>>> Miles Jackson <cqmv at pdx.edu> 01/18/2008 11:09 AM >>>
Carrol Cox wrote:
> One can _never_ KNOW the correctness of one's construal of a text at
all
> complex; the hope here is not certainty but reduce disagreement to
two
> or three clusters of only mildly disagreement. No one will _ever_
know
> for sure just how to construe all the levels of irony in Swift's
"An
> Argument against the Abolishing of Christianity." No one will ever
know
> just when Pope began the composition of Essay on Criticism and just
when
> he completed the draft which was printed. There is no way of knowing
> with any certainty whether or not Pope approved of certain changes
> Warburton (or perhaps Pope) made in the 1751 edition of his works.
>
>
In nonscientific fields, knowledge is not the correct reading of the
text; it is the understanding of the various interpretations/narratives
themselves. For instance, we can "know" about the free will/determinism debate in philosophy, Wittgenstein's critique of private language, St.
Augustine's conception of God. In these domains, knowledge is not the
certainty of any one of these construals; it is the academic discussion--sometimes millenia old!--of which they are a part.
Miles ___________________________________
CB: How is this non-scientific ? One makes observations about the texts and words. One gathers these facts as evidence, and one proves a theory about the meaning and ideas.