Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 3 of 6   [ 106 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:05 am 
Offline
There Can Be Only One
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 12430
Location: Nuevo Mexico
Religion: Catholic
GKC wrote:
Highlander wrote:
To the OP, I've given up on discussing this very issue with my fundamentalist friends.

One is an incredibly intelligent woman, who is agile and flexible on any matter except her religion. Which she advocates with an endless series of biblical quotations. When such a topic arises, I can see the glaze appear in her eyes, her voice rises, and she begins quoting verse after verse...and substantiates their literal authority by saying that the Bible is the Word of God and cannot be abridged, related, interpreted, colored, considered, contextualized (see how that word plays per the above) except as literal.

Oh, and when I used to point out an inherent contradiction in verses, she rolls her eyes and replies something like, "Well, of course the real meaning of the verses removes any contradiction." Fruitless.

It is as if the Bible consists of a collection of very large number (∞) of randomly independent verses by different authors who have no connection to each other or to any overarching thread.

So, I avoid Biblical discussion (wrong word -- listening to an endless, repetitive monologue is more accurate) with her and her ilk.



Wisdom.


I prefer beauty.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:35 am 
Offline
Some Poor Bibliophile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:22 pm
Posts: 19030
Highlander wrote:
GKC wrote:
Highlander wrote:
To the OP, I've given up on discussing this very issue with my fundamentalist friends.

One is an incredibly intelligent woman, who is agile and flexible on any matter except her religion. Which she advocates with an endless series of biblical quotations. When such a topic arises, I can see the glaze appear in her eyes, her voice rises, and she begins quoting verse after verse...and substantiates their literal authority by saying that the Bible is the Word of God and cannot be abridged, related, interpreted, colored, considered, contextualized (see how that word plays per the above) except as literal.

Oh, and when I used to point out an inherent contradiction in verses, she rolls her eyes and replies something like, "Well, of course the real meaning of the verses removes any contradiction." Fruitless.

It is as if the Bible consists of a collection of very large number (∞) of randomly independent verses by different authors who have no connection to each other or to any overarching thread.

So, I avoid Biblical discussion (wrong word -- listening to an endless, repetitive monologue is more accurate) with her and her ilk.



Wisdom.


I prefer beauty.


Settle for the possible.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:32 pm 
Offline
There Can Be Only One
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 12430
Location: Nuevo Mexico
Religion: Catholic
GKC wrote:
Highlander wrote:
GKC wrote:
Highlander wrote:
To the OP, I've given up on discussing this very issue with my fundamentalist friends.

One is an incredibly intelligent woman, who is agile and flexible on any matter except her religion. Which she advocates with an endless series of biblical quotations. When such a topic arises, I can see the glaze appear in her eyes, her voice rises, and she begins quoting verse after verse...and substantiates their literal authority by saying that the Bible is the Word of God and cannot be abridged, related, interpreted, colored, considered, contextualized (see how that word plays per the above) except as literal.

Oh, and when I used to point out an inherent contradiction in verses, she rolls her eyes and replies something like, "Well, of course the real meaning of the verses removes any contradiction." Fruitless.

It is as if the Bible consists of a collection of very large number (∞) of randomly independent verses by different authors who have no connection to each other or to any overarching thread.

So, I avoid Biblical discussion (wrong word -- listening to an endless, repetitive monologue is more accurate) with her and her ilk.



Wisdom.


I prefer beauty.


Settle for the possible.


Dreamcrusher.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:07 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:37 pm
Posts: 6033
Location: Bergen, Norway
Religion: High Church Lutheran
Church Affiliations: Church of Norway
No, Denise Dee, you are simply wrong here. You are conflating two distinct usages of ‘literal,’ one pertaining to the exact meaning of individual words, the other pertaining to the interpretation of texts. The literal meaning of ‘pull’ and ‘leg’ is ‘drag’ and ‘lower appendage.’ But the literal interpretation of “you are pulling my leg” is not “you are dragging my lower appendage” but “you are joking [with me].” Because when we literally interpret a text, we are interpreting the text as a whole, and looking for its meaning. That is what literal interpretation means. This is textual, and not just biblical, interpretation 101.

For the exact same reason we can say that the literal interpretation of “it is raining cats and dogs” and “I look at tennis as a means of exercise” is not “cats and dogs are falling down from the sky” and “I gaze at tennis as a means of exercise” but “it is raining heavily” and “I regard tennis as a means of exercise.”

Doom is speaking of the interpretation of a phrase used in a text or in a conversation and you maintain, wrongly, that literal interpretation is about interpreting each word individually, out of context. That is not now, and has never been, the case.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:13 pm 
Offline
Some Poor Bibliophile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:22 pm
Posts: 19030
Highlander wrote:
GKC wrote:
Highlander wrote:
GKC wrote:
Highlander wrote:
To the OP, I've given up on discussing this very issue with my fundamentalist friends.

One is an incredibly intelligent woman, who is agile and flexible on any matter except her religion. Which she advocates with an endless series of biblical quotations. When such a topic arises, I can see the glaze appear in her eyes, her voice rises, and she begins quoting verse after verse...and substantiates their literal authority by saying that the Bible is the Word of God and cannot be abridged, related, interpreted, colored, considered, contextualized (see how that word plays per the above) except as literal.

Oh, and when I used to point out an inherent contradiction in verses, she rolls her eyes and replies something like, "Well, of course the real meaning of the verses removes any contradiction." Fruitless.

It is as if the Bible consists of a collection of very large number (∞) of randomly independent verses by different authors who have no connection to each other or to any overarching thread.

So, I avoid Biblical discussion (wrong word -- listening to an endless, repetitive monologue is more accurate) with her and her ilk.



Wisdom.


I prefer beauty.


Settle for the possible.




Dream catchers are good.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:14 pm 
Offline
There Can Be Only One
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 12430
Location: Nuevo Mexico
Religion: Catholic
Closet Catholic wrote:
No, Denise Dee, you are simply wrong here. You are conflating two distinct usages of ‘literal,’ one pertaining to the exact meaning of individual words, the other pertaining to the interpretation of texts. The literal meaning of ‘pull’ and ‘leg’ is ‘drag’ and ‘lower appendage.’ But the literal interpretation of “you are pulling my leg” is not “you are dragging my lower appendage” but “you are joking [with me].” Because when we literally interpret a text, we are interpreting the text as a whole, and looking for its meaning. That is what literal interpretation means. This is textual, and not just biblical, interpretation 101.

For the exact same reason we can say that the literal interpretation of “it is raining cats and dogs” and “I look at tennis as a means of exercise” is not “cats and dogs are falling down from the sky” and “I gaze at tennis as a means of exercise” but “it is raining heavily” and “I regard tennis as a means of exercise.”

Doom is speaking of the interpretation of a phrase used in a text or in a conversation and you maintain, wrongly, that literal interpretation is about interpreting each word individually, out of context. That is not now, and has never been, the case.


What he said.

If there were only one "literal" meaning, there would be no thesauri. Or brontosauri. And the word "synonym" would be bereft of meaning. Plus "in other words" would not be much used.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:17 pm 
Offline
King of Cool
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 1:30 pm
Posts: 75819
Religion: Anticukite Catholic
Closet Catholic wrote:
No, Denise Dee, you are simply wrong here. You are conflating two distinct usages of ‘literal,’ one pertaining to the exact meaning of individual words, the other pertaining to the interpretation of texts. The literal meaning of ‘pull’ and ‘leg’ is ‘drag’ and ‘lower appendage.’ But the literal interpretation of “you are pulling my leg” is not “you are dragging my lower appendage” but “you are joking [with me].” Because when we literally interpret a text, we are interpreting the text as a whole, and looking for its meaning. That is what literal interpretation means. This is textual, and not just biblical, interpretation 101.

For the exact same reason we can say that the literal interpretation of “it is raining cats and dogs” and “I look at tennis as a means of exercise” is not “cats and dogs are falling down from the sky” and “I gaze at tennis as a means of exercise” but “it is raining heavily” and “I regard tennis as a means of exercise.”

Doom is speaking of the interpretation of a phrase used in a text or in a conversation and you maintain, wrongly, that literal interpretation is about interpreting each word individually, out of context. That is not now and has never been, the case.


That is a good explanation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:10 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 4686
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
In the realm of "for what it's worth," the older sense of "literal interpretation" Doom, CC, and others are using is conveyed in the literature I've ready over the years by the term "primary meaning." The term "literal", especially sense Frege, has so many nuances in so many cases that it's all but useless. It is argued, for instance, that if I point to someone and say, "He is thirsty," and the person really is thirsty in the ordinary sense, my words still are not "literal" because "literal" is to be understood as meaning derived exclusively from the conventions of the particular language. So "he" in English is a demonstrative pronoun that does not, by convention, refer to any particular person. So you need further distinctions, because no one would really want to say that "he is literal" is then in some sense figurative.

In my own assessment, this entire discussion is a bit of a tempest in a teapot. Doom just used a term ("literal") in a particular way following a particular, even if ancient (and largely sectarian), school of thought. The way he used the term is decidedly not how it is used in popular speech, and so CC's defense, on one hand correct, is overstated when claiming that DD's usage has "never" been the held. DD's use is, in fact, the popular use, even if it isn't the on that either modern linguistics or classical philosophers use. I find myself in exactly the same place when I use words like "potentiality" or "final cause" in philosophical discussions. I'm using such words in a particular way, and if someone complains I'm using the word in the wrong way, it's my role to simply point out the tradition in which I am using them and in what words they ought to understand my meaning. The conversation about whether or not the word is "right" or "wrong" is entirely beside the point.

Here is a picture of a very cute kitten. It is, by far, the most important thing posted in this entire thread, and it should make everyone feel better.

Image

And here is another picture of a cute kitten with a funny (because of it's incongruence) text included.

Image

You are welcome.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:22 am 
Offline
Some Poor Bibliophile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:22 pm
Posts: 19030
theJack wrote:
In the realm of "for what it's worth," the older sense of "literal interpretation" Doom, CC, and others are using is conveyed in the literature I've ready over the years by the term "primary meaning." The term "literal", especially sense Frege, has so many nuances in so many cases that it's all but useless. It is argued, for instance, that if I point to someone and say, "He is thirsty," and the person really is thirsty in the ordinary sense, my words still are not "literal" because "literal" is to be understood as meaning derived exclusively from the conventions of the particular language. So "he" in English is a demonstrative pronoun that does not, by convention, refer to any particular person. So you need further distinctions, because no one would really want to say that "he is literal" is then in some sense figurative.

In my own assessment, this entire discussion is a bit of a tempest in a teapot. Doom just used a term ("literal") in a particular way following a particular, even if ancient (and largely sectarian), school of thought. The way he used the term is decidedly not how it is used in popular speech, and so CC's defense, on one hand correct, is overstated when claiming that DD's usage has "never" been the held. DD's use is, in fact, the popular use, even if it isn't the on that either modern linguistics or classical philosophers use. I find myself in exactly the same place when I use words like "potentiality" or "final cause" in philosophical discussions. I'm using such words in a particular way, and if someone complains I'm using the word in the wrong way, it's my role to simply point out the tradition in which I am using them and in what words they ought to understand my meaning. The conversation about whether or not the word is "right" or "wrong" is entirely beside the point.

Here is a picture of a very cute kitten. It is, by far, the most important thing posted in this entire thread, and it should make everyone feel better.

Image

And here is another picture of a cute kitten with a funny (because of it's incongruence) text included.

Image

You are welcome.


The second pic is literally captivating.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:46 am 
Offline
There Can Be Only One
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 12430
Location: Nuevo Mexico
Religion: Catholic
I prefer puppies. Let the contention continue.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:03 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:36 am
Posts: 8255
Location: India
Religion: Catholic (Syro Malabar)
I am scared of cats and dogs. :fyi:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:54 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 7:53 pm
Posts: 330
Religion: Looking for answers
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
What happened is that he used the word in a way you didn't expect. That doesn't make it wrong. That means you can ask for an explanation, say, "Oh, okay, I wasn't expecting that, but I see what you mean," and move along.

It doesn't matter if I see what he means, it is still both wrong and misleading. And for the fourth time, for the benefit of those who are slow to comprehend, I am not talking about anything else Doom wrote. I will move on, but I'm moving on with much less confidence in all of you who refused to acknowledge that this paragraph is IN ITSELF wrong:
Doom wrote:
For example, if I say 'you are pulling my leg', the literal interpretation of this expression is 'you are teasing me or telling me a joke', however, if you think it means that I am accusing you of grabbing one of my appendages, you aren't being literal, you are being literalistic.

Ask any English teacher. To refuse to acknowledge that it is wrong is verging on gaslighting, but I have enough knowledge of the English language not to be misled.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:21 pm 
Offline
Our Lady's Gladiator
Our Lady's Gladiator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 7:26 am
Posts: 101647
Location: Revelation 11:19-12:1
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree Knight of Columbus
Highlander wrote:
I prefer puppies. Let the contention continue.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:54 pm 
Offline
There Can Be Only One
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 12430
Location: Nuevo Mexico
Religion: Catholic
Denise Dee wrote:
... To refuse to acknowledge that it is wrong is verging on gaslighting ...

Gaslighting? Victimhood?

Denise Dee wrote:
... for the fourth time, for the benefit of those who are slow to comprehend...

Could we try it a fifth?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex2r86G0sdc


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:55 pm 
Offline
There Can Be Only One
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 12430
Location: Nuevo Mexico
Religion: Catholic
faithfulservant wrote:
Highlander wrote:
I prefer puppies. Let the contention continue.

Cats in disguise.

But, cute.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 9:41 pm 
Offline
Some Poor Bibliophile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:22 pm
Posts: 19030
Highlander wrote:
Denise Dee wrote:
... To refuse to acknowledge that it is wrong is verging on gaslighting ...

Gaslighting? Victimhood?

Denise Dee wrote:
... for the fourth time, for the benefit of those who are slow to comprehend...

Could we try it a fifth?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex2r86G0sdc


That is literally heart-rending.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 9:48 pm 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 79256
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
I was expecting this: https://youtu.be/0ouMaLRth-s


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:11 pm 
Offline
Some Poor Bibliophile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:22 pm
Posts: 19030
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
I was expecting this: https://youtu.be/0ouMaLRth-s



I remember that.

It was literally excruciating.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2019 10:28 pm 
Offline
There Can Be Only One
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 12430
Location: Nuevo Mexico
Religion: Catholic
Highlander wrote:
faithfulservant wrote:
Highlander wrote:
I prefer puppies. Let the contention continue.

Cats in disguise.

But, cute.


Always enjoy quoting myself. But I have to consider the source.

Upon reflection, those puppies literally melted my heart.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "Call no Man Father"
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:04 pm 
Offline
Our Lady's Gladiator
Our Lady's Gladiator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 7:26 am
Posts: 101647
Location: Revelation 11:19-12:1
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 3rd Degree Knight of Columbus
Highlander wrote:
Highlander wrote:
faithfulservant wrote:
Highlander wrote:
I prefer puppies. Let the contention continue.

Cats in disguise.

But, cute.


Always enjoy quoting myself. But I have to consider the source.

Upon reflection, those puppies literally melted my heart.


definitely some cuties in there


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 3 of 6   [ 106 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


Jump to: