1946.On My Account

SCANNED PDF

On my account, the process of appropriating constatives, or Inaking thenL one's own, involves not only understanding, or interpreting, theIn, but also validating their claiIns to validity-above all, their claim to be true. But I've also allowed that appropriating constatives in this way Inay be nLore or less critical depending on whether the criteria of judgIlLent are consuetudinary criteria only or also, and finally, the ultiIlLate criteria of experience and reason, as these may require to be elnployed in the context of nLeaning in question. mutatis mutandis, to validating the clairn of constatives to be appropriate as well as true or credible. Thus certain cOllstatives IlLaking up Christian witness Inay be judged appropriate because they are in substantial agreement with scripture and tradition. But a Inore critical judglnent, employing the ultimate criteria of appropriatenessanalogous to experience and reason as ultimate criteria of credibilitydeinands that they agree with the constitutive witness of the apostles, by which the appropriateness even of scripture and tradition theinselves ulti.mately have to be judged. Similarly, a less critical judginent of the credibility of the same constantives might judge them to be credible because they can claillL the support of this, that, or the other philosophy, whereas a 11lore critical judgnLent would require appealing beyond all philosophies to experience and reason themselves. I appropriate HaberIlLas' analysis, according to which (in McCarthy'words), "the obligations iininanent to speech acts can be met at two levels: immediately in the context of interaction-through recourse to experiential certainty.. ,-or mediately, in ... theoretical discourse."

This all applies, however,

Distinguishing thus between more and less critical ways of appropriating constatives is, of course, how

29 January 2008