Fides et Ratio

Faith Seeking Understanding

Name:
Location: Texas

I am a 21 year old student at Dallas Baptist University majoring in Philosophy.

Sunday, February 13, 2005

Hermeneutics

I have been silent on here for over a month on purpose (which some of you know; others may not). I do not intend to stay that way anymore, though :). I hope to post every other day as I had been doing. Here is soemthing I wrote on a forum that were some thoughts I was having:

I think we should steer clear of saying taht anything is "clear". This is a fairly naive Epistemology (I say this, b/c my primary field of study is in Philosophical Theology). This is more of a Modernist (read Foundationalist or Correspondance/Coherentist theory of truth), and has been thoroughly Deconstructed by Postmodernism. We all come to the text with Presuppositions, so just because the text is "clear" to you doesn't mean it is to me. This is because there is no neutrality (I am following the trajectories of particular Dutch Reformed thinkers, i.e. Abraham Kuyper, Herman Dooyeweerd and Cornelius van Til). This is why that I am confessional and argue vehemently against "private judgment". Only in side the context of the koinwnia are we able to interpret scripture (this is not exactly but similar to Stanley Hauweras' argument in Unleashing Scripture, although Hauerwas uses Stanley Fish to say that the text means NOTHING until interpreted by the community of faith, with which I vehemently disagree with).

There is no such thing as a presuppositionless "interpretation". As Derrida put it, "there is nothing outside the text" This has been interpreted in many ways, but I take it to mean that there is nothing outside of our particular perview. We cannot escape our presuppositions, and this is what Derrida is saying. All of life is a "text" and all of life is "interpretation". We personally cannot come to the meaning of the text without the particular community of faith. This is a twist on a Wittgensteinian view of language.

Thus, the community of faith can only come to meaning in so far as it participates in God (building off of the chief theme of Radical Orthodoxy, where my name comes from, that something only *is* insofar as it participates in the God, which guards against any sort of autonomy). How do we participate in God? I would argue for three ways in which we participate in God: through divine liturgy and the aesthetics thereof, through the eucharist, and through baptism. Hence, all of our knowledge and interpretation is predicated through the community of faith by participating in the divine.

These were just some thoughts that I was having.

1 Comments:

Blogger adam said...

Hey David, sent you an email a while back, don't know if you got it or not, but my name is Adam Naranjo, and I'm lookng foward to reading your blog on a regular basis. Anything discussing radical orthodoxy, and phil. of rel. Anyhow, I linked you from my blog - http://www.theologylog.com - and will be directing folks to your posts, so keep it up. Adam

10:10 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home