According to Nehamas, the ideal interpretation of a text is one which can answer all questions related to the text. He further states that no interpretation can in fact do this. I am not certain that I agree. While an interpreter may not initially formulate such answers, it seems quite possible that upon questioning they could come up with answers which did not contradict the earlier parts of their interpretation. Certainly the writer of a text could probably do so, unless their text is flawed so that it inherently contradicts itself.
If, however, Nehamas means that an ideal interpretation would state answers to all possible questions related to the text in one draft, then I agree that such an interpretation cannot exist. This is because one can raise a great deal, if not an infinite number, of questions about any given text; as such, any one interpreter would die before being able to answer all of them. Even if a single interpreter could be immortal, if the number of questions is infinite, they would still never be able to answer all of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment