Comments on: Censorship….. the Movie! http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2009/02/19/censorship-the-movie/ Blogging on Philosophy and Politics Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:09:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: El Sordo http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2009/02/19/censorship-the-movie/comment-page-1/#comment-679 El Sordo Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:19:22 +0000 http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/?p=559#comment-679 An excellent and timeley post that follows much my own thinking. a) The Quran is a text and texts are (whatever textual authorities state) open to debate and interpretation. Meaning is (nor should) be ever fixed (even if this destabilises or undermines the purported objectivity that is claimed or the objective tense in which the text is written) b) Free speech/freedom of conscience is in theory open ended and should include an open ended intepretation of what is permissible (i.e. everything). The debate (amidst much irony in other sections i.e. philosophy of religion and philosophy of science) is whether freedom of speech/conscience comes with a duty towards the search for "truth". My cop out - but genuine observation (amidst cries of relativism) is can we adequately define "Truth" in a manner that is acceptable by all? If an authoritarian approach to language/meaning/philosophical concepts is adopted then the "Truth" will not be recognisable by all (if not many/ if not most). An excellent and timeley post that follows much my own thinking.
a) The Quran is a text and texts are (whatever textual authorities state) open to debate and interpretation. Meaning is (nor should) be ever fixed (even if this destabilises or undermines the purported objectivity that is claimed or the objective tense in which the text is written)
b) Free speech/freedom of conscience is in theory open ended and should include an open ended intepretation of what is permissible (i.e. everything).

The debate (amidst much irony in other sections i.e. philosophy of religion and philosophy of science) is whether freedom of speech/conscience comes with a duty towards the search for “truth”.

My cop out – but genuine observation (amidst cries of relativism) is can we adequately define “Truth” in a manner that is acceptable by all?

If an authoritarian approach to language/meaning/philosophical concepts is adopted then the “Truth” will not be recognisable by all (if not many/ if not most).

]]>