2. 考研
  3. Great philosophy is not always easy. Some philosophers—Kant, Hegel, Heidegger—write in a way that seems almost perversely obscur

Great philosophy is not always easy. Some philosophers—Kant, Hegel, Heidegger—write in a way that seems almost perversely obscur

admin2023-02-22  31
问题     Great philosophy is not always easy. Some philosophers—Kant, Hegel, Heidegger—write in a way that seems almost perversely obscure. Others—Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein—adopt an aphoristic style. Modern analytic philosophers can present their arguments in a compressed form that places heavy demands on the reader. Hence, there is ample scope for philosophers to interpret the work of their predecessors. One might get the impression that obscurity is a virtue in philosophy, a mark of a certain kind of greatness—but I’m skeptical.
    To some degree, all texts need interpretation. Working out what people mean isn’t simply a matter of decoding their words, but speculating about their mental states. The same words could express quite different thoughts, and the reader has to decide between the interpretations.【B16】________________________Why should philosophy need more interpretation than other texts?
    Academics assume an advanced knowledge of their field, as well as familiarity with conceptual nuances, contemporary references, cultural norms. All this background needs filling in for those outside the tradition. When dealing with work from another time or culture, different scholars might produce different interpretations of the original.【B17】______________________This doesn’t explain the special difficulties presented by some philosophical texts.
    Maybe these difficulties exist because great philosophers operate at a higher intellectual level than the rest of us, packing their work with profound insights, complex ideas and subtle distinctions.【B18】__________
    Such a failure of communication is a defect rather than a virtue. Skilled writers shouldn’t need interpreters to patch up holes in their texts.
    Another explanation focuses on the nature of philosophical enquiry.【B19】_______Consequently, great works of philosophy naturally generate different interpretations. But is that because readers engage with the problem being discussed and explore their own ideas about it? Or because they engage with the problem of what the author meant and try to come up with hypotheses? Only the former is the mark of good philosophy. A work can be tentative, exploratory and suggestive without being hard to understand.
    Perhaps obscure texts are more open to reinterpretation. Philosophy, some argue, does not progress
    as science does.【B20】______________By contrast, unambiguous texts can soon seem sterile and dated.
    If one is grappling with the same problem as an earlier writer, it might be useful to study his work, but devotion to reinterpretation betrays a misplaced focus on philosophers rather than philosophical problems. It is not easy to write clearly, especially on philosophical topics. Clear writers stand naked before their critics, with all their argumentative blemishes visible; but they are braver, more honest and more respectful of the true aims of intellectual enquiry.
    [A]   But this openness to interpretation is merely an accident of distance. The text could have been quite clear to its original readers, and with sufficient knowledge we might settle on a definitive reading.
    [B]   But it doesn’t follow that all texts are equally hard to interpret. Some interpretations might be more psychologically plausible than others, and a writer can narrow the range of possible interpretations.
    [C]  It’s prudent to be very suspicious of such texts; they must earn their status as serious works through a long history of intellectual fertility.
    [D]  Philosophical problems aren’t solved but continually re-explored in new contexts, and each generation returns to great works of the past and reinterprets them for its own time. So texts that are obscure are more likely to become classics, since they naturally lend themselves to reinterpretation.
    [E]   We might need these difficult thoughts unpacked by interpreters and, since these are usually less gifted than the original authors, they might differ on the correct reading. But then, if a clear interpretation of the ideas can be provided, why didn’t the original authors do it themselves?
    [F]  Philosophers do not simply marshal facts: they engage reflectively with a problem, raising questions, teasing out connections, investigating ideas. Readers can respond with their own questions, connections and ideas.
    [G]  Some great philosophers might write obscurely because it creates an aura of profundity and mystery. This invites interpretation and scholarly attention: special effort is required to engage with the work, helping to create a cult following among scholars.
【B17】
选项
答案A
解析 空格前解释哲学文本为何有多种诠释。空格后指出，这并不能解释为什么有些哲学文本就格外难懂，其中This指代空格前的解释，也就是说，空格前的内容其实并不是“哲学文本特别难懂”的原因。因此，空格处应与空格前的解释相关，但又有一定对立关系，从而才能合理过渡到空格后的结论，亦即空格处应该会给出否定的缘由。A便解释了否定的原因：这种诠释的开放性仅仅是因距离而产生的偶有情况(this openness to…accident of distance)；而距离的体现就是空格前提到的“文本的诠释者所处的时代不同、文化背景不同”。A提到与文本诞生在同一个时代的母语读者，对该文本的理解应该不成问题，亦即哲学对当时的读者理应不难懂，可见空格前给出的原因并不能解释哲学为何如此难懂，这与空格后的内容相符。故最终确定A为答案。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/lR1iFFFM
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)