“If there were no facts but only interpretations,then an interpretation would be an interpretation of what?”

By Umberto Eco, from his book “Inventing the Enemy” 

This is an interesting objection against constructivism (or Nietzsche), which claims that there is no such thing as truth or facts, but only interpretations.

In my past blog post, I used the word “agreement” saying that what we think is true might not be really true, rather, it’s what we all “agree” to consider it true.

This idea is, some way, close to constructivist idea in that they both assume there is no absolute truth/facts.

So, suppose you are a constructivist, how can you answer the objection of “interpretation of what” ?

One idea is to say that it doesn’t have to be true or facts to be interpreted. Fictional stories are, of course, not “facts” but we can give a whole range of interpretation to them. (You recall the conversations with your friends after watching Harry Potter, right?)

I am not at all a philosopher, but I do enjoy thinking philosophical problems. Giving deeper thoughts on what we think is normal leads us into the mysterious world of uncertainty, which is thrilling to explore, whether you think “truth” exists or not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s