ppl spend so much effort to get to a point where they're able to misunderstand things like this and then they think it's precision and clarity. they confuse understanding something with being able to use words to spell something out in exceptionless detail, and this https://twitter.com/jackeselbst/status/1349535380408713216

predictably leads to confusion between what is said and what words it is said with. consequently philosophers get sidetracked by details that can be seen to be relevant once one makes an effort to understand what the writer was trying to express.

and it's not like this is a natural philosophical mistake, like we go in not being perfect at what we do and consequently get caught up in confusions like this until we develop our skill more. it's a totally manufactured problem; nobody in ordinary circumstances would run

into a problem like this except in particularly troublesome cases. if it werent usually possible to know what someone it expressing even when the strict letter departs from it, communication would be impossible.

it's as if a work of philisophy is taken to be deficient just as

long as there is *something* unaddressed one could say as an objection. the idea that addressing such minor points could be an exercise for the reader (indeed an exercise that might require a fair amount of philosophical competence, to a degree we would expect from PhDs in a

better world). imagine if math were like this--you can't just make a proof that's in fact sufficient to establish the result and expect readers to be able to work through whatever initial misunderstandings they might have, you have to *address* the most likely understandings

as if they were in themselves tenable opinions one might have. progress would be impossible