Books on Amazon
|Principle of Charity||IV 79
transcendental/argument/Davidson/Fodor/Lepore: Davidson s transcendental argument for the charity principle is as follows: If we do not assume that the speaker believes the most things correctly, then language acquisition is impossible by the RI. - IV 80 - language acquisition is possible, however - so it must be assumed that most of the beliefs of the speaker are true.
Fodor/Lepore VsDavidson: there is no clear reason to believe the second premise (that RI is possible) - therefore the transcendental argument fails.
Charity Principle/Davidson/Fodor/Lepore: is not necessary at all - the fact that an interpretation that makes more sentences true than another interpretation is preferable itself is not the CP - rather a methodological principle for evaluating theories.
Holism/Meaning holism/Fodor/Lepore: the charity principle -buys more-than the compositionality for iterated belief contexts - these are in fact more fine-grained - believes that - is more opaque than -is nomologically coextensive with- then the RI does not allow to assume most beliefs of the speaker to be true. - CP: cannot eliminate the hypothesis that Sam believes that snow is F - RI/Fodor/Lepore: works only in non-intentional contexts.
Charity Principle/Lewis: part of our concept of the person.
Charity/Fodor/Lepore VsDavidson: cannot be used by the omniscient: he will always misinterpret the erring if he assumes his sentences as mostly true (in the light of the interpreter) - so he must not apply the same method. - (IV 159/160) - Solution: the omniscient must construct my false beliefs as false in his light and the true ones as true in his light - he can only do that if he waives the charity principle. -
Charity/Fodor/Lepore: can only be used between two omniscient beings. It is an incoherent concept to have an Omniscient exercise charity with a erring being.
J. Fodor/E. Lepore
Holism Cambridge USA Oxford UK 1992