Read on Twitter
a lot of the time when you call someone's interpretation of a historical philosopher "uncharitable" it's technically true but misses the point. the thing about charity is that (in nontrivial cases) you have to figure some substantive philosophical issue out for yourself and
recognize the same insight in the person you're reading. so, getting what a historical philosopher said isn't purely a matter of interpretation, but also a matter of philosphical competence; and not just knowing a lot about the relevant issues or being able to make clever and
persuasive arguments, but actually being able to get things *right* (since if one doesnt know what's in fact true, one won't be able to correctly apply the principle of charity). and given the nature of this field, there being nothing close to consensus about anything, this level
of competence is predictably rare. it's generally not as if people know what's true merely and fail to take the author to share that knowledge.
& all this is why the plausibility of one's interpretation doesn't tend to correlate with one's historical expertise (after a certain
& all this is why the plausibility of one's interpretation doesn't tend to correlate with one's historical expertise (after a certain
point), and why one can find oneself feeling like others' interpretations are based on an entirely different text. if you and some historical philosopher are talking about something right in front of the two of you, that's going to guide your interpretation and correct
many of the misunderstandings you would have otherwise had about their view. to some extent, you'll be able to tell what the author means by certain terms, when they're not being literal, and when they've made a mistake that shouldn't affect your reading. in contrast, someone
else who is trying to go entirely off the letter of what is said, or has a distorted view of the thing under discussion, will be completely off track.
and of course, to such a person it'll look like you're just reading your views into the author. there are no philosphically
and of course, to such a person it'll look like you're just reading your views into the author. there are no philosphically
neutral/purely interpretive grounds for settling a dispute like this. there's no getting around the fact that one can't read a significant work without thinking through the issues oneself in parallel to reading it. and insofar as one comes to false conclusions in thinking
through the issues, one will come to false conclusions about what the author is saying, unless something else in the text happens to correct them.
