesses also communicated along with what they simply saw.<br /><br />Thanks again for your comment.<br /><br />HendrikHendrik van der Breggenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04149481975577863835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9189981194016418049.post-55158126215098410832011-01-07T12:57:16.063-06:002011-01-07T12:57:16.063-06:00I agree with your analysis, Hendrik. This is a dis...I agree with your analysis, Hendrik. This is a discussion we have had in person several times. Oen difficulty that you don't address is the fact that simple seeing can never be expressed by one person to another -- seeing as and seeing that (interpretation) enter the picture as soon as I describe what I have seen to someone else. Even so simple a statement as "I see a dog" triggers associations (interpretations) both in the speaker and in the hearer.<br /><br />Your argument remains important. Without simple seeing, seeing as and seeing that become exercises in atomistic separated (and unbridgable) worlds. So I have found the distinctions you make helpful. Without them the attempt to maintain a critical realism collapses into some sort of instrumentalism or pragmatism -- we'll talk because it helps; but you can never know that what we are saying is true.Climenheisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01989459133238230712noreply@blogger.com