Comments on: Perfectly Not Wrong http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2012/01/perfectly-not-wrong/ A First Things Blog Tue, 06 Nov 2012 13:35:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Tom Gilson http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2012/01/perfectly-not-wrong/#comment-20688 Tom Gilson Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:10:28 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=12076#comment-20688 Good question, pentamom. I think you've said what I was trying to say about not-wrongness. It's possible to be not-wrong in this sense and yet be very far from right. Good question, pentamom. I think you’ve said what I was trying to say about not-wrongness. It’s possible to be not-wrong in this sense and yet be very far from right.

]]> By: pentamom http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2012/01/perfectly-not-wrong/#comment-20687 pentamom Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:30:13 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=12076#comment-20687 And BTW, I also take your point about how the parallel "translation" is not a bad thing if it helps you understand word meanings in the original, as long as you have the original there. And BTW, I also take your point about how the parallel “translation” is not a bad thing if it helps you understand word meanings in the original, as long as you have the original there.

]]> By: pentamom http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2012/01/perfectly-not-wrong/#comment-20686 pentamom Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:43:07 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=12076#comment-20686 I wonder -- is it really "not wrong" to denude something of the spirit of the original by flattening it too much? Is something really still "accurate" if all the words are right, but it doesn't convey the same thing anymore? Maybe there's more to rightness (or even not-wrongness) than a mathematical correspondence between word meanings? I realize that's sort of what you're saying, but I wonder if you aren't giving away too much even in conceding that such a minimalist view of "not-wrongness" is not wrong? I wonder — is it really “not wrong” to denude something of the spirit of the original by flattening it too much? Is something really still “accurate” if all the words are right, but it doesn’t convey the same thing anymore?

Maybe there’s more to rightness (or even not-wrongness) than a mathematical correspondence between word meanings?

I realize that’s sort of what you’re saying, but I wonder if you aren’t giving away too much even in conceding that such a minimalist view of “not-wrongness” is not wrong?

]]> By: Tom Gilson http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2012/01/perfectly-not-wrong/#comment-20684 Tom Gilson Sat, 28 Jan 2012 22:40:02 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=12076#comment-20684 A quick footnote lest I be misunderstood as criticizing the translation for reasons that have nothing to do with what it was written for: The modern translation on that web page is a fine idea and very helpful for its intended purpose. A quick footnote lest I be misunderstood as criticizing the translation for reasons that have nothing to do with what it was written for: The modern translation on that web page is a fine idea and very helpful for its intended purpose.

]]>