Home  About us  Contact
 

Radical Interpretation (radical + interpretation)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Humanities and Social Sciences100%

Selected Abstracts

Beyond Radical Interpretation: Individuality as the Basis of Historical Understanding

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY, Issue 4 2009
Serge Grigoriev
First page of article [source]

Re-Enactment and Radical Interpretation

HISTORY AND THEORY, Issue 2 2004
Giuseppina D'Oro
This article discusses R. G. Collingwood's account of re-enactment and Donald Davidson's account of radical translation. Both Collingwood and Davidson are concerned with the question "how is understanding possible?" and both seek to answer the question transcendentally by asking after the heuristic principles that guide the historian and the radical translator. Further, they both agree that the possibility of understanding rests on the presumption of rationality. But whereas Davidson's principle of charity entails that truth is a presupposition or heuristic principle of understanding, for Collingwood understanding rests on a commitment to internal consistency alone. Collingwood and Davidson diverge over the scope of the principle of charity because they have radically different conceptions of meaning. Davidson endorses an extensional semantics that links meaning with truth in the attempt to extrude intensional notions from a theory of meaning. Since radical translation rests on a truth-conditional semantics, it rules out the possibility that there may be statements that are intelligible even though based on false beliefs. Collingwood's account of re-enactment, on the other hand, disconnects meaning from truth, thereby allowing for the possibility of understanding agents who have false beliefs. The paper argues, first, that Davidson's account of radical translation rests on inappropriately naturalistic assumptions about the nature of understanding, and that Davidson commits this error because he develops his account of radical interpretation in response to an epistemological question that is motivated by a skeptical concern: "how can we know whether we have provided the correct interpretation?" Second, that in the twentieth century far too much philosophizing has been driven by epistemological concerns that have obscured attempts to provide adequate answers to the sort of conceptual question with which Collingwood is concerned, namely: "what does it mean to understand?" [source]

Samesaying, Propositions and Radical Interpretation

RATIO, Issue 2 2001
Gary Kemp
Davidson's paratactic account of indirect quotation preserves the apparent relational structure of indirect speech but without assuming, in the Fregean manner, that the thing said by a sayer is a proposition. I argue that this is a mistake. As has been recognised by some critics, Davidson's account suffers from analytical shortcomings which can be overcome by redeploying the paratactic strategy as a means of referring to propositions. I offer a quick and comprehensive survey of these difficulties and a concise propositional solution. Further, I argue that Davidson's more general philosophical commitments provide no reason not to embrace the propositional strategy: despite appearances, to invoke propositions in the way suggested is consistent with Davidson's holism and consequent doctrine of semantic indeterminacy. [source]

Re-Enactment and Radical Interpretation

HISTORY AND THEORY, Issue 2 2004
Giuseppina D'Oro
This article discusses R. G. Collingwood's account of re-enactment and Donald Davidson's account of radical translation. Both Collingwood and Davidson are concerned with the question "how is understanding possible?" and both seek to answer the question transcendentally by asking after the heuristic principles that guide the historian and the radical translator. Further, they both agree that the possibility of understanding rests on the presumption of rationality. But whereas Davidson's principle of charity entails that truth is a presupposition or heuristic principle of understanding, for Collingwood understanding rests on a commitment to internal consistency alone. Collingwood and Davidson diverge over the scope of the principle of charity because they have radically different conceptions of meaning. Davidson endorses an extensional semantics that links meaning with truth in the attempt to extrude intensional notions from a theory of meaning. Since radical translation rests on a truth-conditional semantics, it rules out the possibility that there may be statements that are intelligible even though based on false beliefs. Collingwood's account of re-enactment, on the other hand, disconnects meaning from truth, thereby allowing for the possibility of understanding agents who have false beliefs. The paper argues, first, that Davidson's account of radical translation rests on inappropriately naturalistic assumptions about the nature of understanding, and that Davidson commits this error because he develops his account of radical interpretation in response to an epistemological question that is motivated by a skeptical concern: "how can we know whether we have provided the correct interpretation?" Second, that in the twentieth century far too much philosophizing has been driven by epistemological concerns that have obscured attempts to provide adequate answers to the sort of conceptual question with which Collingwood is concerned, namely: "what does it mean to understand?" [source]

Radical quotation and real repetition

RATIO, Issue 2 2004
David Roden
In this essay I argue for a constructivist account of the entities composing the object languages of Davidsonian truth theories and a quotational account of the reference from metalinguistic expressions to interpreted utterances. I claim that ,radical quotation' requires an ontology of repeatable events with strong similarities to Derrida's account of iterable events. In part one I summarise Davidson's account of interpretation and Olav Gjelsivk's arguments to the effect that the syntactic individuation of linguistic objects is only workable if interpreters make richer assumptions about semantic properties than Davidson can tolerate. In part two I show that the objectivist account of syntactic objects which Gjelsivk's arguments presuppose is incompatible with one corollary of Davidsonian semantic indeterminacy: namely, the relativity of language to interpretative scheme. In place of this an account of radical interpretation is presented in which a quotational theory of metalinguistic reference furnishes the requisite relativity. In part three I argue that this account requires that particular utterance events must be repeatable to be radically quotable and give reasons why particularity and repeatability are not incompatible. [source]

Constructing ,God': a Contemporary Interpretation of Religion

THE HEYTHROP JOURNAL, Issue 1 2000
George Karuvelil
To discuss the rationality of religious beliefs of the meaning of those beliefs must be made intelligible, sometimes to those who do not share our presuppositions. Is it possible to explain the meaning of such basic concepts as ,Religion', and ,God' without presupposing other religious concepts? The present paper is an attempt at such a radical interpretation of religion. This is done by wedding a full-fledged constructivist epistemology with insights from the mystical traditions of the East and the West. How such an epistemology can account for both the unity and plurality of religions is also indicated. In the process I give not only a new interpretation of ,God' but also suggest the reasons for the failure of the "proofs" for the existence of God. Thus, a new way is opened up for discussing the rationality of religious beliefs. [source]