CC BY
44
Interpretation, truth and translation
Section 13. Philosophy
Lyashov Viacheslav Vasilievitch, Southern Federal University, Assistant Professor, Institute of Philosophy and Social-Political Sciences E-mail: saddydg@ mail.ru
Interpretation, truth and translation
Abstract: This paper purpose is to consider the relationship between understanding, interpretation and semantic truth, and to introduce the problem of semantic truth as a problem of translation. Acceptance of such treatment results in some epistemological conclusions.
Keywords: understanding, interpretation, meaning, senses, fact, truth, truth-value, translation.
One of the modern philosophy characteristic features reflecting real processes taking place in modern socio-cultural universe is a so called “linguistic turn” in the process of thinking and consciousness study. In this case the language is interpreted as something more “objectal” (structuralism), “real” (phenomenology, hermeneutics), “pragmatical” (analytical philosophy, pragmatic approach) than consciousness. However language is not so much consciousness antagonist as demonstration and support of thinking process and consciousness since consciousness is an cognizer capability to reproduce and translate the activity with subjects into to activity in sign information system as well as to translate sign language into activity in the world. Language is the greatest achievement of human being. Thanks to language the human being became the one what he is now since language is an irremovable intermediary between human being and world and it contains senses and algorithms of human life activity. Via language, the person joins to culture learning how to desobjectify its world. But for this purpose one should understand this language.
Traditional view to understanding lies therein that one subject can objectify his thoughts in term, sentence, text (written or pronounced), acts or in a certain object. And another one can desobjectify, make the ideal that was laid in sign foundations by the first cognizer of his own “Ego” and moreover to make it adequate. It is in the adequacy of ideal transfer and its criteria lie the problem of understanding in traditional hermeneutics. Another approach to understanding is connected with the concept of interpretation: interpretation is a
brainwork which involves the sense interpretation being an evident meaning; in meanings levels revelation included in literal meaning; . interpretation takes place there where there is a multisyllabic meaning, namely many meanings are found in interpretation” [1,18]. Therefore, contrary to traditional hermeneutic with interpretive approach “reconstruction” of conception gives place to “structure” of meaning. To understand in this case means to assign some meaning. But can it be arbitrary or the process of interpretation formation is felt under some requirements?
In the process of its establishment, the language obtains a certain logic differing from logic of material activity and logic of thinking. But though these logics are not identical there is a close relationship between them, namely genetically the logic of language is based on logic of action being at the same time the reality of thinking. To have a concept about something means to have some information that permits to know the difference between this thing and another ones, that can be possible only at the level of reasoning. Reasoning is a common connection between true judgement or statements. Statements are language sentences interpreted at a certain universum and interpretation is a process of conceptual means operation regarding meanings correlation. Logic of language, in actual fact, is a semantical movement in correlation of senses, meanings, terms as a certain dynamic of language inner form.
Best of all it is shown in modern science that refused from empirical fact conception in which the fact is understood as something “entitative” and just perceived and fixed by the observer. The images about the relation between observation results and interpretations transforming them into “facts” become more complicated. P. Feieraband noted: “Science does not know «naked» facts at all and those «fact» that are included in our cognition are already considered in a certain manner and hence conceptualized significantly” [2, 149].
The same data can be seen in different ways depending on the way of their interpretation and therefore on the base of only one set of “facts” it is possible to construct different discourses. It could not help being reflected on problem of “reality” understanding that became perhaps the central theme of the European philosophy along with consciousness problem. The observable is no longer identified with reality and not interpreted as actually objective part of reality. Moreover according to modern images developed in psychology the reality lies beyond the being observed and therefore more likely inferred than perceived.
Thus, the “reality” appeared to be intimately connected with cognition. Sociological approach to relation of “reality” and “cognition” was clearly stated by P. Berger and T. Lukman,
89
Section 13. Philosophy
that it is sufficient to determine “reality” as a quality common to phenomena, to have entity irrespective of our will and wish ... and “cognition” can be determined as a conviction that phenomena are real and have peculiar characteristics [3, 9].
It turns out that when researcher addresses to the facts, sensations, state of things for determination of propositions substantiation in order to assign it the meaning “true” he does not in principle add anything new, any additional factor, any new essence to the universal already known. Here the possible doubling effect is observed unambiguously. This effect is implemented in that starting from statement meaning or from its truth, we double factors applying difference between proposition and its meaning, between proposition and conditions of its trueness. Equivalently, during philosophical analysis we, having come across the meaningful statement or meaningful and true statement, initially remove its conditions of meaning or truth and then again determine the meaning of statement truth on the basis of these conditions.
But if it is so, one can affirm that conditions of truth establishment are the same as conditions of translation. The language used by cognizer is included in propositions sphere considered to be true relatively to which the researcher actualizes his activity regarding translation. Truth meanings of new statements depend on original sphere of truths. It means that prior to determine or establish the truth of some judgement the cognizer should be already among true propositions. The researcher can not, if I may say so, arrive from outside or, as many philosophers sometimes consider, stand outside of truth, beyond it and over and over again or from time to time reach forth arms toward it. Therefore, it is necessary to admit that initially the cognizer is in the world of truths, i.e in context of true propositions in order to go to another true proposition. And this transition is provided with transfer of one true propositions to another true propositions. Sphere of truth, in which the researcher historically is immersed, creates initially-meaningful variety of propositions, i. e. ensemble of statement and negations considered to be true from which the cognizer moves towards another propositions. The term “context” is important to show the understanding under which conditions it is impossible to develop initially the idea of truth as judgement coincidence with fact, state of affairs or sensual impressions.
In theoretical cognition the cognizer deals with true judgement rather than with things, facts, sensations which can make these judgements true. If something is said about facts then the same only are true propositions as such. And instead of trying to assign truth conditions addressing to facts, sensual images, state of affairs, states there is a real need to recognize impossibility of their contrapositive and comparison with propositions and go to truth interpretation as a process of linguistic translation or interpretation. If it is so than in the result of interpretive activity, there is a possibility to receive as many truths as translations will be done.
Pluralism of probable interpretations requires only correlation with definite basic data, namely noncontradiction of terms sense and meaning with the text being interpreted
and taking into account pragmatic characteristics along with semantic aspect.
Therefore, during research a cognizer should pay main attention not to field of facts, state of affairs or worlds that should substantiate proposition but to diagram, algorithm and environment in which translation and interpretation is carried out. In this case, the researcher deals with some set of propositions subjected to be interpreted or translated based on cognition or conviction of those ones who formulate and hypothesize them — cognitions that nevertheless are expressed exclusively in propositions representing this knowledge. To receive or recognize the truth is the same as to carry out propositions translation on the basis of a definite sense and meaning that are formulated and exist in the language and that define the truth horizon, core, sphere that belong to our life form.
Generally speaking, with such approach, the truth-value assignment is based on conditions when it is necessary to refuse, first of all, from proposition status and factors difference substantiating their trueness, namely, sensory impressions, state of affairs, worlds, and secondly, from the possibilities of their contrapositive and comparison. This idea means that researcher is directly among truths that he has in possession and that he can express but not stays out of knowledge. And everything else is a creation or result of this initial epistemic act. Truth is a process that leads to translation sphere since the propositions already possessing trueness are compared, contraposed, and correlated with other propositions, whose trueness is generated by such comparison.
Conceptual importance of the fact that truth, being evaluated via contrapositive and comparison of true propositions is an admission of the fact that it is impossible to explain the notion of truth, placing themselves as researchers into the moment preceding the act of its establishment. Such strategy of cognition substantiation is hopeless.
Thus, if truth is a task and the translation result, and if true propositions are a part of cognitions context, opinions, convictions into which the cognizer is immersed, and if propositions recognision as true ones is a determinative concept, which assigns intransitive decision, here cannot be recourse to fact, and to state of affairs. It results in disallowing a question of dependence of distinctions between users of different languages from distinctions of their convictions, conceptual schemes or versions of world. When cognizers reasoning and thinking differently begin to interact differently from each other it is useless to recourse to fact, evidence or criterion that could establish whether distinctions between cognizers are in their conceptual schemes or in collection of their convictions. All that takes place due to fact that researcher translates propositions interpreting them in terms of other propositions regardless of criterion correlation facts, state of affairs or sensuous data from which statements could go to conceptual schemes. Cognizer has no opportunity to compare his propositions with propositions of those ones who think distinctly on the basis of non interpreted reality conceptual schemes difference or experience out of cognizers. That’s why, true propositions are always correlative to natural
90
Philosophical understanding of an anthropic cosmological principle — “No Man’s Land between science and theology?”
language which is unstable, and in which the researcher is dipped. Trueness establishment is an operation of translation by means of long-duration mutual adapting, propositions coordination in the process of their combination into complexes with other propositions or negations. Translation is not carried out on the basis of standard or criterion that is focused on non interpreted reality approaching from somewhere outside, or on conditions of the same metempirical approach, or else on truth achievement as some ideal endpoint of step-by-step approaches to cognizer cognition implemented by human cognitiveness. Cognizer, most likely, deals with interpretation performance based on principle of interpretativeness according to which the propositions pretending to expression of new cognition are compared with other propositions being immanent to current cognition. New proposition falling into already existing cognition complexcan rebuilt it by means increasing or decreasing truth set of propositions. Therefore, cognition complex is a certain “pulsing” totality, alternating widening or narrowing.
Thus, the ideas of impossibility of translation or its complete adequacy are two equivalent metaphysical myths caused by presupposition of non-interpreted reality existence that can be modeled by human. The only thing that we can do is to compare translation moving in truth horizon. This view does not lead to idealism of linguistic sense. On the contrary, exactly in linguistic idealism the idea of the world versions and conceptual schemes obstructing movement to this world is clearly seen. Just due to doctrine of conceptual schemes and world versions the cognizer was expelled from the world.
But nevertheless researcher can not avoid ontologic notions and therefore one should remember that ontology have the language character, namely conceptual tools themselves become subjects for study in logical semantics only in the result of definite conceptualization, that is conceptualizations through the prism of special categorical theoretic frame. In this case, particular theorized world is generated in which the conceptual tools under investigation (terms of various forms and categories, propositions, description of states, theories)
and operations carried out with these conceptual tools (reasoning, inferences, definitions, and etc.) become theoretical objects. And they, in themselves, are not already information carriers and become such essences that are subjected to be described and characterized someway.
Thus, the variety of ways of reality cognition is complemented not only with understanding of the fact of the realities variety in which human activities take place but researcher’s place change in relation to reality as well.
Cognition is implemented in people’s perception being in specific historical conditions in defined stage of cognition and practice development using the definite language, categorical apparatus. Truth acts as resultant of two vectors: proceeding from object and proceeding from subject. Since the truth is not an objective reality in empiristic meaning, as it is, regardless from human, namely this reality mastering by human, and relation with it is established in human language, thinking, notions and therefore it initially assumes decoding, interpretation, reality translation to the language easy-to-understand for person. Therefore, trueness relation here means the definite code selection established by people. Cognizer looks at reality from inside through prism of language, cognitions, certain picture of the world entering separate statements in their system. The reality in semantic truth theories examined is neither more nor less than model of the language under consideration consisting of obj ects, their features and relations. Structurally it is defined and depends on the way of cognizers relations setting.
Itself the possibility of cognition and reality relation is supported by reality conception generation that is carried out in the process of language formation and conceptual frame. Exactly in this case the truth becomes cognition that is in proportion and accessible to cognizers-researchers.
Therefore the modern semantic interpretation of truth considering it as feature of cognition under formation, change, connected with context, reflects tendencies of the modern cognitive process, in which proposition is not true by itself but proposition in some horizon of its certain use, definite set in relation to it.
References:
1. Рикер П. Конфликт интерпретаций. Очерки о герменевтике. - М., 1995.
2. Фейерабенд П. Избранные труды по методологии науки. - М.: Прогресс,1986.
3. Бергер П., Лукман Т. Социальное конструирование реальности: Трактат по социологии знания. - М.: Медиум, 1995.
Makuhin Petr Gennadyevich, Omsk State Technical University, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy and Social Communication, Omsk, Russia
E-mail: petr_makuhin@mail.ru
Philosophical understanding of an anthropic cosmological principle — “No Man’s Land between science and theology?”
(on the materials of modern Russian discussions)
Abstract: The article analyzes the circumstance that a considerable number of participants of modern Russian discussions in respect of an anthropic principle interpret it in the manner of theology, which, in turn, leads
91
