One of the three subjects of the 2013 Bac Philo in ES was on the question: Do we interpret if we don’t know?
Correction of this subject which crosses the themes of knowledge and truth.
Analysis of the subject (Do we interpret if we don’t know?)
– To interpret : To explain, to try to make comprehensible what is dense, complicated, ambiguous
dense, complicated, ambiguous. But also : To attribute a distorted meaning
– in default: in the sense “since one cannot, then at least”
– know: To have present in the mind the more or less precise or complete idea
of an abstract or concrete object, existing or not. Or Distinguish,
to make the difference between.
These two notions, to interpret and to know, are of course to be defined throughout the
throughout the subject, and must be questioned and challenged.
The turn of phrase “does one interpret” calls for a dialectical plan.
Corrected problematic (Does one interpret without knowing
The link is original: in default. This default is to be nuanced, and
will probably be the solution of the paradox that is posed here: as we cannot
cannot know (this is presupposed in the subject), we can only interpret
content to interpret. The question here concerns truth, and questions
is it possible to know ? Can one know with
can we know with certainty, can we know with truth ? are we condemned to do
only interpret ?
→ Corrected topic: Does work allow us to become aware of ourselves?
Corrected plan (Do we interpret if we do not know?)
I. There seems to be no certain truth, and we have only illusions
only illusions, which is why we are condemned to interpret only.
II. However, to interpret is already to pose the interpretation as an object of
knowledge, and one could then know
III. it is allowed to know thanks to the interpretation, and the knowledge
can be revealed on condition that knowledge helps to clarify the
→ All the other answers and topics for the 2013 bac philo
→ What do we owe to the state? Answers to the 2013 baccalauréat ES philo
3 thoughts on “Answers: Do we interpret if we don’t know?”
we can interpret because scientific, philosophical and historical truths are not set up as dogmas. however an interpretation becomes for its success of the moment a truth.
I put 1) we can interpret the real thanks to knowledge 2) we can interpret the unreal without knowledge and therefore through the imaginary, a little hs?
ES: Do we interpret without knowing? I put that in I) That the man of nature, interprets the thing, in II) That it was better to work on knowledge than approximation and in III) That finally, the bases of humanity where we we find was a mixture of approximation and knowledge. Of course, my assignment is filled with thesis according to my writing but am I not slipping a little off the subject?
Comments are closed.