David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63 (3):573-586 (2001)
One may have different objectives in interpreting texts. If a judge interprets a statute in order to obtain a satisfactory solution to a case, his aim may be called “applicative”. But if a historian of science wants to reconstruct the meaning of obscure passages of Ptolemy’s “Hypotheses planetarum”, his objectives are purely historical and theoretical.The paper argues that these different aims, applicative and historical ones, require different methodologies of interpretation, and imply different criteria of success. In particular, the “principle of charity” according to which an interpretation is better to the extent that we agree more with what the text as interpreted says, is fitting for applicative interpretations, but not without further qualifications for historical ones.The paper argues further that we should apply the methodology of historical interpretation to the entire body of German texts now available, if we want to interpret Martin Heidegger’s philosophical oeuvre, assess its philosophical value, and investigate its links to Nazism. These were the aims of Herman Philipse’s book “Heidegger’s Philosophy of Being. A Critical Interpretation” . Criticisms of this book by Taylor Carman and others are often off target because they presuppose applicative interpretations that aim at making Heidegger say things the interpreter believes himself, instead of striving for historical adequacy, and that are based upon a small selection of translations instead of upon the entire corpus of extant German texts
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
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
Eric J. Ettema, Louise D. Derksen & Evert van Leeuwen (2015). Advancing the Debate About Heidegger’s Phenomenology of Death as a Possibility. Open Journal of Philosophy 5 (7):445-458.
Similar books and articles
Frederick A. Olafson (1996). Heidegger on Presence: A Reply. Inquiry 39 (3 & 4):421 – 426.
Stein Haugom Olsen (2004). Modes of Interpretation and Interpretative Constraints. British Journal of Aesthetics 44 (2):135-148.
Paul Crowther (2007). Space, Place, and Sculpture: Working with Heidegger. [REVIEW] Continental Philosophy Review 40 (2):151-170.
Dawn C. Riley (2011). Heidegger Teaching: An Analysis and Interpretation of Pedagogy. Educational Philosophy and Theory 43 (8):797-815.
Mark Sinclair (2006). Heidegger, Aristotle, and the Work of Art: Poeisis in Being. Palgrave Macmillan.
Taylor Carman (1995). Heidegger's Concept of Presence. Inquiry 38 (4):431 – 453.
Jeffrey Andrew Barash (2003). Martin Heidegger and the Problem of Historical Meaning. Fordham University Press.
Jennifer Anna Gosetti (2002). Tragedy and Truth in Heidegger and Jaspers. International Philosophical Quarterly 42 (3):301-314.
Taylor Carman (2003). Heidegger's Analytic: Interpretation, Discourse, and Authenticity in Being and Time. Cambridge University Press.
Taylor Carman (2001). On Making Sense (and Nonsense) of Heidegger. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63 (3):561-572.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads58 ( #78,801 of 1,938,821 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #294,284 of 1,938,821 )
How can I increase my downloads?