Charitable Interpretations and the Political Domestication of Spinoza, or, Benedict in the Land of the Secular Imagination

In Mogens Laerke Eric Schilsser (ed.), The Methodology of the History of Philosophy. Oxford University Press (2013)
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)
 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
Our Archive
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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Theological-Political Treatise.Benedictus de Spinoza - 2007 - Cambridge University Press.
Radical Cartesian Politics: Van Velthuysen, De la Court, and Spinoza.Tammy Nyden - 1999 - Studia Spinozana: An International and Interdisciplinary Series 15:35-65.
Defending Boethius.Katherin Rogers - 2011 - International Philosophical Quarterly 51 (2):241-257.
The Garden of Eden.Heidi M. Ravven - 2001 - Philosophy and Theology 13 (1):3-51.
Inherence, Causation, and Conceivability in Spinoza.Yitzhak Y. Melamed - 2012 - Journal of the History of Philosophy.
Spinoza's Ethics: An Introduction.Steven M. Nadler - 2006 - Cambridge University Press.
The Differential Point of View of the Infinitesimal Calculus in Spinoza, Leibniz and Deleuze.Simon B. Duffy - 2006 - Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 37 (3):286-307.
Heine's Spinoza.Willi Goetschel - 2003 - Idealistic Studies 33 (2/3):203-217.
Spinoza: A Very Short Introduction.Roger Scruton - 2002 - Oxford University Press.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

199 ( #20,665 of 2,163,624 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

12 ( #28,780 of 2,163,624 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums