The Limit of Charity and Agreement

Frontiers of Philosophy in China 3 (1):99 - 122 (2008)
Abstract
Radical interpretation is used by Davison in his linguistic theory not only as an interesting thought experiment but also a general pattern that is believed to be able to give an essential and general account of linguistic interpretation. If the principle of charity is absolutely necessary to radical interpretation, it becomes, in this sense, a general methodological principle. However, radical interpretation is a local pattern that is proper only for exploring certain interpretation in a specific case, and consequently the principle of charity is an applicable principle in the limited scope. It is neither the case that every linguistic interpretation is in nature radical nor that the principle of charity is the primary and fundamental principle for all linguistic interpretation as Davidson believes. /// 在戴维森的理论中,彻底解释不仅是一个有趣的思想实验,而且是一个一般 的模式,他相信使用这个模式就可以对语言解释提供实质性的、一般的说明。如果 像戴维森所坚信的那样,善意原则于彻底解释来说是绝对必须的,那么,善意原则 也就成为一个一般的方法论原则。然而,彻底解释只是一种有限的模式,仅适用于 说明特殊情况下的某类语言解释。作为结果,善意原则就是在有限的范围内起作用 的原则。与戴维森所坚持的不同,既不能说每一种语言解释都是彻底解释,也不能 说善意原则是对所有语言解释都适用的、首要的,且基本的原则。.
Keywords truth   charity   agreement   interpretation
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 11,819
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Similar books and articles
Chuang Ye (2008). The Limit of Charity and Agreement. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 3 (1):99-122.
Daniel Laurier (1994). Pangloss, L'Erreur Et La Divergence. Journal of Philosophical Research 19:345-372.
Henry Jackman (2003). Charity, Self-Interpretation, and Belief. Journal of Philosophical Research 28:143-168.
Roy Sorensen (2004). Charity Implies Meta-Charity. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 68 (2):290 - 315.
Kathrin Glüer (2006). The Status of Charity I: Conceptual Truth or a Posteriori Necessity? International Journal of Philosophical Studies 14 (3):337 – 359.
María Rosario Hernández Borges (2007). The Principle of Charity, Transcendentalism and Relativism. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 6:69-75.
Roy Sorensen (2004). Charity Implies Meta-Charity. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 68 (2):290–315.
Peter Pagin (2006). The Status of Charity II: Charity, Probability, and Simplicity. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 14 (3):361 – 383.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2011-05-29

Total downloads

10 ( #152,182 of 1,099,957 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

6 ( #51,477 of 1,099,957 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.