Charitable Interpretations and the Political Domestication of Spinoza, or, Benedict in the Land of the Secular Imagination
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In Mogens Laerke Eric Schilsser (ed.), The Methodology of the History of Philosophy. Oxford University Press (forthcoming)
In a beautiful recent essay, the philosopher Walter Sinnott-Armstrong explains the reasons for his departure from evangelical Christianity, the religious culture in which he was brought up. Sinnot-Armstrong contrasts the interpretive methods used by good philosophers and fundamentalist believers: Good philosophers face objections and uncertainties. They follow where arguments lead, even when their conclusions are surprising and disturbing. Intellectual honesty is also required of scholars who interpret philosophical texts. If I had distorted Kant’s view to make him reach a conclusion that I preferred, then my philosophy professor would have failed me. The contrast with religious reasoning is stark. My Christian friends seemed happy to hide serious problems in the Bible and in their arguments. They preferred comfort to intellectual honesty. I couldn’t. To what extent can we, historians of philosophy, claim the virtue of intellectual honesty? Speaking frankly, I do not find the practice criticized by Sinnot-Armstrong’s philosophy professor rare or unusual at all. We very frequently distort the views of past philosophers in order to reach the conclusions we prefer. We just call it “Charitable Interpretation.” In this essay, I discuss and criticize the logic behind so-called charitable interpretations in the history of philosophy. This phenomenon is ubiquitous and is not at all restricted to a particular philosophical strand or ideology. Analytic philosophers and post-modernists, Marxists, liberals, secularists, and fundamentalists, we all engage in the very same domestication project. Even more disturbing than the sheer ideological pervasiveness of this phenomenon is the fact that, on many occasions, superb philosophers and historians take part in this fairly childish endeavor. In the first part of this essay, I discuss the general logic of charitable interpretations in the history of philosophy, mostly by addressing discussions in metaphysics and epistemology. In the second part, I focus on the somewhat less noticed use of charitable interpretations in the study of political philosophy, and point out the quintessential role ideology plays in these discussions. In both parts, I concentrate mostly on the interpretation of Spinoza’s thought. I do so not because I have special fondness for Spinoza (“guilty as charged,” I admit), but because Spinoza is such a beast (and may I add, an enchanting beast) and attracts a disproportionate share of the domestication efforts from historians and philosophers of all creeds and persuasions. In the third and final part of the paper, I will begin to outline an alternative methodology, which suggests that past philosophers can be most relevant to our current philosophical discussion, to the extent that they provide us with well-motivated challenges to our common-sense beliefs. Such challenges have the invaluable virtue of being able to undermine our most fundamental and secure beliefs, and force us to engage with the most fundamental questions. What more can we expect from good philosophy?
|Keywords||Charitable Interpretation Spinoza Radical Enlightenment Jonathan Israel Philosophical Relevance Metaphilosophy Philosophy of the History of Philosophy Philosophical Domestication Philosophical Intuitions Secularism|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Benedictus de Spinoza (2007). Theological-Political Treatise. Cambridge University Press.
Tammy Nyden (1999). Radical Cartesian Politics: Van Velthuysen, De la Court, and Spinoza. Studia Spinozana 15:35-65.
Katherin Rogers (2011). Defending Boethius. International Philosophical Quarterly 51 (2):241-257.
Heidi M. Ravven (2001). The Garden of Eden. Philosophy and Theology 13 (1):3-51.
Yitzhak Y. Melamed & Michael A. Rosenthal (eds.) (2010). Spinoza's 'Theological-Political Treatise': A Critical Guide. Cambridge University Press.
Yitzhak Y. Melamed (2012). “Inherence, Causation, and Conceivability in Spinoza”. Journal of the History of Philosophy.
Steven M. Nadler (2006). Spinoza's Ethics: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Eric Schliesser (2011). Spinoza on the Politics of PhilosophicalUnderstanding Susan James and Eric Schliesser Angels and Philosophers: With a New Interpretation of Spinoza's Common Notions. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 111 (3pt3):497-518.
Simon B. Duffy (2006). The Differential Point of View of the Infinitesimal Calculus in Spinoza, Leibniz and Deleuze. Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 37 (3):286-307.
Willi Goetschel (2003). Heine's Spinoza. Idealistic Studies 33 (2/3):203-217.
Aurelia Armstrong (2009). Autonomy and the Relational Individual : Spinoza and Feminism. In Moira Gatens (ed.), Feminist Interpretations of Benedict Spinoza. Pennsylvania State University Press.
Added to index2012-09-28
Total downloads108 ( #7,459 of 1,018,319 )
Recent downloads (6 months)16 ( #6,518 of 1,018,319 )
How can I increase my downloads?