edenism

1.1 Languages change over time. 1.2 Therefore any “literal” meaning is a consensus opinion that changes as the time and population change. 1.3 Therefore “literal” meaning is a social construct. 1.4 Because “literal” meaning is a social construct, there is no guarantee that every culture / language has such a thing. 1.5 Any “literal” exegesis of foreign / ancient text must be “literal” with respect to some notion of “literal” inherent to the context of the document's creation, which may or may not exist.

Q: Why is literal meaning so prevalent in and even necessary for Western thought if it is not a universal phenomenon?

A: A society based on the living letter (legal, academic, etc.) requires a consensus opinion on what the letter is taken to mean in such a context (in commmon parlance, what the letter “actually” means).

Q: This only accounts for written text. What is literal speech then?

A: “Literal” speech is the “literal” meaning of the written form of the words spoken. Unsurprisingly, the word “literal” comes from the Latin litteralis (which means “of or pertaining to letters or writing”).

Q: Then what about speech that can be written multiple ways? For instance suppose I say what sounds like it could be either “hear a bird” or “here, a bird.”

A: This is precisely why any theory of language that requires a “literal” explanation fails. That is, because it naturally favors writing, and requires the idea of the written word to translate speech. This is graphocentrism.

Q: Are those propositions above? They do not seem very rigorous.

A: What is the nature and purpose of rigor in this context?

Q: To adhere strictly to the use of words with respect to strict rules so that the meaning of the text becomes alive and divorced from your intent, i.e. capable of objective criticism, i.e. the text is capable of being interpreted literally.