It should go without mention that no two individuals
see the world or interpret it in exactly the same way. The lenses whereby we
interpret the world around us have been molded by our own subjective
experiences throughout our lives. Heck, even the same object can mean one thing
to one person, and mean a completely different thing to another.
But, can this gap between interpretations can be
bridged, and can we at least agree on some
things? Well unfortunately it is not clear that agreement entails identical
interpretation. Let’s take an example—an example I’ve utilized before—to
illuminate this fact. I know more about my father than most people do, because
we both spent the last years of his life together, just him and I. Now, this
means that if some other gentlemen who knew my father said “John was funny,”
and I agreed, then it seems obvious that we both agree on the fact that humor
can be predicated of my father. Now, here it seems that our judgments are
identical because we are both predicating the same thing (humor) of the same
subject (my father). However, it’s actually in the subject (my father) where we find subjectivity rearing its head. For even though the gentleman and I both have the same symbol as our subject, our interpretation of this symbol goes much farther than the simple concept we have just predicated of him and have agreed upon. Why? Because a subject, in order to be recognized by one, must already have other predications of it. To shift to another example, if I say “the pencil is sharp” I am utilizing the pencil as the subject in my proposition. But, in order to recognize the concept of “pencil” I have to already understand other things about it—namely, that it is yellow, has an eraser, is capable of writing etc.
This is why our interpretations of a symbol or
concept can differ even though we have made the same judgment or predications
of it, because the subjects of our predications already carry so much extra
baggage with them. To return to my first example, even though the gentlemen and
I can agree that John was funny, I will still have a different (and more
intimate) interpretation of what the symbol “John” means than the other man.
This illumination into the subject of interpretation
has significant consequences for how we communicate and understand. It means
that subjectivity is present and pervasive even where the most objective of
statements is made. It means that two people can never have identical interpretations about a subject even
though identical judgments can be
made about it. And it means that we should be quick to listen and slow to make
assumptions regarding a concept or subject that one is expounding, because
chances are our interpretation is very different than theirs.
No comments:
Post a Comment