You wrote:
Literalism, of course, means the *apparent* meaning. It is a form of "naive realism," which, among other things, assumes an exact correspondence between words and reality. Rather than words pointing to certain things, which would be the approach taken by most nominalists, constructionists, postmodernists, and critical realists, naive realists posit that words are isomorphic with reality.
I don't see that taking some sentences literally assumes "an exact correspondence between words and reality" or "that words are isomorphic with reality". Therefore I suppose Literalism does not assume it either.
My argument: Taking sentences literally means not taking them as metaphor, allegory, figurative, reaching for a meaning beyond words, and such like. My wife tells me "It is 7 am" and if I take it literally I think she is telling me what time it is, ie, that it is 7 am. I might, however, take it non literally, as saying, say, that we two happy beings live in the morning of the world.
I suppose Literalism is the view, with regard to some class of words, say those in the Bible, that we read them literally, and that if taken literally they are true. But this is not to be committed to the views that (a) there is an exact correspondence between words and reality; or (b) that words are isomorphic with reality. IF it is, then I am committed to (a) and (b), and I suppose most everyone is, because I do take a class words as having literal meaning. I wouldn't know how to define this class exactly, but it is most everyday serious sentences I hear and read. For example, my wife saying in the morning "It is 7 am", and the sentence in the newspaper: "No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq". But (in my view) me taking this class of sentences literally does not commits me to (a) and (b). Further, I don't see why the commitments of the literalist with regard to the Bible are any different.
So, Mark, what is wrong with my argument?
Now allow me to argue against myself. This thought has come to me. Take a couple of "unusual" sentences: "In the beginning was the Word" (John's gospel), "Time takes a cigarette, puts it in your mouth" (David Bowie). You ask a Literalist (with regard to these two sentences): What do they mean? She answers in a certain way, without recourse to metaphor etc, like this: "Well, the universe began at some point in time, that was the beginning, and there at the beginning was the Word. And time got hold of a cigarette and put it in someone's mouth, whoever the 'your' refers to." Now you object, "That doesn't help because I still don't see what the sentences mean. How can time do anything like put a cigarette in a mouth? I don't understand. Moreover, I don't think you do either." The literalist admits she doesn't really see it either. But, she goes on, "There is an exact correspondence between words and reality and words are isomorphic with reality (that correspondence and isomorphism was what my explanation of their meaning was trying to convey), so even though neither you nor I can quite see what these sentences mean, these sentences have a literal meaning. The fault lies not with these words and their relations to reality - exactly corresponding to, isomorphic with - but with our poor brains."
Now, I don't buy what my Literalist just said. The main reason is that I don't think she can use (a) and (b) to improve my understanding of these two sentences. But it does seem that someone who wanted to secure the literalness of a class of sentences could try to secure it by (a) and (b). And with some sentences (a) or (b) might be the best, perhaps only, way to secure the existence of their literal meaning. So while I don't think taking some sentences literally implies or assumes (a) and (b), it may be either that some Literalists do accept (a) and (b) just in order to always have literal meanings; or that imputing (a) and (b) to them is the best way of making sense of them taking some kinds of sentences literally. In that case you might say, as you did Mark did, that they assume (a) and (b). But I am not sure that was what you meant.
Regards
William
---------- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
