Quote:
Originally Posted by SpM
Fine, as long as the reality can be established as a truth. More often than not, however, the word is used in a context whereby the supposed reality cannot be proven, but is a matter of faith.
|
No problem with that. Words are often used out of context, but that is the clearest definition of 'truth' (or 'Truth,' as you put it) that I've heard to date.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpM
Hmm. Countless pages of canonicity thread would suggest that it is not quite so clear-cut as you portray it.
|
There are countless pages of canonicity thread because there will always be a debate for what the text means to
us. There will be many different interpretations of it, so of course there will be many arguments & discussion (all perfectly fine & good).
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpM
What if we cannot sufficiently determine the author's intended meaning?
|
Does that mean he didn’t intend one? I’m not saying we
must find the author’s intended meaning to each & every book we read or there’s no point in reading it. What I am saying is his point is not dependant on my point of view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpM
Am I fundamentally obliged to accept the author's intended meaning of the book as its true meaning? What if it does not strike a chord with me?
|
First question: No. You're not
obliged to accept anything - no one is forcing you too. But choosing not to accept the intended meaning of a book (or even if you’re convinced you’re accepting the proper meaning & you, in fact, are not) doesn't alter the actual meaning. What if it doesn't strike a chord with you? Quite frankly, it doesn't matter! The author wasn't writing the book to strike the proper chord with
The Saucepan Man (nor The Only Real Estel

). Smart authors are not going to try to write a book with the purpose of making their
intended meaning strike the right chords with everyone. That would be impossible & a waste of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpM
What if society has significantly changed since the book was written and the author's intended meaning is no longer relevant to me?
|
Say I write a book before the world is discovered to be round. I assert that the world is flat. When it is discovered to be, beyond the shadow of a doubt,
round, does that change the intent of the book? No. Society has significantly changed & the book is no longer relevant to you but it hasn't changed the meaning behind my book a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpM
Why do I have to accept it as the meaning of the book if I perceive an entirely different meaning?
|
You can believe it or perceive it to be whatever you wish. That doesn't change it. If we all look at a book and decide to discover the author's intentions via our own perceptions two things will happen.
First, it will destroy the meaning of the book - no book could possibly have as many different meanings to it as we would come up with. Secondly, it would make conversation ridiculous. Why should we discuss the meaning of a book based soly on our interpretation of it? 'Misunderstanding' of the text is then in possible, because I have my interpretation & you cannot touch it. We are all right, so what’s the point of discussion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpM
I can accept that the author may have intended his work to mean some specific thing. It does not follow that the work will have the same meaning to me, or indeed to others.
|
As I said - it can 'mean' many things to many different people. But that doesn't change the author's initial intention.
If I write a book on Hinduism & you interpret that I am a Hindu, that does not (at all) make you correct.
A stop sign in the road means ‘stop.’ If I decide it does not, that doesn’t change it.