LETTER: Interpreting rightly

When Harry Graver states in his Oct. 18 op-ed “Rooting the humanities in right” that my “rejection of an accepted methodology goes hand in hand with [my] rejection [of] the idea of conclusive result,” he would have been exactly right — had that been what I said. But that was not what I said. Regrettably, Mr. Graver did not read what I wrote but instead read relativism into an essay which was not written by a relativist.

Substitute the phrase “an accepted” with “the right” and he would have been a little closer to the idea of my essay. We are not debating accepted methodologies here. We are being critical of a belief that the right methodology, the right interpretation, or the making of right meaning is something like a scent that you and I, but very few others today, are onto — indeed, it’s the belief that to be on the trail in the first place one must have a certain kind of nose.

Peter Gayed

Oct. 19

The writer is a medical student and an affiliate of Saybrook College.

Comments

  • River_Tam

    Maybe in the future, letters could contain some context. I read the YDN opinion section closer to anyone else (much to the dismay of some commenters) and yet I find myself having no idea whatsoever what Mr. Gayed and Mr. Graver were discussing and what this letter references.