Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Re: Kurt Godel: Unpublished Philosophical Essays, by F. A. Rodriquez-Consuegra and Kurt Godel
Posted:
May 5, 2004 1:38 PM
|
|
David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news
> Sadly, Ozkural (and his band of "thinkers" here) keep telling us that
> what's important is what people (like Goedel) "thought", rather than
> what he and others actually said and wrote.
>
> All sorts of efforts have been made to point out why it's just a mistake
> to talk like that. However, they keep asserting that they know better.
> They haven't told us why yet.
The reason why it is important what a writer thinks is that the
so-called "intentional fallacy" is not a fallacy. The "New Criticism"
of the 1950's and the related Deconstruction movement of the later
century were colorful but dubious initiatives. The problem is that
meaning is not immanent. Meaning is purely a matter of usage and, in
fact, any word has, potentially, all possible meanings. Thus
interpretation is required, and interpretation requires an
interpretational construct. There are two possible choices for
interpretational construct: (1) A "contextual" interpretational
construct based upon the writer and his time; (2) A "noncontextual"
interpretational construct based upon whatever damn thing else might
suit the interpreter's fancy. Interpretations taking the second
approach can be incredibly whimsical and entertaining, but certainly
the classical charm and scientific spirit of the first approach make
that an important alternative.
Danny Purvis
|
|
|
|
