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

admin2019-09-15  23
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. 【R1】__________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. 【R2】__________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.
   【R3】__________
   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. 【R4】__________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. 【R5】__________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.
【R3】
选项
答案E
解析 E首先指出我们需要诠释者来解读这些艰深的思想，these difficult thoughts指代空格前提到的packing their work with…distinctions，其中unpacked又对应packing。之后，E又提到诠释者的天赋不及原作者(less gifted than the original authors)，刚好对应空格前说到的great philosophers…rest of us。而E提到的读者对文本的解读不一样(they might differ on the correct reading)，则对应空格后提到的Such a failure of communication(作者表达的确切的思想引起了读者多种诠释，导致交流失败)。最后，空格后提到的“老到的作家不应让诠释者来修补自己文本中的漏洞”(Skilled writers．．．their texts)也跟E末尾处“原作者为什么不对自己的思想自行解释这个问题”这个反问表达的意思一致。故本题选E。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/bA2Z777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)