“Well, that’s your interpretation…”

A few months ago in my post misINTERPRETation I refered to differing translation methods and how one may aim for literal translation while another seeks to identify the ‘intended’ message. Futhermore when addressing text translation within differing languages there are methods known as functional equivalency and literal equivalency. The functional equivalency draws out of the text a meaning and translates the essence of what was communicated. The literal equivalency inserts the text into the receptor language with, as much as possible, the intent of literal presentation.

These concepts are understood in light of how some approach the Constitution of the United States. There are those who feel the Constitution is a ‘living’ document subject to a contemporary interpretation of the people in which it governs. They declare the original fathers of the Constitution always intended for it to have ‘flexibility’ for timely application. This idea is driven by the notion an evolving people experience things such as cultural and social shifts therefore the Constitution should accommodate that shifting.

Countering this idea regarding the Constitution is Textualism which emphasizes the need for it to be accepted and applied through its original identity. An approach of Originalism, with even its divergent paths but common destination, leads the people to governance found in, defined by, and applied through the original text.

This Pandora’s Box of thought and discussion is akin to what fills my mind every time I hear someone argue against something with “Well that’s your interpretation”. To some that sounds like a great rebuttal but I have never seen its value. Facts and proof by empirical data aside some choose to refute a thing using a form of reasoning that does not add up. Disagree if you want, but do not veil your disagreement with logical fallacy.

With regard to ‘moral relativism’, I recently read an insightful critique by scholar Jason Dulle called Responding to the “change and diversity” argument against moral objectivism. I want to share it with you and with Mr. Dulle’s permission, I have included a link to it.  I also encourage you to visit his blog Theo-Sophical Ruminations.

Copyright © 2012 J.M. Cortés


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s