The Resolution of Interpretations. Thomism, Semiotics, and Phenomenology in Dialogue

Q3 Arts and Humanities Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia Pub Date : 2023-07-31 DOI:10.17990/rpf/2023_79_1_0659
Brian Kemple
{"title":"The Resolution of Interpretations. Thomism, Semiotics, and Phenomenology in Dialogue","authors":"Brian Kemple","doi":"10.17990/rpf/2023_79_1_0659","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"More than ever do people seem entrenched in their intellectual positions despite a dearth of concerted and honest reflection upon them. This obstinacy presents a moral and rhetorical challenge—attempting persuasion through naked rational argumentation alone will prove fruitless. But we should not discount the role of the intellect in the fixation of even the least-reflectively formed beliefs. From the perspective of cognition, this fixation is proximately the result of interpretation. In the language of Thomism, this interpretive adherence to falsity consists in a perverse process of discursive reasoning. To exposit the constitution of adherence to false interpretation, here we will draw on the traditions of Thomism, phenomenology, and semiotics. With the insights of these traditions, we will proceed: first, examining the process of interpretation itself; second, considering two different modes of interpretation; and third, situating interpretation in the context of the twofold movement of resolution. Through analyzing interpretation and resolution, we will demonstrate that obstinate intellectual insistence consists in two intellectual errors: adoption of the vague as sufficient for understanding; and reflexive confusions. In both cases, the error persists through the failure to pursue the twofold movement of resolution.","PeriodicalId":36725,"journal":{"name":"Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17990/rpf/2023_79_1_0659","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

More than ever do people seem entrenched in their intellectual positions despite a dearth of concerted and honest reflection upon them. This obstinacy presents a moral and rhetorical challenge—attempting persuasion through naked rational argumentation alone will prove fruitless. But we should not discount the role of the intellect in the fixation of even the least-reflectively formed beliefs. From the perspective of cognition, this fixation is proximately the result of interpretation. In the language of Thomism, this interpretive adherence to falsity consists in a perverse process of discursive reasoning. To exposit the constitution of adherence to false interpretation, here we will draw on the traditions of Thomism, phenomenology, and semiotics. With the insights of these traditions, we will proceed: first, examining the process of interpretation itself; second, considering two different modes of interpretation; and third, situating interpretation in the context of the twofold movement of resolution. Through analyzing interpretation and resolution, we will demonstrate that obstinate intellectual insistence consists in two intellectual errors: adoption of the vague as sufficient for understanding; and reflexive confusions. In both cases, the error persists through the failure to pursue the twofold movement of resolution.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
解释的决议。对话中的托马斯主义、符号学与现象学
人们似乎比以往任何时候都更加固守自己的思想立场,尽管他们缺乏一致和诚实的反思。这种固执提出了一种道德和修辞上的挑战——仅仅通过赤裸裸的理性论证进行说服将被证明是徒劳的。但是,我们不应该低估智力在固定信念中的作用,即使是最不需要反思形成的信念。从认知的角度来看,这种固定近似于解释的结果。在托马斯主义的语言中,这种对谬误的解释性坚持包含在一个反常的话语推理过程中。为了阐明坚持错误解释的构成,这里我们将借鉴托马斯主义、现象学和符号学的传统。有了这些传统的见解,我们将继续:首先,检查解释本身的过程;第二,考虑两种不同的解释模式;第三,将阐释置于消解的双重运动的语境中。通过分析解释和解决,我们将证明顽固的智力坚持包括两个智力错误:采用模糊作为理解的充分条件;还有自反性困惑。在这两种情况下,由于未能追求分辨率的双重运动,错误仍然存在。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia
Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
73
期刊最新文献
Time for Truth: Tarski Between Heidegger and Rorty The Crowning of Anarchy, Remarks on the Age of Pure Difference Hospitalidade e conflito: o problema do “reconhecimento” no acolhimento de refugiados A “Modest” Primitivist Theory of Truth: The Ineffability of Truth, Effability of the Correspondence Relation A Holistic Double-Reference Explanatory Basis for a Unifying Pluralist Account of Truth
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1