Thursday, September 15, 2005
Augustine thumbs down, Schileirmacher enthusiastic thumbs up
Augustine really wasn’t for me, maybe since the excerpt was so short, I didn’t get much from it, but for what I did get, I just didn’t agree with. I really thought that the bit about words that belong to no language, before they are put into language and are still in the mind, was far-fetched. And then using the bible as evidence, citing the passage saying that Jesus saw into their thoughts, positing that in doing this he saw thoughts without the distorting filter of language is just really reaching. Not only is it flimsy evidence, he assumes a great deal in this assertion. Beyond that, perhaps the dogmatic religious tone that turned me off, but I just did not buy what he was selling. The article right before it, “On Christian Doctrine” was equally unimpressive. I thought his attitude, particularly here, was unpleasantly condescending, especially toward the “ignorant” and “unlearned”. Anyone else really turned off by this one?I did think that the Schileirmacher was refreshingly approachable. Finally, a theory of interpreting literature I can get behind. The circular reasoning problem with understanding a text only as it relates to the context of the author’s entire oeuvre, or even the rest of the works of the time, including the author’s influences, and yet needing to examine the author’s texts individually to understand all of the works in general is mind numbing, though. I was struck by this quote when I came across it: “The artfully correct exposition has no other goal that that which we have in hearing every common spoken discourse.” (619) So, our goal in interpretation should approach spoken discourse? I wonder if Plato/Socrates would approve? Anyway, setting all of this aside, what I really like about this is the focus on the author, and the concentration on the author’s purpose in writing a text, his influences, how “the process of writing affects the writers inner thoughts.” (621). I think learning all about the circumstances surrounding the composition of a work, and the cultural atmosphere, including literature and art of the day, really is vital in informing the reading. Looking at the text and nothing but the text is an interesting exercise, but at the end of the day, not my preference. I may be an old fashioned girl, but I can’t help it, I still care about what the author intends to communicate to his readers. I can’t get behind the whole death of the author…oh well, maybe I can still be taught…we shall see…See you all in class tomorrow…OK, today. At least I am getting this done a little earlier than usual, if only by a couple of hours. Bye!Jen
Augustine thumbs down, Schileirmacher enthusiastic thumbs up
Augustine really wasn’t for me, maybe since the excerpt was so short, I didn’t get much from it, but for what I did get, I just didn’t agree with. I really thought that the bit about words that belong to no language, before they are put into language and are still in the mind, was far-fetched. And then using the bible as evidence, citing the passage saying that Jesus saw into their thoughts, positing that in doing this he saw thoughts without the distorting filter of language is just really reaching. Not only is it flimsy evidence, he assumes a great deal in this assertion. Beyond that, perhaps the dogmatic religious tone that turned me off, but I just did not buy what he was selling. The article right before it, “On Christian Doctrine” was equally unimpressive. I thought his attitude, particularly here, was unpleasantly condescending, especially toward the “ignorant” and “unlearned”. Anyone else really turned off by this one?I did think that the Schileirmacher was refreshingly approachable. Finally, a theory of interpreting literature I can get behind. The circular reasoning problem with understanding a text only as it relates to the context of the author’s entire oeuvre, or even the rest of the works of the time, including the author’s influences, and yet needing to examine the author’s texts individually to understand all of the works in general is mind numbing, though. I was struck by this quote when I came across it: “The artfully correct exposition has no other goal that that which we have in hearing every common spoken discourse.” (619) So, our goal in interpretation should approach spoken discourse? I wonder if Plato/Socrates would approve? Anyway, setting all of this aside, what I really like about this is the focus on the author, and the concentration on the author’s purpose in writing a text, his influences, how “the process of writing affects the writers inner thoughts.” (621). I think learning all about the circumstances surrounding the composition of a work, and the cultural atmosphere, including literature and art of the day, really is vital in informing the reading. Looking at the text and nothing but the text is an interesting exercise, but at the end of the day, not my preference. I may be an old fashioned girl, but I can’t help it, I still care about what the author intends to communicate to his readers. I can’t get behind the whole death of the author…oh well, maybe I can still be taught…we shall see…See you all in class tomorrow…OK, today. At least I am getting this done a little earlier than usual, if only by a couple of hours. Bye!Jen
posted by Jenni Lovato at 11:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home