words that say what they mean?

Tom Wright says

"There is a lot about postmodernism I like, but when it comes to the law of the land, I want words that say what they mean and mean what they say."

It's a nice idea, isn't it? That somewhere there must be a place - in religion, or in law - where you can cut through the mystery, the confusion, the multiplicity of meanings and interpretations, and just get down to the plain truth? Shame for the Bishop, and for the rest of us who often hanker for a world where the plain truth were that simple, that even when it comes to the law of the land, language is neither plain nor simple. The whole of the study of law is a hermeneutical exercise - it's about interpreting what the law ACTUALLY means in this or that situation, not about judging situations according to a plain, clear and unchanging truth. 

Avoiding feelings and using reason alone is no more a recipe for the "plain truth" than anything else is. You can try to eliminate feelings from debate, and sometimes it hepls to do so, although it should be recognised that it can be nothing more than a technique designed to serve those who are better at disguising their feelings behind a reasoned argument, and not a means of removing people's keenly felt personal agendas from debate. But even in a debate that is based on what we think, not what we feel, words that "say what they mean and mean what they say" are somewhat more elusive than we would like. Once Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein had messed with our scientific world view there was no possibility of going back to a pre-modern one. And now that Wittgenstein, Russell et all have  uncovered the realities of how slippery and problematic language  is, there is no going back to a simplistic view of it.

Comments

[Caroline]

What I love about Witgenstein is that when you work through all the tricky writing, and follow his logic, you suddenly realise that you've come through a cloud of theory into an open space of practicality,

a bit like Marx, later Witgenstein urges us not to understand the world but to change it.

so exciting!

[bob c]

Wright's statement simultaneously resonated with me and un-nerved me. Upon reflection, I realize this is often the case with me & Wright.

First, the resonating part. At the seminary I attend, it has been my experience that statements that begin with "I feel..." are often the equivalent of trump cards in conversations. Despite attempts to be aware of it, we seem to operate under a hiearchy of opressions, rendering our discussion more akin to 20th century therapy than 2nd century Jesus followers. (Given the choice between 2oth century therapy and 20th century churchianity, I do not know which I would choose - none of the above, maybe ?)

Now the un-nerving part. Reason - to paraphrase a phrase - is often the last hiding place of those in power. It costs a hetro, Anglo affluent guy like me (and the Rt Rev.) NOTHING to argue from reason or tradition, since both streams are primarily folks like me. In terms of Scripture, so much of the interpretations are echo chambers of dead white guys. As a result, Hooker's renowned 3-legged chair becomes almost like the lion-tamers' chair, hoisted by the power elite with a whip to keep the savage - the other, the one out of power - in their place or move them back to their cage.

[imagine!]

Tom Wright's got a pointhasn't he, he's just chosen a bad example. When we take a taxi, we believe that the word "taxi" on the car means that the driver will take us where we want to go and the car will have a combustion engine that will make that happen. These days, we might question the route he/she takes but some issues of modernism still play out. If we have an abscess, we assume that the surgeon will excise it with a scalpel and that his/her learning is superior to ours in doing so. We might have a jaded view of the surgeon's private life and wonder that the procedure is remarkably barbaric, but we go there. You're being a little disingenous aren't you Maggi?

[maggi]

I might be wrong, Richard. Very possible. But not disingenuous. If I'm wrong, I'm sincerely wrong...

[dave paisley]

Never was there a truer observation than the following:

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." Shaw

And isn't this illusion of communication because we assume that others share our exact understanding of the words and phrasing we use, when this is proven over and over not to be the case?

[imagine!]

...my apologies Maggi! Looking again at what I said, it was quite rude of me...I just wanted to point out that in some senses we will always be operating with a modernist level of language structure. Withdraw any other sentiment that may have come across in the earlier post and regard this submission as humbly submitted where the other one wasn't.....

[imagine!]

...my apologies Maggi! Looking again at what I said, it was quite rude of me...I just wanted to point out that in some senses we will always be operating with a modernist level of language structure. Withdraw any other sentiment that may have come across in the earlier post and regard this submission as humbly submitted where the other one wasn't.....