One of the three exam questions of the 2013 Bac Philo in ES was on the question: Do we interpret if we don’t know?
Correction of this subject which crosses the themes of knowledge and truth.
Analysis of the question (do we interpret if we do not know?)
—To interpret: To explain, to try to make comprehensible what is dense, complicated, ambiguous
dense, complicated, ambiguous. But also: To attribute a distorted meaning or erroneous
-in default: in the sense “Since one cannot, then at least”
—Know: To have present in the mind the more or less precise or complete idea of an abstract or concrete object, existing or not. Or distinguish,
to make the difference between.
These two notions, to interpret and to know, are, of course, to be defined throughout the question, and must be questioned and challenged.
The turn of phrase “does one interpret”, calls for a dialectical plan.
Corrected question that pinpoints the problem (does one interpret without knowing
?)
The link is original: in default. This default is to be nuanced, and will probably be the solution of the paradox that is posed here: as we cannot know (this is presupposed in the question), we can only interpret content to interpret. The question here concerns truth, and questions is it possible to know? Is any certainty possible, can we know truthfully? Are we condemned to do only interpret?
→ Corrected topics: Does this work allow us to become aware of ourselves?
Corrected outline (do we interpret if we do not know?)
I. There seems to be no certain truth, and we have only illusions, which is why we are condemned to interpret only.
II. However, to interpret is already to pose the interpretation as an object of
knowledge, and one could then know
III. it is allowed to know thanks to the interpretation, and the knowledge can be revealed on condition that knowledge helps to clarify the
interpretations
→ All the other correction and topics for the 2013 French baccalaureate
→ What do we owe to the state? Correction to the 2013 baccalauréat ES file
→ Correction to the text commentary on Anselm
we can interpret because scientific, philosophical and historical truths are not set up as dogmas. however an interpretation becomes for its success of the moment a truth.
I put 1) we can interpret the real thanks to knowledge 2) we can interpret the unreal without knowledge and therefore through the imaginary, a little hs?
ES: Do we interpret without knowing? I put that in I) That the man of nature, interprets the thing, in II) That it was better to work on knowledge than approximation and in III) That finally, the bases of humanity where we we find was a mixture of approximation and knowledge. Of course, my assignment is filled with thesis according to my writing but am I not slipping a little off the question?