Another topic that is linked to the disparity between Roochnik and Curd is the broader implications for the selection of any text book for any class. It seems that most any text book, given certain subject matter, presents information from the standpoint of the author. While some take greater care than others to present an unbiased or objective position, to some extent it seems inevitable that the author’s opinion is represented in the material.
This bias seems to depend extensively on the material. In mathematics, it is harder, or perhaps impossible to present a biased or non-objective take on a proof or some concept. It is inherently checkable and objectively right or wrong. This seems to also be the case for many sciences. However, there definitely are subjective judgments within these fields. For example in physics, there is some debate about the viability of string theory or a theory of everything, as has been proposed. It seems possible that an author could promote either position based on their subjective opinion. However, even here there is some standard, be it internal coherence, predictive power, or scientific rigor, etc. This kind of objectivity is not available in much of the humanities, philosophy included. Here there can be several viable interpretations, outlooks, etc. for historical philosophical thought. As is the case with Roochnik, we can view ancient philosophy as a dialectical progression, or perhaps simply as a series of unrelated, or non-progressive thinkers.
Given this variability, it seems absolutely necessary that any student or reader approach every text critically and cautiously, especially when first being exposed to the material. Indeed, it is easy to read Roochnik’s interpretation and then read the fragments and find his interpretation. It is another to read the fragments and original material, collect one’s own opinions and then temper those against Roochnik’s.
This critical approach seems to be necessary in many other fields, not simply philosophy. In Economics for example, there are countless “summarizations” and “formulations” of the thought of Keynes, Adam Smith, or even Marx. In each, there seems to be a bias that skews the original material, whether to fit certain circumstances or the authors own opinion. In either case, the original material is important because it allows us to explore what was actually said, rather than what someone tells us was said.
It is interesting to think about the way we have been exposed to ideas, particularly new ideas with which we are novices. Usually we rely on someone, whether a professor, teacher, or author who has more experience in the given field, to guide our exploration of the material. It is important to realize that these people have their own incentives, opinions, and interpretations vis-à-vis what they are presenting, and that we should have the intellectual courage to branch out on our own, read the original material, and not be afraid to formulate an interpretation at odds with what we have been exposed to.
I wrote about this a bit on my own blog, but I actually like that the interpretive stance is an issue with the Roochnik text. Mainly, I think it forces us into a conversation about these thinkers rather than just learned what the thinkers had to say about x, y, and z.
ReplyDeletevery thoughtful post.
Matt,
ReplyDeleteA very interesting and thoughtful post here. I like your comparison between objectivity in some of the sciences and mathematics, and the same (or lack thereof) in the humanities. I also like what you say about having one's own thoughts, and going back to the primary texts. I wonder, though, is the activity of interpretation always is a violent or reductive endeavor? It may be that in giving a non-objective interpretation of a text, an author at the same time illumines truths about it that are only implicit in the text itself, and hence make the text come alive, as it were, by saying MORE and different things than the text does.
Nathan, I thoroughly agree with you about the benefits of interpretation and taking a certain reading about a text. Indeed, I am as guilty as Roochnik about having a specific reading of some of the ancient thinkers. My main point, one that perhaps is not as clear as it should be, is that when approaching something for the first time, it is really important to first read the primary text. Interpretations are what bring the text alive for us, and give us different perspectives that are implicit in a work. But we should have an accurate view of a thinker, idea, etc. before picking interpretive sides.
ReplyDeleteMatt,
ReplyDeleteI guess my point, on some level at least, is that any reading of the primary text, simply by virtue of reading it, is already an interpretation (the fact that we read it in translation, and every translation is an interpretation, only underscores this point).
But, I recognize your point to be about a more substantial notion of "interpretation." It looks like might be warning us against something like this: having (or committing to) a complete hermeneutic (interpretive grid) or total view of what a thinker is on about, before doing the smaller-scale interpretation of the sort that I am talking about (i.e. reading the text!).
It does look like the large-scale interpretive grids might just be the sum of what we find on the smaller scale while interpreting the text through reading, but these larger scale grids could easily lose their mooring in the text, as is evident in some of the late medieval allegorical readings of Scripture (they got REALLY far-fetched!).
I guess at the end of the day, I just want to be wary of taking interpretation (large or small scale) as inherently violent or something we are "guilty" of. Interpretation is inevitable, in my view, and can be done well even though we can't ever arrive at the "bare" uninterpreted text.
Thanks for the good thoughts!
I would agree. Interpretation isn't in and of itself bad, and I would agree that we engage in interpretation to an extent even when reading, or especially when using a translation. However, I think this admits of degrees. Reading and translation seem to be less interpretive than a large scale interpretive grid. I think there is a significant difference between the type of interpretation that Roochnik is engaging in and the kind that we as readers may, unknowingly, engage in.
ReplyDelete