Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Brian Gibbons" data-source="post: 3527073" data-attributes="member: 7369">Oddly enough, that's a rather interpreter-ish definition of what a literalist is.An interpreter cares about author intent and why and how the rules were created.&nbsp; A literalist, in contrast, generally doesn't care about those things.&nbsp; The rule is the rule and it says whatever it says; how it ended up as the rule is not that important.&nbsp; The last thing a literalist cares about is whether or not the words and phrases in the rules &quot;were all chosen with specificity to create a very exact set of guidelines&quot;.&nbsp; It is enough that they were chosen.Nor is it necessary that these rules be simple or direct.&nbsp; They're the rules; they may be complex or simple, direct or convoluted, but they're the rules.Generally speaking, a literalist values certainty.&nbsp; It is important that everyone be able to tell what the result of actions will be based on nothing more than the plain text of the rules, without having to inquire into the more nebulous areas of what the authors intended with the rules.&nbsp; In contrast, an interpreter values consistency.&nbsp; It is important that the purpose of the overall framework of the rules be carried out; if a mis-worded or poorly-chosen rule goes against that framework, it should be ignored.In interpreting the meaning of laws, these two philosophies are often called textualism and intentionalism.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Brian Gibbons, post: 3527073, member: 7369"] Oddly enough, that's a rather interpreter-ish definition of what a literalist is. An interpreter cares about author intent and why and how the rules were created. A literalist, in contrast, generally doesn't care about those things. The rule is the rule and it says whatever it says; how it ended up as the rule is not that important. The last thing a literalist cares about is whether or not the words and phrases in the rules "were all chosen with specificity to create a very exact set of guidelines". It is enough that they were chosen. Nor is it necessary that these rules be simple or direct. They're the rules; they may be complex or simple, direct or convoluted, but they're the rules. Generally speaking, a literalist values [i]certainty[/i]. It is important that everyone be able to tell what the result of actions will be based on nothing more than the plain text of the rules, without having to inquire into the more nebulous areas of what the authors intended with the rules. In contrast, an interpreter values [i]consistency[/i]. It is important that the purpose of the overall framework of the rules be carried out; if a mis-worded or poorly-chosen rule goes against that framework, it should be ignored. In interpreting the meaning of laws, these two philosophies are often called textualism and intentionalism. [/QUOTE]

Verification