Interpretation und das Prinzip der Nachsicht

Conceptus ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (101-102) ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Dierig
Keyword(s):  
Principle Of Charity

AbstractDavidson's principle of charity says that we should interpret someone's beliefs and utterances in such a way that these beliefs and utterances are, according to our own standards, mostly true. Davidson has advanced three major arguments for this principle. In the first part of this essay, I reconstruct these arguments and explain Davidson's project of a theory of interpretation as far as it is necessary for this reconstruction. In the second part of my article, it is shown that none of the three arguments for the principle of charity put forward by Davidson is convincing. I also examine the two most important arguments against Davidson's principle. It is demonstrated that these arguments are not compelling, too. The upshot of my discussion is that the debate between proponents and opponents of the principle of charity has reached stalemate.

scholarly journals The Paradox of Charity

2012 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 403 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcin Lewiński
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Language ◽  
Contextual Factors ◽  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
The Other ◽  
Basic Point ◽  
Important Principle ◽  
Principle Of Charity

The principle of charity is used in philosophy of language and argumentation theory as an important principle of interpretation which credits speakers with “the best” plausible interpretation of their discourse. I contend that the argumentation account, while broadly advocated, misses the basic point of a dialectical conception which approaches argumentation as discussion between (at least) two parties who disagree over the issue discussed. Therefore, paradoxically, an analyst who is charitable to one discussion party easily becomes uncharitable to the other. To overcome this paradox, I suggest to significantly limit the application of the principle of charity depending on contextual factors.

The Justification of the Principle of Charity

2005 ◽  
pp. 198-208
Author(s):  
Ernie Lepore ◽  
Kirk Ludwig
Keyword(s):  
Principle Of Charity

scholarly journals Patterns, noise, and Beliefs

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-51
Author(s):  
Lajos Ludovic Brons
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Gettier Cases ◽  
Frege’S Puzzle ◽  
Daniel Dennett ◽  
Belief Reports ◽  
Frege's Puzzle ◽  
Principle Of Charity

In “Real Patterns” Daniel Dennett developed an argument about the reality of beliefs on the basis of an analogy with patterns and noise. Here I develop Dennett’s analogy into an argument for descriptivism, the view that belief reports do no specify belief contents but merely describe what someone believes, and show that this view is also supported by empirical evidence. No description can do justice to the richness and specificity or “noisiness” of what someone believes, and the same belief can be described by different sentences or propositions (which is illustrated by Dennett’s analogy, some Gettier cases, and Frege’s puzzle), but in some contexts some of these competing descriptions are misleading or even false. Faithful (or truthful) description must be guided by a principle (or principles) related to the principle of charity: belief descriptions should not attribute irrationality to the believer or have other kinds of “deviant” implications.

Gadamer’s Logic of Question and Answer and the Difference Between the History of Philosophy and the History of Ideas

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 360-379
Author(s):  
David Vessey
Keyword(s):  
Historical Context ◽  
Philosophy Of History ◽  
History Of Philosophy ◽  
History Of Ideas ◽  
Philosophical Practice ◽  
Current Discussion ◽  
History Of ◽  
Principle Of Charity ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Hans Georg Gadamer

The key difference between the history of ideas and the history of philosophy is that philosophers always consider their historical studies as potentially contributing to contemporary philosophical practice. Such presentism risks anachronistic readings of texts, but a too narrow focus on the historical context of the text risks limiting its ability to contribute to contemporary philosophizing. The current discussion of the history of philosophy focus entirely on how to understand, and what we can learn from, a philosopher’s claims and arguments. Hans-Georg Gadamer offers a different focus, arguing instead that it is the questions that the text answers that generate insights for contemporary philosophical practice. His focus on questions cuts across the standard ways of thinking about the relation between the history of philosophy and the history of ideas and provides novel answers to some central issues in the philosophy of history, for example how to best articulate a principle of charity.

scholarly journals Verdade, interpretação e objetividade em Donald Davidson

2005 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
José Maria Arruda
Keyword(s):  
Key Words ◽  
Philosophy Of Language ◽  
Propositional Attitudes ◽  
Donald Davidson ◽  
Radical Interpretation ◽  
Analytic Tradition ◽  
Philosophical Hermeneutic ◽  
Principle Of Charity ◽  
Radical Interpreter ◽  
Philosophical Importance

Donald Davidson foi um dos filósofos mais influentes da tradição analítica da segunda metade do século. A unidade de sua obra é constituída pelo papel central que reflexão sobre como podemos interpretar os proferimentos de um outro falante desempenha para a compreensão da natureza do significado. Davidson adota o ponto de vista metodológico de um intérprete que não pode pressupor nada sobre o significado das palavras de um falante e que não possui nenhum conhecimento detalhado de suas atitudes proposicionais. Neste artigo, eu apresento inicialmente a estrutura e os pressupostos da filosofia da linguagem de Davidson; passo depois a uma discussão sobre a importância do princípio de caridade para seu projeto interpretativo e, por fim, procuro apontar as diferenças do projeto de Davidson com a hermenêutica filosófica. PALAVRAS-CHAVE – Interpretação radical. Princípio de caridade. Hermenêutica. ABSTRACT Donald Davidson was one of the most influential philosophers in the analytic tradition in the last half of the twenthy century. The unity of his work lies in the central role that the reflection on how we are able to interpret the speech of another plays in undestanding the nature of meaning. Davidson adopts the standpoint of the interpreter of the speech of another whose evidence does not, at the outset, pressupose anything about what the speaker’s words mean or any datailed knowledge of his propositional attitudes. This is the position of the radical interpreter. In this paper, I begin with an account of the assumptions and structure of Davidson’s philosophy of language; after this I discuss the philosophical importance of the principle of charity for the theory of radical interpretation and, at the end, I compare Davidson’s interpretative project to the philosophical hermeneutic. KEY WORDS – Radical interpretation. Principle of charity. Hermeneutics.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document