... for example, George Washington may or may not actually have
cut down a cherry tree ... the story tells us something ... about
America ...
Yes, and so you need to judge evidence. Does the story tell us about
the legend?
This example is still whether the Geo. Washington story is more or
less truthful -- but, as you say, it is not about the `fact' whether
the child cut down a cherry tree. Its truth is about something else.
To call your best action "post-critical naivete" is misleading. You
need to be critical in your judgement. Does the story tell us about
America? When? For whom?
If you define factual as meaning `not legendary or mythical', that is
fine, but that definition has nothing to do with judgement.
Good novels are fiction; and if you judge them, they often tell
truths. But don't think such novels are necessarily accurate in the
same sense of that a history is intended to be accurate.
You may know all this -- but what I heard suggests otherwise. For me,
your talk about "post-critical naivete" sounds foolish. We may be
having communications difficulties.
The issue is whether people are `satisfied with inadequate answers' to
legends and myths as well as to simple facts.
Some old questions can be answered, like `what came first, the chicken
or the egg?'. That is both a legendary question and a question of
simple fact.
I remember the question from when I very young. At that time, the
question stumped me because I did not know about mutations or genetic
material, only that chickens laid eggs and eggs grew into chickens.
Nowadays, it is hard to imagine that anyone could have been stumped --
the child would parrot the adult -- since if you think in terms of
mutations, you figure that the egg came first, laid by a
proto-chicken.
Other old questions cannot be answered well. Thus, one famous
question is `is there life after the end of life?' If you say that
the second meaning of the word `life' is different from the first
meaning of the word, then without any trouble or judgment, you can say
yes, no, or maybe. (I was taught this; I think this is the usual
form, with the phrase `the end of life' shortened to the word
`death'.) On the other hand, if the word's meaning is intended to
remain consistent, then you can only say no.
(By the way, I remember being taught the story of Geo. Washington and
the Cherry Tree in school. But rather than focus on his honesty, I
remember focusing more on his having cut down the tree -- we cut down
and sold Christmas trees, and cutting down the wrong tree was
definitely a mistake. Should the young George Washington have cut
down a different tree?)
--
Robert J. Chassell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
