3 ms·

> "Reading meaning into a text" is pretty much the definition of redefinition. What changes about the definition of "impressive" if I think someone uses that w

> "Reading meaning into a text" is pretty much the definition of redefinition. What changes about the definition of "impressive" if I think someone uses that word to refer exclusively to rich people?

TeMPOraL 7y ago
The definition of "impressive" does not change, it's you who believes the author didn't use the correct word, based on reasons that have nothing to do with the article. Since neither one of us can read the author's mind, it's not a productive avenue of discussion. A text should always be taken at face value. Otherwise, we'll be no longer discussing the text, but each other's imagination.
- tomlockwood 7y ago
  > The definition of "impressive" does not change, Ok so for redefinition to happen, a definition needs to change. > it's you who believes the author didn't use the correct word, based on reasons that have nothing to do with the article. > > Since neither one of us can read the author's mind, it's not a productive avenue of discussion. A text should always be taken at face value. Otherwise, we'll be no longer discussing the text, but each other's imagination. I'm confused now because you seem to be saying I think the author didn't use the correct word - but I never said that in my text, so you haven't taken my text at face value.
- CPLX 7y ago
  Yes let’s always take texts at face value, regardless of context. There’s no reason to point out that your relative who says everyone in his life is conspiring against him is addicted to meth. There is no reason to notice when an essay opposing increased mall security was written by someone who’s been convicted of shoplifting dozens of times. And we must never point out that a person advocating for the political status quo, and against shaking up the established order, has accumulated billions of dollars in private wealth.
  - edmundsauto 7y ago
    In those situations, it's appropriate to point out potential biases or agenda from the author, but it is not appropriate to reinterpret their words based on a mental model one has of the author. That model is likely to be flawed and incomplete, but even worse, it makes the text subjective. Two people, reading the same text, won't agree what it said. That prevents honest discussion.
    - tomlockwood 7y ago
      There's no such thing as an objective reading of a text. All readings are subjective. All models are incomplete - that's why they're models.

> "Reading meaning into a text" is pretty much the definition of redefinition. What changes about the definition of "impressive" if I think someone uses that word to refer exclusively to rich people?

TeMPOraL 7y ago

The definition of "impressive" does not change, it's you who believes the author didn't use the correct word, based on reasons that have nothing to do with the article. Since neither one of us can read the author's mind, it's not a productive avenue of discussion. A text should always be taken at face value. Otherwise, we'll be no longer discussing the text, but each other's imagination.

tomlockwood 7y ago
> The definition of "impressive" does not change, Ok so for redefinition to happen, a definition needs to change. > it's you who believes the author didn't use the correct word, based on reasons that have nothing to do with the article. > > Since neither one of us can read the author's mind, it's not a productive avenue of discussion. A text should always be taken at face value. Otherwise, we'll be no longer discussing the text, but each other's imagination. I'm confused now because you seem to be saying I think the author didn't use the correct word - but I never said that in my text, so you haven't taken my text at face value.
CPLX 7y ago
Yes let’s always take texts at face value, regardless of context. There’s no reason to point out that your relative who says everyone in his life is conspiring against him is addicted to meth. There is no reason to notice when an essay opposing increased mall security was written by someone who’s been convicted of shoplifting dozens of times. And we must never point out that a person advocating for the political status quo, and against shaking up the established order, has accumulated billions of dollars in private wealth.
- edmundsauto 7y ago
  In those situations, it's appropriate to point out potential biases or agenda from the author, but it is not appropriate to reinterpret their words based on a mental model one has of the author. That model is likely to be flawed and incomplete, but even worse, it makes the text subjective. Two people, reading the same text, won't agree what it said. That prevents honest discussion.
  - tomlockwood 7y ago
    There's no such thing as an objective reading of a text. All readings are subjective. All models are incomplete - that's why they're models.