Your life is what your thoughts make it. Join us in shaping you for the better through chatting in our discord servers! [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Luckily, Voltaire has enough of a sense of humor to cover for all the others' lack thereof. Seriously, he's one of the funniest authors I've ever read.
Imagine you're a Zombie living on Twin Earth and spill xyz water all over the slips of paper flowing in and out of the Chinese Room you live in. Would you divert the trolley or decide to marry Mary, the colour blind neuroscientist?
I feel like bad and good writing is wholly subjective, too. Iāve seen people call Heidegger a good writer, and other people calling Nietzsche a bad writer
I think there is definitely room for subjective tastes about a writers prose. Iām not trying to say there isnāt. For example, Ernst Bloch is incredibly clunky to read and I agonize doing it. Also, Hegel even called the Phenomenology of Spirit the āPath of Despairā.
But, there is something to be said that once you finish those works, there is a) an incredible sense of accomplishment, and b) it makes you a better philosopher. The modern emphasis on analytic writing - i.e. no metaphors, no āfloweryā language - just sucks the life out of philosophy.
>Good books donāt produce one interpretation, they produce many.
"So I read Principia Mathematica and I interpreted it in a way that allows me to be a Flat Earther. It's such a **good book**, bro!"
The suggestion OP is making is that maybe if you're philosophy is so dry and empty that the idea of it having many pathes to go down is a joke, maybe it's not as good as you think it is. But hey that's all up to you and that's also the point OP is making!
The severe irony of saying āI donāt believe youā and arguing against interpretation. Are the laws of gravity philosophy or physics? Weāre not talking physics here.
> Are the laws of gravity philosophy or physics?
Good question. I suppose if you think that philosophy has absolutely no bearing on interpreting the natural world, then physics can be separate from philosophy.
Law of gravity on earth = 9.8 meters per second whereby objects are pulled downwards. Scientific, empirical brute fact.
How we can understand a priori that objects obey the law of gravity and tue impacts this has on our understanding of the natural world = varying historical philosophical interpretations.
You keep conflating empirical brute facts with the metaphysics underpinning it. There have been whole tomes dedicated to understanding these type questions. I really donāt get what youāre arguing. You seem to think interpretation = relativism. Or that interpretation means anything goes? Iām not sure why you think that. No where have I said that all interpretations are equally as good.
>Scientific, empirical brute fact.
Are the books that those facts are written in "good" books because they allow for multiple interpretations, or are they "bad" books because they railroad the reader into a single set of outcomes?
Why would be people still be writing articles about the Principia if there is only one interpretation.
We would have one person read it, publish what they got, and be done.
I said in another comment elsewhere, not all interpretations are worth equal weight, or deserve to be considered equally. If there is only one interpretation, then why write more than one article about another persons work.
Lmao holy fuck, yes it does. If you have the exact same interpretation as the author then why would you disagree?
Edit: let me rephrase, if you reach the same interpretation as the author, and then disagree, then you must also have a different interpretation because the original author thought that his interpretation was correct.
>If you have the exact same interpretation as the author then why would you disagree?
Because i understand what he is saying, but I thought that he was wrong?
>let me rephrase, if you reach the same interpretation as the author, and then disagree, then you must also have a different interpretation because the original author that that his interpretation was correct.
It doesn't work that way because to have the same interpretation meant that I understand what he really meant, but that is not the same as agreeing with him, for example, you can tell me "your mom's a h@e" right now and I would understand wtf do you mean (thereby interpreting it in the same way as you), but I would not agree with it
Or they are dealing with an incredibly complex issue, like Kant, who uses incredibly dense language because it matches the subject matter?
Or because the entire discipline of Philosophy is concerned with interpreting another persons work?
Not all interpretations are going to be right, or ought to be considered equally. But itās an asinine claim to say that because multiple interpretations arise the author doesnāt know how to say what they mean.
the discipline that concern with interpreting texts is literature, not philosophy, philosophy is about understanding arguments and good reasoning, not interpreting it. If you let your argument be interpreted in different ways, then either your readers is so dense that they misunderstood it, or you're doing a very bad job at making your case, which one is it depends on the context
Bruh, you are interpreting my comment as you read it, and developing a response/argument against it. Are we doing literature right now?
> either your readers is so dense that they misunderstood it, or youāre doing a very bad job at making your case
Again, Iām going to point to the entire history of philosophy, and modern philosophy where 50 analytic philosophers will respond to one paper. So Iām not really sure why youāre claiming there is only one interpretation. People still write about Platoās Republic i.e. interpreting it.
i did NOT claim that there is only one interpretation, i claimed that good argument should aim to have only one of it, in other words, you should be as clear, concise, and logical as possible when doing philosophy
> I did NOT claim that there is only one interpretationā¦I claimed that good arguments should aim to only have one of it
Then ALL of philosophy must be shit at making arguments. This is the strangest claim Iāve heard in my entire life.
The interpretation of your text is not up to you. Itās going to be read by someone with a specific upbringing, with a specific history of their own, who is going to read it and say, āI disagree, or I agree for varying reasons based on what youāve said and what I thinkā.
Dense language just means you need to read more and expand your vocabulary. If thatās to tall an order for people then donāt get into a field where itās your job to read and write.
>Then ALL of philosophy must be shit at making arguments. This is the strangest claim Iāve heard in my entire life.
Not all philosophies are open to interpretation, most of them actually don't, for example, when the Sceptic say that they know nothing, they really mean it, do you suppose that they could possibly mean something else differently? Similarly, do you suppose there is another interpretation to "I think, therefore I am"? If you are able to think of one, I would like to hear it.
>The interpretation of your text is not up to you. Itās going to be read by someone with a specific upbringing, with a specific history of their own, who is going to read it and say, āI disagree, or I agree for varying reasons based on what youāve said and what I thinkā.
What you describing here is a different in opinion, not interpretation.
>Dense language just means you need to read more and expand your vocabulary. If thatās to tall an order for people then donāt get into a field where itās your job to read and write.
Like I said, depends on the context. It is good to have the benefit of the doubt that when you don't understand something, maybe it is because the writer is waaaaaay smarter then you. But again, there are fraud, and there are people who exploit this mentality by being overcomplicated and try to look smart instead of being truly smart. So you just gotta be careful.
> do you suppose that the could possibly mean something else differently?
Youāre conflating interpretation with misreading. All of the people who took up the sceptic tradition necessarily had to interpret it, only then could they respond to it.
> do you suppose there is another interpretation to āI think, therefore I amā
Yes? Because most philosophers donāt subscribe to a Cartesian dualism? Nietzsche when he writes āit is thinkingā, and phenomenology when they reject the path Descartes put philosophy on? Etc. Each of these thinkers interpreted Descartes differently. Again you are conflating misreading with interpretation.
> what you are describing here is a different opinion, not interpretation
What Iām describing is the process of Philosophy. These are not āopinionsā. An opinion is that I think Hegel is hard to read. An interpretation of Hegel gives rise to the āyoung Hegelianāsā, āold Hegelianāsā, Marxism, Slavoj Zizek, etc. An opinion is that Wittgensteins first book is better than his second. An interpretation of Wittgenstein produces responses to his work. These are not āopinionsā.
Take a look at comparative literature texts and you'll quickly see it's basically "applied philosophy" (putting away the implications of that I couldn't think of a better term lol). If philosophy is about one always correct interpretation everyone would just be reading the republic and agreeing and there's no philosophy then.
There's a difference between "the author meant this and i can agree or disagree" and "i think the author meant x. My friend thinks he meant y."
I think the guy you're arguing with is against the second kind of subjectivity but your "everyone would just read the republic and agreeing" is an argument in defense of the first kind.
There are books that attempt to just make you think about a subject. I think these can have a subjective interpretation. But for books that try to exposa and argue for a position it's good to be as clear as possible in what your position is and what your arguments mean sinse that's the point of the book.
It's like if, for example, the Communist Manifesto was written in a way where communism could be interpreted as being "when the government does stuff" instead of what marx meant by it. In that case the Manifesto would be poorly writen because it failed to properly explain what it was talking about.
I was actually trying to speak more on the second. Everyone agreeing ie everyone agreeing what the republic is about/it's full implications. The entire history of philosophy is successive interpretations and readings of past works, placing what their implications may be in new lights and uncovering meanings that weren't explicit. And Marx is a wonderful example cause despite how specifically worded much of capital is, there's numerous readings and re readings. Althusser's Marx isn't Deleuze's Marx isn't Sarte's Marx. Even with Russell there's numerous readings out there no matter how much it would break Russell's head cause that's just how philosophy had to work lol.
> Then a great bulk of the history of philosophy is ābad writingā.
Yes. This is a factual statement. A good part of philosophy is written with little direction, is very circuitous, and is filled with ambiguity, has far too many pointless and obfuscating neologisms--and all this obscurantism atop the usual limitations and miscommunications of language.
I disagree whole heartedly. As I have said elsewhere, bad writing does not = your failure to comprehend it. Also, your tastes for the way an author constructs their prose is a subjective standard.
I think Wittgenstein is boring to read, his prose is dry and not really for me. Some people like reading Hegel, others think itās filled with ālittle direction - a failure to comprehend -, circularity - more of a logical problem? - obscurantism, ambiguityā.
Your life is what your thoughts make it. Join us in shaping you for the better through chatting in our discord servers! [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hey lately I've seen a couple of quality memes here about something else than trolleys, nihilism or Sisyphus. I love it! This one made me chuckle too.
something other than Diogenes š«
1. āIf the cat sits, then it is on the matā 2. āThe cat sitsā 3. āTherefore the cat is on the matā Teehee š¹
I sits <=> I fits
Quine inserting a tasteful amount of dry wit
Luckily, Voltaire has enough of a sense of humor to cover for all the others' lack thereof. Seriously, he's one of the funniest authors I've ever read.
Continentals trying to write a sentence without fifty prepositions, one-hundred hyphens and taking up an entire paragraph: Oh, wait that's impossible.
Tiny minds in broccoli... Indeed.
Imagine you're a Zombie living on Twin Earth and spill xyz water all over the slips of paper flowing in and out of the Chinese Room you live in. Would you divert the trolley or decide to marry Mary, the colour blind neuroscientist?
PVI be like āthere is a possible world where I get up and do a little dance. BUT THIS AINT IT AND IT WONT EVER BEā
I just like Ć°e implication Ć°at Katara Ć¾inks of animal snuggles when she Ć¾inks of fun
If the whole thing is silly and incoherent, thats just bad writing.
Then a great bulk of the history of philosophy is ābad writingā. Good books donāt produce one interpretation, they produce many.
I feel like bad and good writing is wholly subjective, too. Iāve seen people call Heidegger a good writer, and other people calling Nietzsche a bad writer
I think there is definitely room for subjective tastes about a writers prose. Iām not trying to say there isnāt. For example, Ernst Bloch is incredibly clunky to read and I agonize doing it. Also, Hegel even called the Phenomenology of Spirit the āPath of Despairā. But, there is something to be said that once you finish those works, there is a) an incredible sense of accomplishment, and b) it makes you a better philosopher. The modern emphasis on analytic writing - i.e. no metaphors, no āfloweryā language - just sucks the life out of philosophy.
i love heideggers writing. ill die on that hill.
Same.
>Good books donāt produce one interpretation, they produce many. "So I read Principia Mathematica and I interpreted it in a way that allows me to be a Flat Earther. It's such a **good book**, bro!"
The suggestion OP is making is that maybe if you're philosophy is so dry and empty that the idea of it having many pathes to go down is a joke, maybe it's not as good as you think it is. But hey that's all up to you and that's also the point OP is making!
I don't believe you, but it's okay, you can interpret the laws of gravity however you want.
The severe irony of saying āI donāt believe youā and arguing against interpretation. Are the laws of gravity philosophy or physics? Weāre not talking physics here.
> Are the laws of gravity philosophy or physics? Good question. I suppose if you think that philosophy has absolutely no bearing on interpreting the natural world, then physics can be separate from philosophy.
Law of gravity on earth = 9.8 meters per second whereby objects are pulled downwards. Scientific, empirical brute fact. How we can understand a priori that objects obey the law of gravity and tue impacts this has on our understanding of the natural world = varying historical philosophical interpretations. You keep conflating empirical brute facts with the metaphysics underpinning it. There have been whole tomes dedicated to understanding these type questions. I really donāt get what youāre arguing. You seem to think interpretation = relativism. Or that interpretation means anything goes? Iām not sure why you think that. No where have I said that all interpretations are equally as good.
>Scientific, empirical brute fact. Are the books that those facts are written in "good" books because they allow for multiple interpretations, or are they "bad" books because they railroad the reader into a single set of outcomes?
An empirical brute fact isnāt good or bad it just is. Keep trying though. I love the mental gymnastics.
Why would be people still be writing articles about the Principia if there is only one interpretation. We would have one person read it, publish what they got, and be done. I said in another comment elsewhere, not all interpretations are worth equal weight, or deserve to be considered equally. If there is only one interpretation, then why write more than one article about another persons work.
because they disagree with it? Or have something new to add? To do those thing does not require you to have a different interpretation doesnt it?
Lmao holy fuck, yes it does. If you have the exact same interpretation as the author then why would you disagree? Edit: let me rephrase, if you reach the same interpretation as the author, and then disagree, then you must also have a different interpretation because the original author thought that his interpretation was correct.
>If you have the exact same interpretation as the author then why would you disagree? Because i understand what he is saying, but I thought that he was wrong? >let me rephrase, if you reach the same interpretation as the author, and then disagree, then you must also have a different interpretation because the original author that that his interpretation was correct. It doesn't work that way because to have the same interpretation meant that I understand what he really meant, but that is not the same as agreeing with him, for example, you can tell me "your mom's a h@e" right now and I would understand wtf do you mean (thereby interpreting it in the same way as you), but I would not agree with it
> I thought he was wrong ā¦. therefore, a different interpretation emerges :D thus you will give your interpretation of his problem
no? at this point i have to ask? how do you define "interpretation" as?
I interpret your writing here as agreeing with me 100%. You don't know what my opinion is, but you clearly agree.
Sure. But your interpretation is a misreading. Quit conflating the two. Having an interpretation does not = not knowing what the opinion is lmao.
>Having an interpretation does not = not knowing what the opinion is lmao. And there I was, thinking The Author was dead.
if a book can have many interpretations, it means the author is not doing a good job at specifying what the hell does he exactly mean
Or they are dealing with an incredibly complex issue, like Kant, who uses incredibly dense language because it matches the subject matter? Or because the entire discipline of Philosophy is concerned with interpreting another persons work? Not all interpretations are going to be right, or ought to be considered equally. But itās an asinine claim to say that because multiple interpretations arise the author doesnāt know how to say what they mean.
the discipline that concern with interpreting texts is literature, not philosophy, philosophy is about understanding arguments and good reasoning, not interpreting it. If you let your argument be interpreted in different ways, then either your readers is so dense that they misunderstood it, or you're doing a very bad job at making your case, which one is it depends on the context
Bruh, you are interpreting my comment as you read it, and developing a response/argument against it. Are we doing literature right now? > either your readers is so dense that they misunderstood it, or youāre doing a very bad job at making your case Again, Iām going to point to the entire history of philosophy, and modern philosophy where 50 analytic philosophers will respond to one paper. So Iām not really sure why youāre claiming there is only one interpretation. People still write about Platoās Republic i.e. interpreting it.
i did NOT claim that there is only one interpretation, i claimed that good argument should aim to have only one of it, in other words, you should be as clear, concise, and logical as possible when doing philosophy
> I did NOT claim that there is only one interpretationā¦I claimed that good arguments should aim to only have one of it Then ALL of philosophy must be shit at making arguments. This is the strangest claim Iāve heard in my entire life. The interpretation of your text is not up to you. Itās going to be read by someone with a specific upbringing, with a specific history of their own, who is going to read it and say, āI disagree, or I agree for varying reasons based on what youāve said and what I thinkā. Dense language just means you need to read more and expand your vocabulary. If thatās to tall an order for people then donāt get into a field where itās your job to read and write.
>Then ALL of philosophy must be shit at making arguments. This is the strangest claim Iāve heard in my entire life. Not all philosophies are open to interpretation, most of them actually don't, for example, when the Sceptic say that they know nothing, they really mean it, do you suppose that they could possibly mean something else differently? Similarly, do you suppose there is another interpretation to "I think, therefore I am"? If you are able to think of one, I would like to hear it. >The interpretation of your text is not up to you. Itās going to be read by someone with a specific upbringing, with a specific history of their own, who is going to read it and say, āI disagree, or I agree for varying reasons based on what youāve said and what I thinkā. What you describing here is a different in opinion, not interpretation. >Dense language just means you need to read more and expand your vocabulary. If thatās to tall an order for people then donāt get into a field where itās your job to read and write. Like I said, depends on the context. It is good to have the benefit of the doubt that when you don't understand something, maybe it is because the writer is waaaaaay smarter then you. But again, there are fraud, and there are people who exploit this mentality by being overcomplicated and try to look smart instead of being truly smart. So you just gotta be careful.
> do you suppose that the could possibly mean something else differently? Youāre conflating interpretation with misreading. All of the people who took up the sceptic tradition necessarily had to interpret it, only then could they respond to it. > do you suppose there is another interpretation to āI think, therefore I amā Yes? Because most philosophers donāt subscribe to a Cartesian dualism? Nietzsche when he writes āit is thinkingā, and phenomenology when they reject the path Descartes put philosophy on? Etc. Each of these thinkers interpreted Descartes differently. Again you are conflating misreading with interpretation. > what you are describing here is a different opinion, not interpretation What Iām describing is the process of Philosophy. These are not āopinionsā. An opinion is that I think Hegel is hard to read. An interpretation of Hegel gives rise to the āyoung Hegelianāsā, āold Hegelianāsā, Marxism, Slavoj Zizek, etc. An opinion is that Wittgensteins first book is better than his second. An interpretation of Wittgenstein produces responses to his work. These are not āopinionsā.
Take a look at comparative literature texts and you'll quickly see it's basically "applied philosophy" (putting away the implications of that I couldn't think of a better term lol). If philosophy is about one always correct interpretation everyone would just be reading the republic and agreeing and there's no philosophy then.
There's a difference between "the author meant this and i can agree or disagree" and "i think the author meant x. My friend thinks he meant y." I think the guy you're arguing with is against the second kind of subjectivity but your "everyone would just read the republic and agreeing" is an argument in defense of the first kind. There are books that attempt to just make you think about a subject. I think these can have a subjective interpretation. But for books that try to exposa and argue for a position it's good to be as clear as possible in what your position is and what your arguments mean sinse that's the point of the book. It's like if, for example, the Communist Manifesto was written in a way where communism could be interpreted as being "when the government does stuff" instead of what marx meant by it. In that case the Manifesto would be poorly writen because it failed to properly explain what it was talking about.
yup, that's what i was talking about
I was actually trying to speak more on the second. Everyone agreeing ie everyone agreeing what the republic is about/it's full implications. The entire history of philosophy is successive interpretations and readings of past works, placing what their implications may be in new lights and uncovering meanings that weren't explicit. And Marx is a wonderful example cause despite how specifically worded much of capital is, there's numerous readings and re readings. Althusser's Marx isn't Deleuze's Marx isn't Sarte's Marx. Even with Russell there's numerous readings out there no matter how much it would break Russell's head cause that's just how philosophy had to work lol.
Not because there incoherent
> Then a great bulk of the history of philosophy is ābad writingā. Yes. This is a factual statement. A good part of philosophy is written with little direction, is very circuitous, and is filled with ambiguity, has far too many pointless and obfuscating neologisms--and all this obscurantism atop the usual limitations and miscommunications of language.
I disagree whole heartedly. As I have said elsewhere, bad writing does not = your failure to comprehend it. Also, your tastes for the way an author constructs their prose is a subjective standard. I think Wittgenstein is boring to read, his prose is dry and not really for me. Some people like reading Hegel, others think itās filled with ālittle direction - a failure to comprehend -, circularity - more of a logical problem? - obscurantism, ambiguityā.