Philosophy Now Forum

The Principle of Charity says that you should ascribe to any interlocutor the best possible interpretation of their words that you can manage.

Even if you think them to be insufferable toads with nothing more to say than a load of nonsense, assume that they are well-meaning rational operators whose differing conclusions come from alternative interpretations and experience, and that their arguments, insofar as is possible, are valid.

I am a lifelong adherent to this Principle, which helps me in being certain that someone really is an insufferable toad when their words are still spurious hateful nonsense and wholly invalid in the best possible interpretation.

Speaking of which, as an aside, I will mention another practice I engage in. Whenever I end up in a dispute, especially heated ones, I seek clarification from others that I am in the right and not in the wrong. Everyone does this, ofcourse, it is natural. Most people, though, go to their friends and so achieve simple reassurance (unless the friends are particularly good friends). Those who get most heated in these issues are also most likely to force their friends into having to console them with empty words.

My preference is to go online and find some willing strangers who I then explain the scenario to in as unbiased a manner as I can achieve, without telling them which of the people involved is me. It is by this means that I always know I am in the right

During a Q and A one time, I heard the speaker refer to this principle of the Scholastics which I think is akin to the Principle of Charity: "One ought not attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance."

The political pundits constantly violate both principles.

Have you both noticed that you had joined this forum on the same day: October 17, 2007, tbieter only a few hours earlier than Psychonaut ?

And if someone is not sure how to interpret ? Here on this forum we catch just a glimpse of someone´s personality.
Would it not be more efficient to pay attention only to those who appeal most to our preferences ?
As long as this second group includes far more people than we possibly can pay attention to in our life times we not do have to worry about running out of interlocutors.

Thats probably because this is the second instantiation of the Philosophy Now forum, I suspect it was initiated on Oct 17th, if not somewhere around there, and during a period in which we were both more active than presently.

The point of the Principle of Charity is that when we are unsure how to interpret we should plump for whichever interpretation seems to make the most sense, deliberately bend the damn thing into shape if need be.

While we may never run out of interlocutors in the plan you mention, we would most definately be limited in the scope of the concepts which we encounter, and I care more about which concepts I encounter than which people I encounter who are proposing them.

How much of your life time do you think appropriate to devote to find out what insufferable toads´ opinions are ?
One can devote a whole life to studying their way of thinking, why not.
But how do you decide what is better ? What is more worthy of your attention ? Times goes by, inexorably.
Are you never afraid that you may be wasting your time ?

Psychonaut wrote:The Principle of Charity says that you should ascribe to any interlocutor the best possible interpretation of their words that you can manage.

'Best'? We interpret how we do, not how we like. We are all unique Perspectives, we all see things differently. None see the 'complete picture', all see a valid feature of the complete picture. If we give the author feedback and he says that he didn't mean that and 'this' is his intended meaning, that is not necessarily the last word, as the author's view, though 'valid' is incomplete, allowing room for other interpretations. Perhaps the meaning that you find is of more valus to you then his intended meaning?
How we perceive is 'best' as there really is no option to this perfect moment/percept. Perhaps we will see it differently in another moment/context.

Even if you think them to be insufferable toads with nothing more to say than a load of nonsense, assume that they are well-meaning rational operators whose differing conclusions come from alternative interpretations and experience, and that their arguments, insofar as is possible, are valid.

Personalities are completely irrelevent in a philosophical discussion. Otherwise a valid refutation might be to call someone a doo-doo head (the 'Doo-doo Head' response)! We find meaning where we do. Understanding that everything is true (in context), to 'widen Perspective' it might (as per your 'Principle') behoove us to attempt to understand the context wherein the other Perspective can be correct/true. Perhaps this is what you are refering to?

I am a lifelong adherent to this Principle, which helps me in being certain that someone really is an insufferable toad when their words are still spurious hateful nonsense and wholly invalid in the best possible interpretation.

Personalities aside, their words are true, it is for you to find how, the appropriate context.
One faces the head describes the 'front' of the elephant, another, viewing the 'rear', offers a very different view. In western philosophy, they argue until there is a winner and a loser. They both lose in that scenario as neither has any fuller view of the elephant, just a stroked ego. The fellow describing that which is before him cannot see the other end, it does not exist for him (hence the arguing), it's existence is provided by the one perceiving it.
"The complete Universe can be defined/described as the sum-total of all Perspectives", not just those egoically considered 'right' (translate 'mine').

It is by this means that I always know I am in the right ;)

Your perceptions are always correct/true/'in the right', as are everyone else's! *__-

Your perceptions are always correct/true/'in the right', as are everyone else's! *__

Psychonaut ... this is your ball not mine.

Wootah wrote:

Your perceptions are always correct/true/'in the right', as are everyone else's! *__

Psychonaut ... this is your ball not mine.

Let me make it easy for your whole ball team;
unless you can refute the following, it's over the fence, game over before it began;

"The complete Universe can be defined/described as the sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd

That is an all inclusive definition.

Couple that with;
The First Law of Soul Dynamics;
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!"

All perceptions are true, and by true I imply; real, existing, an integral feature of the complete Universe, without which, the entire Universe must needs be different, yet cannot be other than as it is.
Hence the irrefutable validity of my initial statement that seems to inspire some 'teamwork' in you...

duszek, why would I be afraid of a certainty?

nameless, by best it is meant 'best in your opinion'. To put the principle another way, where there is ambiguity such that a statement may be taken in a number of ways, respond critically to the one you find most agreeable. It is a warning against assuming your opponent to be wrong.

Another good idea would be to be aware that there is always ambiguity and, so, seek out the different possible interpretations.

Your perceptions are always correct/true/'in the right', as are everyone else's!

Sure I'll field this one for Wootah insofar as I will agree with it

"The complete Universe can be defined/described as the sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd

Whereas this is, in my opinion, confused. Would be happy to discuss it in metaphysics

nameless wrote:Your perceptions are always correct/true/'in the right', as are everyone else's! *__-

What do you mean by "perceptions"? If ones 'perceptions' are always "correct/true/'in the right', as are everyone else's", what do you mean by "correct/true/'in the right'"? That we all agree as to what reality, environment and the world are to each of us?

Psychonaut wrote:The Principle of Charity says that you should ascribe to any interlocutor the best possible interpretation of their words that you can manage.

I'd have thought this a Principle of Language rather than charity? The Principle of Charity appears to be "give to those what you can afford"?

Is a Principle of Tipping that we should always dump our waste?

Psychonaut wrote:

"The complete Universe can be defined/described as the sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd

Whereas this is, in my opinion, confused. Would be happy to discuss it in metaphysics ;)

Perhaps I can help alleviate your confusion when/wherever you'd like to discuss it.

Psychonaut wrote:Is a Principle of Tipping that we should always dump our waste?

Hahahaha!!
*__-

Arising_uk wrote:

nameless wrote:Your perceptions are always correct/true/'in the right', as are everyone else's! *__-

What do you mean by "perceptions"?

That which you 'perceive'. Everything in your reality, your world, your life is perceived.

per⋅cep⋅tion
1. the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding.
2. immediate or intuitive recognition or appreciation, as of moral, psychological, or aesthetic qualities; insight; intuition; discernment: an artist of rare perception.
3. the result or product of perceiving, as distinguished from the act of perceiving; percept.
4. Psychology. a single unified awareness derived from sensory processes while a stimulus is present.

Synonyms:
1. awareness, sense, recognition.

Word Origin & History

perception
1483, "receiving, collection," from L. perceptionem (nom. perceptio) "perception, apprehension, a taking," from percipere "perceive" (see perceive). First used in the more literal sense of the L. word; in secondary sense, "the taking cognizance of," it is recorded in Eng. from 1611. Meaning "intuitive or direct recognition of some innate quality" is from 1827.

If ones 'perceptions' are always "correct/true/'in the right', as are everyone else's", what do you mean by "correct/true/'in the right'"?

I refer you to my above response to Wootah in which I explained this.

That we all agree as to what reality, environment and the world are to each of us?

Consensus is irrelevent.
All you can know is the bit of world as it appears to you. That which you perceive is as 'real' as that which is perceived by everyone/everything else.

nameless wrote:That which you 'perceive'. Everything in your reality, your world, your life is perceived.

Is it? By what?