Fill up my car every couple months. Same for my scooter(80mpg)- ride my bike when the “body allows”- even disabled ride some, walk every day at least a mile and a half.
Which, in 1960 average male at 5’8” was 160 pounds, now 196 pounds, same height average.
Maybe we could fuel mass transit burning our excess fat??
It’s almost never enough to say that something means just what it says. Language is always interpreted. “Can you pass the salt?” can be a question or imperative, depending on the context. If even a simple utterance like that has to be interpreted, then how much more is it necessary to interpret any complex utterance. There’s a whole branch of philosophy devoted to questions of interpretation – hermeneutics, which is just a fancy word for interpretation. (One of the founders of hermeneutics was the Protestant theologian Schliermacher, and many of the important thinkers in the field were trained in theology.) But anyone who works with texts – literary scholars, historians, philosophers, legal analysts, biblical scholars, what have you – is likely to agree that interpretation is the great question.
^ That’s the point, context is part of interpretation. There is no such thing as “literal meaning”. (See Michael Toolan, Total Speech: An Integrational Linguistic Approach to Language.) Any claim for a “literal” interpretation of the Constitution – or the Bible – is only an ideological simplification and mystification.
^^ I’m not exactly sure what your point is. If you are suggesting that Romans 13 does not apply today because of changed circumstances, then in principle any given passage of the Bible might not apply today because of changed circumstances.
I would have thought, by the way, that since we are not Roman slaves, not subject to a foreign power by virtue of its greater strength, then the injunction to obey authority might be even more reasonable. If, on the other hand, we were slaves, if we were subject to a foreign power, then perhaps we should be figuring out how to resist authority.
I agree that there is such a thing as original intent, or authorial intent, but the problem is figuring out what that is. Sometimes it’s easy enough, sometimes is quite difficult, but even when it’s easy, it’s a question of interpretation. I’m not so concerned about Biblical interpretation – I will leave that to people who say they “believe” in the Bible, whatever that means, but I am concerned about interpretation of the Constitution (among other things). People who claim that the Constitution just means what it says are either naive or or ignorant or dishonest.
Nothing “just means what it says”. Every utterance has to be interpreted. This point is fundamental, and pretty obvious if you think for a few minutes. That doesn’t mean that there are no meanings, or that every utterance is ambiguous, but it does mean that the process of interpretation has to decide what the meaning is, and whether or not the utterance is ambiguous. Every point you make misses the point.
No, this has nothing to do with fundamentalism. It has to do with following an argument. Some of your own points support the argument that there is no such thing as “just what it says”. For instance, your point about a mother who says “Don’t go in the water”, and also your question to DrC about what is meant by “authority”.
There’s been at least a hundred years of really interesting work in the philosophy of language, hermeneutics, linguistics, literary theory, legal theory, and though I certainly would not claim there are no disputes, there does seem to be a very widespread agreement among all these scholars that meaning is not simple. Different schools of thought have different approaches to the complexities, but they all agree on the complexity. See, for example, Paul Grice, “Studies in the Way of Words” or Michael Toolan, “Total Speech”, or George Lakoff, “Women Fire, and Dangerous Things”.
That’s the discussion with DrC, not with me, on Romans 13. Are you asking for an interpretation? He asked you for one.
I thought that according to your method of exegesis the passage means just what it says. But what does it say? It’s not my religion, it’s not my job to interpret it.
annamargaret1866 almost 14 years ago
human, we could also be building smaller vehicles.
benbrilling almost 14 years ago
We do build smaller vehicles. Bicycles.
Dtroutma almost 14 years ago
Fill up my car every couple months. Same for my scooter(80mpg)- ride my bike when the “body allows”- even disabled ride some, walk every day at least a mile and a half.
Which, in 1960 average male at 5’8” was 160 pounds, now 196 pounds, same height average.
Maybe we could fuel mass transit burning our excess fat??
dwnoname almost 14 years ago
One man’s theology is another man’s belly laugh.
lonecat almost 14 years ago
It’s almost never enough to say that something means just what it says. Language is always interpreted. “Can you pass the salt?” can be a question or imperative, depending on the context. If even a simple utterance like that has to be interpreted, then how much more is it necessary to interpret any complex utterance. There’s a whole branch of philosophy devoted to questions of interpretation – hermeneutics, which is just a fancy word for interpretation. (One of the founders of hermeneutics was the Protestant theologian Schliermacher, and many of the important thinkers in the field were trained in theology.) But anyone who works with texts – literary scholars, historians, philosophers, legal analysts, biblical scholars, what have you – is likely to agree that interpretation is the great question.
lonecat almost 14 years ago
^^ and ^: So there’s lots of interpretation going on here, much more than “just what it says”.
NoFearPup almost 14 years ago
If a mother tells her child, “Don’t go in the water” right after eating a meal; does that mean the child is never to enter the water?
lonecat almost 14 years ago
^ That’s the point, context is part of interpretation. There is no such thing as “literal meaning”. (See Michael Toolan, Total Speech: An Integrational Linguistic Approach to Language.) Any claim for a “literal” interpretation of the Constitution – or the Bible – is only an ideological simplification and mystification.
lonecat almost 14 years ago
No, that was not my intent.
lonecat almost 14 years ago
^^ I’m not exactly sure what your point is. If you are suggesting that Romans 13 does not apply today because of changed circumstances, then in principle any given passage of the Bible might not apply today because of changed circumstances.
I would have thought, by the way, that since we are not Roman slaves, not subject to a foreign power by virtue of its greater strength, then the injunction to obey authority might be even more reasonable. If, on the other hand, we were slaves, if we were subject to a foreign power, then perhaps we should be figuring out how to resist authority.
lonecat almost 14 years ago
I agree that there is such a thing as original intent, or authorial intent, but the problem is figuring out what that is. Sometimes it’s easy enough, sometimes is quite difficult, but even when it’s easy, it’s a question of interpretation. I’m not so concerned about Biblical interpretation – I will leave that to people who say they “believe” in the Bible, whatever that means, but I am concerned about interpretation of the Constitution (among other things). People who claim that the Constitution just means what it says are either naive or or ignorant or dishonest.
lonecat almost 14 years ago
Nothing “just means what it says”. Every utterance has to be interpreted. This point is fundamental, and pretty obvious if you think for a few minutes. That doesn’t mean that there are no meanings, or that every utterance is ambiguous, but it does mean that the process of interpretation has to decide what the meaning is, and whether or not the utterance is ambiguous. Every point you make misses the point.
lonecat almost 14 years ago
No, this has nothing to do with fundamentalism. It has to do with following an argument. Some of your own points support the argument that there is no such thing as “just what it says”. For instance, your point about a mother who says “Don’t go in the water”, and also your question to DrC about what is meant by “authority”.
There’s been at least a hundred years of really interesting work in the philosophy of language, hermeneutics, linguistics, literary theory, legal theory, and though I certainly would not claim there are no disputes, there does seem to be a very widespread agreement among all these scholars that meaning is not simple. Different schools of thought have different approaches to the complexities, but they all agree on the complexity. See, for example, Paul Grice, “Studies in the Way of Words” or Michael Toolan, “Total Speech”, or George Lakoff, “Women Fire, and Dangerous Things”.
Good day, to you as well.
lonecat almost 14 years ago
I think you may be misinterpreting (perhaps not facetiously) the statements of Constitutional Revisionists. Is there a law against judicial activism?
lonecat almost 14 years ago
Do you consider Brown v. Board of Education judicial activism?
Do you consider the recent decision on corporate contributions to political campaigns judicial activism?
Some people might use the term “anal-retentive obsessiveness”, others might call it “doing your homework”.
lonecat almost 14 years ago
^^ No answer, eh?
lonecat almost 14 years ago
That’s the discussion with DrC, not with me, on Romans 13. Are you asking for an interpretation? He asked you for one. I thought that according to your method of exegesis the passage means just what it says. But what does it say? It’s not my religion, it’s not my job to interpret it.
NoFearPup almost 14 years ago
You seem sort of “sour”, do you need a “lift”, Lonecat - to sort of get in the spirit of things? Try this: http://www.gocomics.com/rubes/2010/07/14/