Reply to Literalists = rigidity?

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Literalists = rigidity? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Are people who take certain documents literally (bible, constitution) really just suffering from mental rigidity?

That would explain a lot…[/quote]

I think you are conflating two very different kinds of documents.   Legal documents like the Constitution *should* be taken literally--the whole purpose of such documents is to use words to constrain decisionmakers and future actions and once you say "well, let's not take this too literally..." there is no stopping point.  That's not to say that a literal reading of such a text leaves no uncertainty--a literal reading of a text can be ambiguous if the text is imprecisely written or as applied to a particular case, and it may well leave a host of uncertainties when you try to apply text written at a certain level of abstraction to detailed questions. For example, "cruel and unusual punishment" establishes a literal clear principle that is easy to understand at its own level--"cruel" and "unusual" are terms people can and should take literally--but reasonable interpreters might well come to different conclusion about how that principle applies in a particular case.  Cruelty-in-general is easy to understand, but underspecified when it comes to evaluating particular practices, and judgment needs to be applied there. But there is all the difference in the world between good-faith interpreters of a text who come down on different sides of the question of whether the death penalty is "cruel and unusual" and interpreters who say "I'm not constrained by a 'literal' reading of the text and can decide whatever I want."

As for the Bible, that document is obviously different than a legal text and how it should be interpreted is not as clear. Portions of the Bible are straight up poetry; aphorisms such as the Proverbs are generally understood to be principles and rules of thumb, not precise guides to action; books like Revelation are intentionally occluded and not literal; and how advice that someone like Paul gives to first century Christian groups is to be interpreted and applied to those it is not directed to is inherently uncertain. I personally there is a range of defensible readings of the Bible, some quite literal and others less so, and taking a more literal appoach is not indicative of a character flaw or personality disorder in the great bulk of cases. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics