7
   

Does theory extract or create meaning?

 
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 12:48 pm
@The Pentacle Queen,
I've held back on this one because I'm in the midst of Rorty's attack on "knowledge" as "an image of reality". From that point of view, theory/interpretation creates "meaning" because it offers a new or modified "language game" in the Wittgensteinan sense. What is actually going on is primarily social discourse, with the focal object (work of art/music) being a secondary issue, in the sense that its very existence could be thought of as a domain of discourse, rather than a thing-in-itself. Those who would argue against this may be missing the point that we are talking about the reporting of perceptual events rather than an independent object per se. Since the fluctuating observer state is an integral part of such an event, there is a sense in which "an object" is never the same twice! Certainly that is the case when viewed through different theoretical paradigms.
NAACP
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 01:56 pm
Individuals create meaning.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 03:22 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

I've held back on this one because I'm in the midst of Rorty's attack on "knowledge" as "an image of reality". From that point of view, theory/interpretation creates "meaning" because it offers a new or modified "language game" in the Wittgensteinan sense. What is actually going on is primarily social discourse, with the focal object (work of art/music) being a secondary issue, in the sense that its very existence could be thought of as a domain of discourse, rather than a thing-in-itself. Those who would argue against this may be missing the point that we are talking about the reporting of perceptual events rather than an independent object per se. Since the fluctuating observer state is an integral part of such an event, there is a sense in which "an object" is never the same twice! Certainly that is the case when viewed through different theoretical paradigms.


So now you have read Rorty do you think that we do not know that germs cause disease and its spread?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 04:01 pm
@kennethamy,
The commonly held concept of "germs" works with respect to the prediction and control of the commonly held concept of some "disease". Prediction and retrodiction are epistemologically equivalent since they are statements about the "not now". Confidence in the utterance of such statements is what constitutes "knowledge".
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 06:29 pm
The Pentacle Queen wrote:
Does theory extract or create meaning?

Both. At least this is true in the natural sciences, where theories and observations interact through a feedback loop:
  • Theories are models, usually framed in mathematical or at least logical terms, which theorists create to make sense of the observations we've already made. Theories also predict new observations, and have to be refutable in the sense that observations can prove them wrong.

  • Observations destroy some theories but not others, depending on the theories' capability to predict those observations. The surviving theories are held to be tentatively true.
In the natural sciences, then, every valid theory is a creation. But the reverse is not true: Not every creation theorists might conjure up is a valid theory. And in your nomenclature, you might say that the creations that fail to become valid theories fail because they didn't extract the true meaning from the phenomena to which they applied.

Alas, I'm not sure how any of this applies to your field, musical studies. I'm afraid I'm pretty cynical about it. Theories arise as a kind of filing system to organize the musicologist's rolodexes. But they are rarely framed in terms that make them refutable. For example, what conceivable facts might refute that Beethoven was the last classic, and Schubert and Mendelssohn were the first romantics? And because there is so little feedback from new observations, musical theories never advance beyond the stage of glorified filing systems. But that's just my personal and cynical opinion.
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 06:32 pm
@NAACP,
NAACP wrote:

Individuals create meaning.


they can , and should

but its their own Humanity that should be able to create meaning , fundamentally

the anthropology of our Human Being existence

north
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 06:45 pm
there is nothing and I mean nothing that should have more meaning to US Humans , then ourselves , which is beyond religion
0 Replies
 
NAACP
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2010 07:00 am
@north,
They do, or they don't. "Should" Really......? Where does it say we SHOULD? Meaning is an idea......a notion if you will. Life, the world has no meaning, YOU bring the meaning to it.
north
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Nov, 2010 01:08 pm
@NAACP,
NAACP wrote:

They do, or they don't. "Should" Really......? Where does it say we SHOULD? Meaning is an idea......a notion if you will. Life, the world has no meaning, YOU bring the meaning to it.


as I said sure the individual brings in meaning but the bottom line meaning should be your very being , Human Being , it is why we are here , exist in the first
0 Replies
 
Huxley
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Nov, 2010 02:28 pm
@kennethamy,
Quote:
So now you have read Rorty do you think that we do not know that germs cause disease and its spread?


We do know that germs cause disease. I don't think they cause it's spread, though. Spread is caused by a mechanism of transmission, like coughing.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/22/2019 at 08:01:58