And why isn't this modern science incarnate (aka the enemy of "postmodernism")? Namely, fallibility? — Πετροκότσυφας

Namely, fallibility? — Πετροκότσυφας

Any proper interpretation? — Πετροκότσυφας

Are there more than one proper interpretations? — Πετροκότσυφας

And to point out that there's always a chance of confusion regarding interpretation is the rejection of these proper interpretations? — Πετροκότσυφας

Say that I want to go to college, and I'm presented with three different options and after my research I conclude that college A seems the better option. Does that mean that I can't simultaneously hold that I might be wrong about this judgement? — Πετροκότσυφας

The very fact that one would behave contrary to what something teaches indicates some lack in understanding of some facet or feature of an ideology or doctrinal truth. — Posty McPostface

Not necessarily, the person may just be struggling to overcome contrary tendencies in their psyche. "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak," and all that. — gurugeorge

when someone behaves contrary to what (to serve as an example) the Bible preaches — Posty McPostface

Otherwise I think it's fine to use whatever background context is there to limit possible interpretations and then choose the one involving the least contradiction. — aporiap

I don't understand the Bible as a consistent body of work that preaches one thing rather than another. — mcdoodle

So, the absence of contradiction is indicative of understanding a text, correct?

I'm not sure it's indicative of understanding; maybe you can have more than one logically valid interpretations of a text but they'd all be equally plausible as the meaning. You can only have understanding if you have direct access to the author's intended meaning. — aporiap

Then, shouldn't every text be made so that there's the least amount of possibility of contradiction in it, therefore someone may feel as though they understand it appropriately? But, how do you ensure this important feature of any text??? — Posty McPostface

Why should texts obey some principle of non-contradiction? — mcdoodle

This would be the dream of an authoritarian, surely? — mcdoodle

Non-contradiction happens in logic, perhaps, but as soon as we use natural language it creeps in. And creeps, and creeps. — mcdoodle

Hello again, btw, Posty. Hope you're well. — mcdoodle

Well, yes. The absence of non-sequiturs implies that one understands something. Therefore, how do you lessen the chance of a non-sequitur from arising at all? Through consistency? But, how do you arrive at consistency without contradictions?

I confess I feel rather the opposite. Why should texts obey some principle of non-contradiction? This would be the dream of an authoritarian, surely? Non-contradiction happens in logic, perhaps, but as soon as we use natural language it creeps in. And creeps, and creeps.

Certain texts may be regarded as some sort of guidance to behaviour, but how are humans to be governed in this way? As soon as I read 'Thou shalt not'...' written say by some stuffy patriarch, I want to go looking for a fellow-transgressor.

Hello again, btw, Posty. Hope you're well.

Well yes, I think so. But what do you call it when someone commits an error in interpreting it as consistent but behaves inconsistently with regards to it? Is that some error or fallacy?

Can you give an example of what you mean? I'm unsure I understand the issue. — aporiap

Morally bankrupt? — Benkei

Simply amoral as opposed to immoral? — Benkei

Well, yes, formal languages are devoid of this feature. So, then why are non-formal languages so rife with the possibility for inconsistency? — Posty McPostface