I agree with Dan to the extent that the 'god's truth' vs 'hocus pocus'
distinction is not mutually exclusive. The following
Heideggerian-influenced extract seems relevant to this point:
"The fact that any perspective has limitations does not imply that our
perspectives cut us off from reality. Just because we always understand
reality from some perspective does *not* imply that what we understand
is, really, our own perspective and not reality. On the contrary, we
understand *from* a perspective but what we understand is still
reality."
This argument puts a nail in the coffin of relativism (to which the
'hocus pocus' view belongs), but also reigns in the pure objectivity of
the 'God's truth' position, which Don also expressed in his message on
anthropology (Indeed, the distinction 'God's truth' vs 'hocus pocus'
probably originated from anthropology, and linguistis simply borrowed
it).
The above quotation, by the way, is from:
Brice Wachterhauser ?Introduction: History and Language in
Understanding?. In _Hermeneutics and Modern Philosophy_ Brice R.
Wachterhauser (ed.). New York: State University of New York Press: p.
26.
Also, in response to Don's question about seeing and reading film: when
I write about 'reading a film', I'm referring to the activity of
analyzing it shot by shot.
Warren Buckland
Editor, New Review of Film and Television Studies:
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/17400309.asp
*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**
|