Interpretation and Interpretability
Tldr is both epistemic and moral/practical interpretation have universal constraints on interpretation
Oh I guess this is about the possibility of evil. Radical translation of the theoretical/epistemic is very hard and you need to presume a level of rationality to have anything to translate. In the same way, radical translation of truly evil people/societies is hard/impossible, you need to presume they have at least a warped vision of the good to have something to translate. That’s how moral universalism and epistemic universalism relate.
- Instrumental normativity requires ethical normativity (ethics as first philosophy)
- history of the epistemic Phil Lang idea was quine - Davidson - dennett. The main people noting the moral upshot at Davidson, Jonathan lear, john mcdowell
In order to be both charitable and avoid imperialism, one should interpret other’s statements as being as fundamentally rational as you can. e.g. Interpret dancing as a funeral as celebrating the dead’s entrance into heaven, not glee at their death in order to preserve the assumption of their benevolence over the assumption of their having correct beliefs about what happens when we die. You could just say this preserves consistency, bc they’re not evil elsewhere.
Can we still follow the principle of charity in discussions with someone where we only adopt the non-reactive or outside view in responding to their beliefs, e.g. offering only debunking arguments against their beliefs, making all their reasons into causes. Can this respect their autonomy?
- Why are debunking/generalising explanations of status signals so withering? Reasons/causes. Withering putdowns lists for egs. The hermeneutics of suspicion
I think there’s a connection here with trust being the trust to fulfill particular planning needs, not just care for their welfare in general. Truth is general, intentions and the virtue they can reflect are specific. If we just wanted to preserve the truth of texts/be beneficent we would have no reason not to perform straussian readings and completely change the apparent topic of what they’re talking about.