Online research in philosophy

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。.

In this paper I argue that RadicalInterpretation (RI), taken to be a methodological doctrine regarding the conditions under which an interpretation of an utterance is both warranted and correct, has unacceptable implications for the conditions on (ascriptions of) understanding. The notion of understanding at play is that which underwrites the testimonial transmission of knowledge. After developing this notion I argue that, on the assumption of RI, hearers will fail to have such understanding in situations in which we should want to maintain otherwise. The overall effect of the argument is to provide a heretofore unexamined source of motivation for anti-individualistic approaches to the semantics of utterances.

The species category is defined as thesmallest historical individual within which there is a parental pattern of ancestry and descent. The use of historical individual in this definition is consistent with the prevailing notion that speciesper se are not involved in processes — they are effects, not effectors. Reproductive isolation distinguishes biparental historical species from their parts, and it provides a basis for understanding the nature of the evidence used to discover historical individuals.

In this paper I start discussing "originalism" as a practice of interpretation purporting the intent of the framers as "the" governing factor in interpretation. My first step is to contrast it with the approach of non-interpretivism. Then I discuss "interpretation" itself as a package to depict social practices of meaning production, focusing on three peculiar historical settings : Alexandria, Scholasticism, and the "birth" of Hermeneutics. My aim is to show the "essentialist" move of posing the concept of "meaning" as a key factor in the "ideology" of interpretation. Such a discussion is introductory to a reappraisal of the current debate about criticism and of the distinction between interpretation and use-of-the-texts. I then examine archeology as a radical alternative to interpretive practices. But my final step will be to shift away from the blunt opposition between interpretivism and non interpretivism, to suggest a more complex arrangement based on an ironic misuse of interpretivism, and a framing of interpretation as an antagonistic process.

According to one model of social theory, the social theorist seeks to give as rich an account as possible of a society's own self?understanding or self?interpretation. The second model, by contrast, involves challenging the society's self?understanding on the basis of a radical vision of ultimate standards of. judgment. Charles Taylor claims that neither of these models should be privileged over the other, that both are equiprimordial ways of theorizing social life. However, Taylor does privilege the first model in his own practice of social theory?which can be summed up in the phrase, ?the rhetoric of understanding.?

McCarthy develops a theory of radical interpretation--the project of characterizing from scratch the language and attitudes of an agent or population--and applies it to the problems of indeterminacy of interpretation first described by Quine. The major theme in McCarthy's study is that a relatively modest set of interpretive principles, properly applied, can serve to resolve the major indeterminacies of interpretation.

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.

This article explores the relationship between interpretation and what is normally called ‘understanding’. It is argued that different modes of interpretation define different kinds of ‘mental uptake’ (‘apprehension’), and that some modes of interpretation define types of apprehension for which the concept of ‘understanding’ is inadequate. It is also argued that given a mode of interpretation, the constraints of that mode are necessary in the sense that it is the constraints on how to interpret that define a mode of interpretation. Thus within a mode of interpretation (historical, literary) one cannot interpret freely. Indeed, unconstrained interpretation is not interpretation. In order to illustrate these points the article offers a detailed discussion of two examples. The interpretative debate over the Magna Carta is used to illustrate the difference between a constitutional and a historical interpretation. These two modes of interpretation are then contrasted with literary interpretation, the aim of which is appreciation.

This article discusses New Confucian views on individuality and related philosophical problems. Special emphasis is given to the position of Tu Wei-Ming (Du Weiming), a foremost living New Confucian thinker. It is pointed out that many New Confucian philosophers share a vision of a Confucian 'ideal' individuality or selfhood based on social integration - as opposed to a Western type of individuality sometimes portrayed as an individuality by isolation. These patterns of individuality are further examined on the basis of Niklas Luhmann's historical analysis of the semantics of individuality and his categories of 'individuality by inclusion' and 'individuality by exclusion'. Finally, some parallels and differences between Confucian and the Luhmannian viewpoints are pointed out, and a suggestion on how a Luhmannian perspective might contribute to reformulations of New Confucian thought is attempted.

The complicated interplay between equality and individuality in Kierkegaard's writings is explored. He is interpreted as affirming the notions conjointly; they modify and constrain each other in ways that constitute a bonding between them. Kierkegaard's claims are compared briefly with positions taken by modern moral philosophers and with historical controversies within Christian theology. Finally, two general effects of the bonding are noted: his dual affirmation forbids lines of interpretation of each notion otherwise possible, and a distinctive appraisal is fostered of the religious and ethical stakes we have in our involvements with one another.