It seems easy to say that such-and-such is only an interpretation, or conversely, that everything is an interpretation. But the presupposition of only an interpretation is that there is something available to us which is not an interpretation, relative to which we can say that something is
So if we say that something is an interpretation of something, we run into a problem, because we are assuming that there exists some uninterpreted reality. But if we say that everything is interpretation, then there is no “thing” left to interpret. Very insightful thinking! However, does the notion of perspective help here? Could we say that something is an interpretation of something if such-and-such a perspective were valid? The perspective itself we merely assume as the “real reality”, even though it might not be. In other words, we must believe in something unquestioningly in order to interpret from that perspective… or? Just a little Nietzschean quip. 🙂
Interesting idea. What is assumed, as I understand you, would be that reality is such-and-such. So a perspective is an interpretation taken as real, and we make further such interpretations on that basis. I think we probably have such perspectives, either consciously (if the assumptions are known as such) or not (if they are not). But a similar problem would still remain: either there are only perspectives, in which case, we lose the coordinating reference point which makes them perspectives on something, or else there is a privileged or true perspective – but then how would we get outside our perspective to check?
Unfortunately, it seems to me that we can never really escape this. In order not only to judge but also to act, we are always forced to place our trust in some perspective. If we borrow Pascal’s famous insight that we cannot determine whether God exists or not and therefore must wager that He does, since if we are right we gain everything and if we are wrong we lose nothing, then something similar might be said here.
We can only wager on our own initial perspective. It may not be the “true” one, but without such a wager we could neither interpret the world nor act within it.
Re the trad classic vs newer (you fear more descriptive words) - it's the artist/composer fitting their creation to an ideal form. It starts to sound smug, in the sense of "self-satisfied"; fulfilling an ideal set by me and my circle. But what if we don't share ideals? I find most Mozart smug
So if we say that something is an interpretation of something, we run into a problem, because we are assuming that there exists some uninterpreted reality. But if we say that everything is interpretation, then there is no “thing” left to interpret. Very insightful thinking! However, does the notion of perspective help here? Could we say that something is an interpretation of something if such-and-such a perspective were valid? The perspective itself we merely assume as the “real reality”, even though it might not be. In other words, we must believe in something unquestioningly in order to interpret from that perspective… or? Just a little Nietzschean quip. 🙂
Interesting idea. What is assumed, as I understand you, would be that reality is such-and-such. So a perspective is an interpretation taken as real, and we make further such interpretations on that basis. I think we probably have such perspectives, either consciously (if the assumptions are known as such) or not (if they are not). But a similar problem would still remain: either there are only perspectives, in which case, we lose the coordinating reference point which makes them perspectives on something, or else there is a privileged or true perspective – but then how would we get outside our perspective to check?
Unfortunately, it seems to me that we can never really escape this. In order not only to judge but also to act, we are always forced to place our trust in some perspective. If we borrow Pascal’s famous insight that we cannot determine whether God exists or not and therefore must wager that He does, since if we are right we gain everything and if we are wrong we lose nothing, then something similar might be said here.
We can only wager on our own initial perspective. It may not be the “true” one, but without such a wager we could neither interpret the world nor act within it.
Re the trad classic vs newer (you fear more descriptive words) - it's the artist/composer fitting their creation to an ideal form. It starts to sound smug, in the sense of "self-satisfied"; fulfilling an ideal set by me and my circle. But what if we don't share ideals? I find most Mozart smug