It’s all interpretation. Once you’re thinking or talking about it, you’re interpreting. If you perceive, you’re interpreting. Take vision as an example.
— Xtrix
What is it you interpret vision to be interpreting? — Ciceronianus
I believe I understand what you're saying, but I think that there comes a point when insisting all is interpretation becomes meaningless, or pedantic (no offense intended). That may be the Pragmatist in me. When we assert that when I see a chair I'm interpreting it, I doubt we're saying anything significant. When we claim that we can distinguish a human being from a potato, I don't think this is an interpretation in any reasonable sense. — Ciceronianus
Both philosophers and theologians claim the authority to evaluate metaphysical principles, but the standards by which they conduct those evaluations are very different.
Boethius said man is the one creature blessed and cursed with self-awareness, and so with the foreknowledge of her death. — Wayfarer
Philosophy, like science, begins with the human experience of reality, and asks "what does this mean?" Then, hypothesizing and theorizing about metaphysical principles follows. — Michael Zwingli
:smirk:[ ... ]
— Wayfarer
Do you mean emptiness?
Next time perhaps try not to make so much ado about nothing — praxis
:up:It would be incorrect, though, for us to say human beings are "God's creatures" or creatures that have souls, for example. To the extent we make such claims when asking what we are, I think we engage in wishful thinking. Maybe we are, maybe we do, but to assert we are/do is unwarranted. — Ciceronianus
Apparently, "interpretation" is one of those lit-crit loan words in philosophy which is easier to over-interpret than most other terms.When we assert that when I see a chair I'm interpreting it, I doubt we're saying anything significant. When we claim that we can distinguish a human being from a potato, I don't think this is an interpretation in any reasonable sense — Ciceronianus
Apparently, "interpretation" is one of those lit-crit loan words in philosophy which is easier than most other terms to over-interpret. — 180 Proof
When we way "all is interpretation" we misuse "interpret" and "interpretation" as they're defined in dictionaries and ordinary use. — Ciceronianus
We do none of those things when we see something; we simply do what people with sight do--that is to say, see as human beings do. — Ciceronianus
There's typically no thought involved. — Ciceronianus
To say I'm interpreting when I see a radish implies something about seeing which makes it a matter of dispute. — Ciceronianus
It seems a way of assuring that all day to day living is considered uncertain or questionable, which I suppose is pleasing to some. — Ciceronianus
A glass being half full or empty is also an interpretation -- it doesn't mean there's no glass there. — Xtrix
I'm not using the dictionary version of "interpreting," which is similar to saying "it's just your opinion." It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of perception. We all perceive, and so we all interpret. A glass being half full or empty is also an interpretation -- it doesn't mean there's no glass there. — Xtrix
Of course we see a glass with liquid in it as a glass with liquid in it, but that is not an interpretation, it is an example of a basic understanding that is shared by all. — Janus
This is only controversial if one takes interpreting to mean "uncertain" or "opinion." Of course there's a glass there, and a chair and a tree and the color red. But all of that is also partly subject-dependent. — Xtrix
What definition are you employing, then? If you define "interpreting" as "seeing" — Ciceronianus
What we see, do and think is a result of our interaction with the rest of the world. Sometimes we interpret when interacting; sometimes we don't. — Ciceronianus
When I see a radish, I see just what a human being with (relatively) normal eyesight would see. If I was colorblind, I would see just what a human being who was colorblind would see. If I see a radish at sunup I'd see what a human being would see on looking at a radish at sunup; if I see it at sundown I'd see what a human being would see then. This isn't my interpretation of a radish, however. — Ciceronianus
A bird looking at a radish isn't engaged in interpretation. Neither are we. — Ciceronianus
I agree that what we see depends on us just as it depends on what is there; seeing is interactive. Animals also presumably see things as things (but not self-reflectively, since they have no language). I just think 'interpretation' is a problematic term to use in this context because it suggests a voluntary act that is somewhat arbitrary and could have been otherwise. — Janus
Religion →
→
Philosophy →
→
Science. — Agent Smith
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.