Where did I say anything like "It doesn't have to be about that thing"? — Terrapin Station

Here:

You can't write a book about the moon and actually be writing about WW2.
— NKBJ

You can't per whom? It's up to individuals to decide. There's nothing that would prohibit anyone from any interpretation should they have it. — Terrapin Station

It would be nice if you could stop contradicting yourself. But then you couldn't make your argument, so I guess I understand why you feel compelled to do so.

You want it both ways, Terrapin. But it doesn't work that way. You can't both say that an interpretation is about something and then say it doesn't have to be about that thing.

Does anybody actually know why he was let off? I'm finding a lot of theories, but nothing concrete about the decision to drop the charges.

A book about the moon is still bound to the attributes of the actual moon. You can't write a book about the moon and actually be writing about WW2.

You can't have an interpretation of Hamlet that is actually just a guide to the perfect PB&J. You're bound by the words and the plot. Your interpretation therefore has objective limits.

Fwiw, I don't quite understand why people are calling this thread trolling or clickbait either besides their apparent unease with the subject matter.

One of the basic problems with a statement like "there is no absolute truth" (aside from it's self-referentially contradictory nature) is that it's denying logic, in which case you can't use logic to make sense of it. Since reason/logic are our only tools to make actual sense of the world/ideas, the conversation ends right there. Everything said after that is just running around in a maze that has no solution.

1. Is the same as saying that there IS absolute truth.

The cleverness shows that the statement "there is no absolute truth" is self-contradictory.

If you need us to tell you, you've already negated solipsism.

1. Absolute truth is impossible.

2. If 1. is true, it is impossible that it is absolutely true.

3. 2. is absolutely true.

4. 1. is absolutely false. — unenlightened

I think it's funny how you basically solved the question right there and everyone just keeps talking like you didn't say anything.

Whereupon you've apparently forgotten that we're talking about interpretations of something that we're not making up. — Terrapin Station

They're still in response to some particular artwork. They're someone telling us what they see the artwork's meaning(s), significance(s), symbolism(s) etc. to be. — Terrapin Station

Well, then you DO think that interpretations are bound to the actual words on the page.

In which case interpretation is bound to some objectivity.

Why not then just stare at a loaf of bread and imagine all the plots of all the stories you want perfectly tailored to your own tastes and desires? What's the point of having any art at all?

The interpretation is certainly made up by the reader. What they're interpreting isn't made up by the reader. — Terrapin Station

If the interpretation is made up by the reader, then the reader should be able to read Jack and Jill and derive the entire story of Hamlet?

So how is it bound by the words on the page? — Terrapin Station

If it's not bound by the words on the page, then all interpretation is just made up by the reader independent of the words on the page.

Either the interpretation of, say a novel, is based on the words or not. If it is, then it's bound by the words, if it isn't then it's all made up.

How would that work? "If the art isn't just made up in the mind by each reader/viewer, then interpretations can not be forwarded endlessly because . . . " — Terrapin Station

Because it's bound by the actual words on the actual page, Silly :kiss:

Because otherwise there are limits to interpretation.

If interpretation is endless as well as purely subjective, then do you think the art is actually just made up in the mind by each reader/viewer? Totally independently of the actual artwork?

Well? Which is it then?

I wasn't saying anything about whether interpretations are endless or not. — Terrapin Station

So now you want to claim that they are endless/limitless?

Oh right, it was "endless".

I also find it amusing that someone who claims that all interpretation is subjective and neither true or false is so concerned about my understand what you "really" meant by some statement or another.

You literally said it wasn't limitless.

I find your attempt to backpedal amusing.

I'm afraid you're still bound to the simple fact that claiming there are limits to interpretation means there are objective parameters to interpretation.

None of that matters the moment you make claims like "there are limits to interpretation."

It's not saying something about art per se. It's saying something about interpretations, what they are ontologically. I already explained this. It's in no way itself an interpretation of any art. — Terrapin Station

In order to do so, you must simultaneously be making claims about the art itself. There's no way around that.

First, "You can't subjectively make a claim about an objective state of affairs" is false. — Terrapin Station

Either way, you're admitting to there being objective limits to the interpretation of art.

??? Why would you think I'm saying anything like "You can't ('realistically') have that interpretation"? (And what the heck would it be to realistically versus non-realistically have an interpretation?) — Terrapin Station

Because you said that there are limits to art interpretation. I made up an example, but the precise example doesn't even matter. An objective limit exists, and thus defeats your claim that it's all just subjective.

I'm not saying anything at all like this . . . whatever "relative depth" of "possible interpretation" would be, by the way. — Terrapin Station

Again, just an example of the ways in which there are objective truths about art and the way art can be interpreted. The example doesn't matter as much as the fact that these truths and parameters exist beyond any subjective opinion.

Like it or not, Terrapin: you can't have it both ways. You cannot both claim that there is anything objective about the interpretation of art and that it is solely subjective. You can try to twist yourself into some sort of logical or mental pretzel all you want over this, but it's just gonna lead back to that simple contradiction. :)

And we're not interpreting anything by noting an ontological property of interpretations. — Terrapin Station

Yes, you have to. It's part of the process of being able to say anything about an artwork or art is to interpret it. You literally can't say anything about art without interpreting it.

In any event, saying that interpretations are subjective doesn't denote that interpretations are "endless" at all. — Terrapin Station

Aha! Now that's just gonna lead you to a place you don't like. If there is nothing objective about interpretation of art, then how could you possibly make any claims about the objective limits of subjective interpretations?

If I want to say that Hamlet is about green martians and pink unicorns, then that is MY interpretation. If you tell me I can't realistically have that interpretation, then you're saying that there ARE objective parameters to how any artwork can be interpreted. If so, then those objective parameters apply to the relative depth of possible interpretation of Bay versus Shakespeare.

What artwork is that supposed to be if it's an interpretation of art? Who is the artist — Terrapin Station

All art by all artists. You're interpreting art to be endlessly interpretable by the individual viewer/reader/whatever.

It's logically impossible to say that it's objectively true that all interpretation of art is subjective since that is an interpretation of art.

I’m here to concern myself with being “polite” or “rude”. I merely stated that if you are going to reply to a question I pose then say something of substance rather than throwing a pointless question at me, maybe? — I like sushi

That's just aggression showing through. Since there's no reason to be rude, I kindly ask you to treat me with respect. It doesn't add anything to the conversation, and just impedes our ability to exchange ideas.

You said bad things are bad. Do I need to “counter” that?

Of course I cannot help you if you assume “aggression” and “physical strength” are universally “bad” traits. — I like sushi

You said:

I explained this already. Men are stronger and more aggressive.

Neither of these traits are necessarily “bad” or “good”. What is your point? — I like sushi

In my response I was trying to make a point that these traits are leading to very many bad things. So, just because the traits may not initially be bad, they do necessarily cause a lot of harm in the world. In which case we DO have to examine these traits. If men weren't so aggressive, they wouldn't cause so much harm.

An observation, so technically the latter.

For example, your post just assumes that women do have a choice in having children in this day and age, when the reality is that these choices are limited to varying degrees according to geographical location, education, class, race, and many other factors.

Also, why is it that a woman must choose between children and a successful career? Men have never had to do that.

And to this day, men are less burdened by having children then women are, because women do the bulk of the work.

(And, yes, I'm generalizing. There are exceptions for everything I said.)

If you want to have a private conversation with someone, then PM them. This is an open discussion thread, so by participating here you are tacitly giving consent to all forum members responding to you.

In any case, I'll take your rudeness to mean you don't actually have anything to counter. :)

t’s been a long time since women ‘had’ to have children. It might be difficult for them to refuse that possibility but they have had that choice for a long time. — Brett

I take it you don't know much about what it's like to be a woman.

I’m an immoral lay-about, so she’s a better person than me. — Noah Te Stroete

:rofl:

Well, at least you can be honest about it.

That's an interesting anecdote. And certainly some women are more criminal than some men. Yet the fact remains that most criminals are men.

It sounds like you do believe in patriarchy but you just don't want to call it that. Either way, sounds like we believe the same things.

Back to journaling: journaling has historically been considered a feminine occupation and men (i.e., those in charge of what became "the canon") decided it didn't have literary merit because of that. They did not decide that on the basis of the actual merit of the journals written by women who otherwise were, let's call it "discouraged" from writing anything of more "traditional" or "masculine" literary value.

The fact that women have worked against such odds historically and have made it into the canon DESPITE such opposition tells me that women are indeed very much capable of greatness and that the ratio of great women and great men would be much more equal had the playing field been level for the past millennia.

Soooo.... When women weren't allowed to vote or own property or husbands were allowed to beat their wives that was called....?

He just turned 1 year old last week. He's officially figured out how to say "mamam" and tell the dog "guh te beh" ("go to bed") :heart:

Sigh. I was merely amplifying the point that working class women, one of whom I observed at close hand for years, didn't have much opportunity to pursue literary careers — Bitter Crank

You're right. Sorry if my previous post seemed flippant: I'm currently responding while nkbjJR is crawling over me. :joke: can't get a break from them brats even in the 21st century!

No it's not patriarchy. You read the post too quickly. Journals written by men are usually not literature either. Journals have real value, just not "literary" value because they are, after all, written for a very small audience. I wrote a very candid summary of my life, for my eyes only. It had zero literary merit. It was for private purposes. It might have made juicy reading for my siblings, but hardly for anybody else. — Bitter Crank

A) Some journals are written with a large audience in mind.
B) the article I link to says that men who pursued journaling most often did so apologizing for doing something so feminine.

I don't believe there is such a thing as "patriarchy", — Bitter Crank

Is or ever was? Cause if the latter, I think you may be beyond reason.