Comments on: Whose Community? Which Interpretation? by Merold Westphal (Part I)

By: Nate

Nate — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 03:33:27 +0000

I read Westphal’s book and was, to be honest, pretty disappointed, even irritated, if I could say so. I thought he represented Gadamer alright – for the context, a brief and readable presentation, I think that part was nice. But Hirsch – cheap caricature in my opinion. Westphal’s defense of the “french trio” was in many aspects plainly dishonest. Esp. Derrida and Foucault, to try to soften deconstruction etc. to make it more appealing to Christian orthodoxy is really reaching. I can’t imagine Derrida or Foucault being happy with that “interpretation” of their thought.

But my main contention is the tone of Westphal’s book over all. He really goes to town on whoever he is imagining is unfriendly to postmodernism, practically calling them names – comparing them to racists, terrorists and bigots (I’m not kidding, this is exactly what he does). The language is just over the edge, but more than that, its so emotional it made me uncomfortable. Add to that the fact that Westphal intended to make postmodern interpretation more inviting to people less comfortable with it, I just can’t understand why he would chose to speak that way in publication.

There was a challenging review of the previous volume by JKA Smith, Who’s Afraid? published in the Westminster Theo Journal in ’07 which I read after reading Westphal’s book. For all the cheap shots, and even if you disagree with the review, the conservatives def. come out sounding more sophisticated.

Thanks

By: Brettongarcia

Brettongarcia — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 09:46:21 +0000

I don’t think it’s fair to pick on Realists here; how about theists’ frequent “claim to immediacy” and even absolute certainty, vis-a-vis “Revelation”?

I agree that you want a working definition of “truth,” or at least accuracy, in our time, some variation on simple reproduceability might do something useful….

Thanks for your useful summary of this text.

By: Steve Duby

Steve Duby — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 17:38:34 +0000

Thanks, Bill. I hope you’ll weigh in for part two.

By: Bill

Bill — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 01:57:30 +0000

Looking forward to part 2 Steve. Well done – the book looks compelling as you present it. How Westphal proposes that anchor to moor the reader reproduction is the key I think. Thanks for your work here.

By: brettongarcia

brettongarcia — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 23:34:44 +0000

Authors (often) think they know what they are writing about; right or wrong, it is useful to know what they THOUGHT they were doing. The writer’s conscious “intention” is still somewhat important.

Though to be sure, we are all part of a larger wave, that we ourselves cannot fully comprehend.

By: Flotsam and jetsam (6/11) « scientia et sapientia

Flotsam and jetsam (6/11) « scientia et sapientia — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:19:46 +0000

[...] Steve Duby reviews Merold Westphal’s Whose Community, Which Interpretation? . In this first part of the review, he offers a very nice summary of the book, which sounds like it might be worth engaging if you’re looking for an introduction to contemporary developments in hermeneutics. He’ll follow up in a later post with more evaluative comments. [...]