Faux Pas

I did not want to commit the impropriety of writing two posts in a row, but I want to use a recently-occurring anecdote to launch a discussion of Nietzsche's perspectivism.

I recently started the Carpinteria Coastal View Book club in conjunction with the Santa Barbara Public Library system. Basically, the club is open to the community and is a discussion of contemporary fiction.

Last month we read "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy (I highly recommend it) and about three-quarters of the way through the discussion, I observed a very interesting turn in the conversation. I felt that it was about time to start talking about the ending of the book (which I will not ruin) and I suggested that McCarthy had a spiritual message--whether or not it was a specifically religious message is another question. The entire group, made up of about 25 assorted people from the community, positively balked at that suggestion. They said there was no way. I told them that critics, including from The New York Times and The Washington Post, had been univocal in their belief that McCarthy was saying something spiritual. The librarian (and book club member) replied: "Well, they have an agenda then. After all, we basically live in a theocracy." I suggested that academic orthodoxy is decidedly anti-religious, and to claim that the NYT had a religious agenda would be crazy. They wouldn't have it. It was as if they could care less what McCarthy was actually saying; they were more concerned with what they wanted him to be saying.

Tonight we discussed the book "Water for Elephants" by Sara Gruen (which I do not recommend), and at one point I told the group that Gruen had stated in an interview that the book was loosely based off of the Biblical story of Jacob. To which the librarian replied: "Oh, that is a stretch." When I reiterated that these were the words of the actual author, not my or any other critic's interpretation, she maintained her position. I have interacted with this librarian and I tell you she is no dolt.

You may not be able to judge a book by its cover, but you can judge a person by how they talk about that book! Of course, I mean 'judge' in the non-'judgmental' sense--i.e. to understand the essence of.

Nietzsche contended that all interpretation is just that--interpretation. In other words, there is no objectively correct interpretation. However, you could see how my experience with the book club offers an exasperating implication of embracing that view, for we want to say that some people are just wrong! Is this true?

I am reminded of a book I recently read by John Searle (a professor Sean should be sure to take a class from) called "The Construction of Social Reality." In this book Searle describes social facts (e.g. money, marriages...and I might also add literary interpretation) as ontologically subjective but epistemically objective. What he means by this is that social facts like money and marriages depend on subjects for their existence, but because those subjects determine the definition of those social facts' existence, their meaning is objective--it is pinpointed precisely where the collective says it is. It may change across time, but if academia (or whoever the relevant authority is; maybe it is just the conglomeration of interpretations) says we interpret it X way, well then dang it, we interpret it X way.

I find Searle's position compelling. Is it consistent with Nietzsche's position?