Posted: Jul 25, 2013 5:24 am
RealityRules wrote:spin wrote:RealityRules wrote:.
Assessing a text involves assessing the content in context - one is constantly thinking, referencing, & re-thinking & re-referencing.
It is an ongoing process, [eventually] taking on board other's ideas.
Do you agree that in order to do this, first you must read what the text appears to say?
Of course you must read the text, but trying to determine what it "appears to say" might invite or invoke reification (concretism) - a fallacy.
Without reading what the text appears to say, you haven't touched the text.
RealityRules wrote:Determining it's meaning and position (perhaps relative to other text or ideas) is another thing.
Which cannot be done without engaging with what the text puts before you, ie reading it as literally as possible. That allows you to decide what text type it purports to be and whether its words purport to be matter of fact, florid, metaphorical, allegorical, mystical. I agree that a dealing with a text, especially one distant from our cultural context, requires a lot of work. The first step however should be a literal reading, otherwise you can't do much work at all.