• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Helsingin yliopiston digitaalinen arkisto Reconsidering Relativism and Intentionalism in Interpretation: Donald Davidson, Hermeneutics, and Pragmatism Kalle Puolakka Department of Aesthetics University of Helsinki Academic dissertation to be publicly discussed, by due permission of the Faculty of Arts at the University of Helsinki in lecture hall 5, on the 9th of October, 2009 at 12 o’clock Supervised by: Professor Arto Haapala Faculty of Arts University of Helsinki Reviewed by: Professor Jerrold Levinson Department of Philosophy University of Maryland, USA Professor Sami Pihlström Collegium for Advanced Studies University of Helsinki Discussed with: Professor Jerrold Levinson Department of Philosophy University of Maryland, USA ______________________________ © 2009, Kalle Puolakka ISBN 978-952-92-6090-4 (paperback) ISBN 978-952-10-5718-2 (PDF) http://ethesis.helsinki.fi Helsinki University Print Helsinki 2009 2 Acknowledgements Tracking all the comments, suggestions, discussions, and other kinds of factors, which have molded one’s PhD thesis, a work that takes several years to complete, to its final form, is a perplexing undertaking. The first instances to spring to one’s mind are surely those whose value and relevance one immediately realized. Then there are those which did not seem that relevant at first, but which gradually began to gnaw one’s thinking, and which, ultimately, proved in some cases to be even more important than the first kinds of cases. No less valuable are the numerous smaller remarks one receives during the process, which perhaps did not move mountains, but without which the final work would, nevertheless, have been much poorer. And then there are, of course, those comments and suggestions that, in the eyes of many, the writer has just failed to comprehend. Given this crisscrossing web of influences, it is not a surprise if a PhD candidate fails to thank everybody of relevance in the acknowledgements section of his or her thesis. At least in my case, it is, however, not hard to name the most important figures. First, I wish to thank my supervisor Professor Arto Haapala for creating an atmosphere where encouragement and criticism combined in an ideal way. Arto’s insightful comments are too numerous to count, and especially the suggestions he made at the final stages of this process really improved this work as a whole. PhD Hanne Appelqvist brought a breath of Columbia to Helsinki, and on numerous occasions I benefited from her detailed and extensive comments, both technical and philosophical. Hanne made so many red markings on the first papers of mine she read that the people sitting next to us at Marian Helmi must have thought that we were editing the new version of The Communist Manifesto. Without those markings and the many long discussions we had, this work would surely have been much worse. I wish to thank Docent Risto Pitkänen for urging me to quit writing about what others had written before me and to press my own point heavier. Risto has also been an inspiring example of how one can be an analytic philosopher without being the least bit ashamed of it. My pre-examiners, Professor Jerrold Levinson and Professor Sami Pihlström made numerous useful comments to the manuscript of which I am most grateful. Due to the tight schedule I have, unfortunately, been unable to incorporate all of them to the revised version, but they will surely fuel my thinking for years to come. I wish to thank my fellow graduate students for creating a wonderful atmosphere to our department. By name I want to mention Max Ryynänen, Martta Heikkilä, Leena Laiho, Chris Stevens, Janne Vanhanen, Saara Hacklin, Sanna Lehtinen, Petteri Kummala, and Tarja Rannisto. Though our philosophical standpoints might not have always overlapped, that has never diminished the mutual sense of respect and support. But it is not merely the people you 3 see weekly who are important. During this process I have had the privilege of getting to know some wonderful people who have in many ways made scientific life more enjoyable. Thanks to Pauline von Bonsdorff, Lars-Olof Åhlberg, Oiva Kuisma, Simo Säätelä, Stefan Snaevarr, Hans Maes, Cecilia Therman, Ossi Naukkarinen, Kimmo Sarje, Jukka Mikkonen, and Ilona Reiners. Finally, I wish to thank Professor Joseph Margolis for showing interest in my work. On a more personal note I must thank my parents Pentti and Leena. My father’s gentle and calm figure has provided an ideal backing through the many pitfalls which I have met during this process. I wish to thank my mother for initially introducing me to the arts and for showing me how one must never give up, even though life would offer nothing but soured grapes. I wish to thank my brother Tuukka and his family for the good wine, food, and conversations. As souvenirs from England, Tuukka has on numerous occasions brought some nice British expressions, which I have eventually incorporated into my own vocabulary. One of his favorites, “think outside the box,” aptly captures the guiding spirit of this thesis. Finally, I am extremely grateful to my friends who have on numerous occasions provided me the opportunity of forgetting that this PhD work even exists, and for showing me that it is outside of universities, manuscript submissions, peer-review processes, and scientific conferences, where the true value of life lies. This work would not have been possible without the financial support I received from the Finnish Cultural Foundation, the Alfred Kordelin Foundation, the University of Helsinki, and the Department of Aesthetics. I thank these institutions for providing this unique opportunity for me. Final thanks to Mark Shackleton for revising the text of my manuscript into proper English. The cultural significance of translating Homer’s Odyssey into Finnish exceeds that of any possible PhD dissertation. Even with the risk of raising myself to the likes I do not belong, I shall now move on to carry out plans similar to those Pentti Saarikoski, the Finnish translator of Homer’s work, had in mind after having finished his translation, that is, to drink and feast until the divine sunrise. Helsinki 11.9.2009 Kalle Puolakka 4 Note Concerning Earlier Publications I have used material from other publications of mine which have either been published already or are shortly forthcoming. These publications are: “Literature, Ethics, and Richard Rorty’s Pragmatist Theory of Interpretation,” Philosophia. Philosophical Quarterly of Israel, Vol. 36 No. 1, 2008, 29-41. “Davidson and Rorty’s Postmetaphysical Critique of Intentionalism,” Contemporary Aesthetics, Vol. 7 (forthcoming). 5 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3 NOTE CONCERNING EARLIER PUBLICATIONS 5 INTRODUCTION 9 I DOES JOSEPH MARGOLIS’DEFENSE OF RELATIVISM FALL INTO AN IMPASSE? 17 1. OVERCOMING THE SELF-REFUTATION ARGUMENT 20 2. THE ONTOLOGY OF CULTURAL ENTITIES AND RELATIVISM IN INTERPRETATION 22 3. IS THERE REALLY A NEED TO FALL BACK ON A RELATIVISTIC LOGIC?25 4. COULD SUPERVENIENCE,AFTER ALL,WORK?31 5. CONCLUSIONS 39 II FROM HUMPTY DUMPTY TO JAMES JOYCE: DONALD DAVIDSON’S LATE PHILOSOPHY AND THE QUESTION OF INTENTION 40 1. THE PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY AND HOLISM IN DAVIDSON’S LATE PHILOSOPHY 41 MEANING,INTENTION, AND CONVENTIONS 45 FROM CHARITY TO IMAGINATION:RATIONALITY ASSUMPTIONS IN DAVIDSON’S LATE PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE 51 HOLISM OF MIND AND WORLD AND THE PROBLEM OF SKEPTICISM 57 2. OVERCOMING THE INTENTIONALIST DEBATE IN ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY OF ART 61 THE ROLE OF HUMPTY DUMPTY IN ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY OF ART 62 THERE’S A NICE KNOCKDOWN ARGUMENT FOR YOU:DONALD DAVIDSON AND MODEST INTENTIONALISM 64 3. CONCLUSIONS:WHY DAVIDSON?69 III UNDERSTANDING MEANING, EXPERIENCING SIGNIFICANCE: TOWARDS A CRITIQUE OF HANS-GEORG GADAMER’S HERMENEUTICS 72 1. HERMENEUTIC REPLIES TO E.D. HIRSCH’S CRITICISM OF GADAMER’S HERMENEUTICS 76 2. SPIEL,ERFAHRUNG, AND THE CONDITIONS OF UNDERSTANDING 79 3. IS OUR UNDERSTANDING TRULY HISTORICALLY CONDITIONED?83 UNDERSTANDING AND EXPERIENCING THOMAS ADÉS’AMERICA:APROPHECY AFTER 9/11 84 ART,UNDERSTANDING, AND THE MODALITIES OF HISTORY 89 EFFECTIVE HISTORY,TRADITION, AND INTERPRETIVE DISAGREEMENTS 93 4. THE RETURN OF THE QUESTION OF VALIDITY 99 OVERCOMING BIZARRE METAPHORS:DONALD DAVIDSON AND HERMENEUTIC CRITICISMS OF INTENTIONALISM 105 HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE METHOD AND THE HERMENEUTIC CIRCLE 110 HOLISM AND THE CIRCULAR NATURE OF INTERPRETATION 114 5. CONCLUSIONS 117 6 IV RICHARD RORTY’S PRAGMATIST CHALLENGE TO INTENTIONALISM 119 1. THE INNER EYE CRITIQUE OF INTENTIONALISM 121 2. THE POSTMETAPHYSICAL CRITIQUE OF INTENTIONALISM 123 3. RORTY’S THEORY OF INTERPRETATION AND THE PROBLEM OF RELATIVISM 125 4. INTERPRETATION AND IMAGINATION:DOES RORTY’S IRONIST NEED TO BE A BLOOMIAN? 129 THE PLACE OF IMAGINATION IN DAVIDSONIAN INTENTIONALISM 131 THE IMAGINATIVE,AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE, AND INTENTIONALISM 132 THE EXAMPLE:LEITMOTIFS IN THE FIRST ACT OF WAGNER’S THE VALKYRIE 138 THE ROLE OF IMAGINATION IN UNDERSTANDING THE FIRST ACT OF THE VALKYRIE 143 5. THE CONDITIONS OF SOLIDARITY AND THE ETHICS OF INTERPRETATION 147 6. CONCLUSIONS 151 V CONCLUSIONS: HOW TO BE A PLURALIST WITHOUT BEING A RELATIVIST? 153 BIBLIOGRAPHY 162 7 8 ’But look’you might ask, ’why do you care about modules so much? You’ve got tenure; why don’t you take off and go sailing?’… The thing is I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate anything, excepting, maybe, fiberglass powerboats. Jerry Fodor in 1985. Introduction In the history of philosophy, relativism has hardly had any supporters. If anything, relativism has been considered a view that does not even deserve closer attention. This is because relativism has been assumed to run immediately into a problem that it cannot overcome. The objection that relativism has immediately be seen to face is usually referred to as the “self- refutation-argument,” whose earliest formulations can be found in both Plato and Aristotle.

Load more

  170

Copy Link