"In him all things hold together" (Colossians 1:17).
Showing posts with label hermeneutics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hermeneutics. Show all posts
Monday, April 5, 2010
Losing Confidence
After the post-modern turn, we are suffering from a loss of confidence in at least two areas. We question the reliability of our senses to put us in touch with reality, and the reliability of our words to convey it.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Saturday, October 10, 2009
A Lazy Thinker
William James said:
Are they found in James' conclusion to his rhetorical question? A lazy thinker forgets to test his theory by applying it to itself.
Objective evidence and certitude are doubtless very fine ideals to play with, but where on this moonlit and dream-visited planet are they found?
Are they found in James' conclusion to his rhetorical question? A lazy thinker forgets to test his theory by applying it to itself.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Subjective Objectivity
Objectivity is seeing reality as it is. How do you do that?
OK, I've tried to establish that objectivity is not neutrality. We can't achieve objectivity by hanging upside down and shaking out the presuppositions. We have to pour in the right presuppositions by hearing the word of God and studying the world of God. Thus the right presuppositions about reality bestow a subjectivity that serves as the means to objectivity. Our presuppositions become the mental, emotional, interpretive instrument that focuses and expands our perceptions of reality. Our perceptions and interpretations must be constantly fine tuned and readjusted by encounters with the subject over our whole lives on into our sanctified eternity.
When radical post-moderns deny objective reality they confuse reality with our perceptions of it. Objective reality exists though we don't perceive it clearly, but as Paul says, "through a glass darkly." Kant said there are no "uninterpreted facts." But there are uninterpreted facts or we wouldn't be able to test our interpretations. The fact that we can test our knowledge means that there is a reality to test it against. There is a reality to account for and the better our accounting the closer we come to seeing objective reality.
When it comes to studying history, I've also argued that we have to acknowledge our presuppositions and realize how they affect our interpretation. Then we can set them in reserve while we try to enter the worldview of another. In this way, we strive to put the subject in historical perspective. After we have accurately understood, we have earned the right to critique and appreciate. We evaluate through our subjective worldview through which we hopefully perceive objective reality in an accurate way. We may congratulate ourselves on having achieved this whenever somebody pays us the compliment of having understood their point-of-view.
In sum, we can be objective in the sense seeing reality as it is from God's perspective and being fair to our subject's self-understanding. Right?
In other words, we need to be impartial when fairness is called for, and partial whenever the Truth, Goodness, and Beauty are at stake.
OK, I've tried to establish that objectivity is not neutrality. We can't achieve objectivity by hanging upside down and shaking out the presuppositions. We have to pour in the right presuppositions by hearing the word of God and studying the world of God. Thus the right presuppositions about reality bestow a subjectivity that serves as the means to objectivity. Our presuppositions become the mental, emotional, interpretive instrument that focuses and expands our perceptions of reality. Our perceptions and interpretations must be constantly fine tuned and readjusted by encounters with the subject over our whole lives on into our sanctified eternity.
When radical post-moderns deny objective reality they confuse reality with our perceptions of it. Objective reality exists though we don't perceive it clearly, but as Paul says, "through a glass darkly." Kant said there are no "uninterpreted facts." But there are uninterpreted facts or we wouldn't be able to test our interpretations. The fact that we can test our knowledge means that there is a reality to test it against. There is a reality to account for and the better our accounting the closer we come to seeing objective reality.
When it comes to studying history, I've also argued that we have to acknowledge our presuppositions and realize how they affect our interpretation. Then we can set them in reserve while we try to enter the worldview of another. In this way, we strive to put the subject in historical perspective. After we have accurately understood, we have earned the right to critique and appreciate. We evaluate through our subjective worldview through which we hopefully perceive objective reality in an accurate way. We may congratulate ourselves on having achieved this whenever somebody pays us the compliment of having understood their point-of-view.
In sum, we can be objective in the sense seeing reality as it is from God's perspective and being fair to our subject's self-understanding. Right?
In other words, we need to be impartial when fairness is called for, and partial whenever the Truth, Goodness, and Beauty are at stake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)