The Element of Charity

[shellebelle: Okay everyone I broke up bisexual - sort of a bi-section. Okay I enjoy my humor but maybe its too out there but enjoy!]

Might it be helpful to list the elements of the principle of charity? Of course, I don't mean to suggest that being charitable is merely a matter of following some technical rules; it is above all an attitude, a disposition, a stance, a commitment. But sometimes it's helpful to spell things out.

1. In trying to understand what has been said, assume that the interlocutor is rational (minimally, has a good reason to say what he or she is saying).

2. In trying to understand another's argument, construe the argument in the strongest possible form. (If there is a version of the argument that avoids any perceived errors or falsehoods in the version offered, attribute the better version of the argument to one's interlocutor.)

3. Assume that one's interlocutor is sincere, truthful, coherent, logical, and is saying something relevant, significant, or interesting.

4. Interpret what the other is saying in a way that yields the greatest possible agreement between oneself and the other.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Frederick M. Dolan:

Might it be helpful to list the elements of the principle of charity? (...)
4. Interpret what the other is saying in a way that yields the greatest possible agreement between oneself and the other.

---

So I was charitable after all! I assumed Edward was very similar to myself when I thought his coming out message was, at least partly, signaling availability. I think any posting is ultimately a form of flirtation. Conrad's well crafted message #18 shows the phenomenon beautifully.

But possibly this is an example of the "curse of knowledge" being biased by one’s own belief when trying to appreciate a different perspective.

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=30106

As Richard Thaler wrote: "Once we know something, we can't imagine ever thinking otherwise. This makes it hard for us to realize that what we know may be less than obvious to others who are less informed. The curse of knowledge will lead me to think that others will have read the same articles I have, and have learned the same lessons from them (lessons I now take for granted), when in fact others have been busy reading entirely different material, and have never even heard of the findings that have so influenced my thinking."

Having lived here in West County for over ten years now, and having done some of the party circuit, after having been in similarly libertine circles in Amsterdam, Krakow, Palo Alto, and other places, it did not occur to me that bisexuality is still marginalized and discriminated against. I never have experienced any of that against my bisexuality, such as it is.

Now, someone who comes out here for monotony. That may be quite a different thing. I'm waiting with collywobbles.

I have saved a copy of this post in MsWord and it now resides on my computer's desktop.

Thanks,

Edward

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Frederick M. Dolan:

Might it be helpful to list the elements of the principle of charity? Of course, I don't mean to suggest that being charitable is merely a matter of following some technical rules; it is above all an attitude, a disposition, a stance, a commitment. But sometimes it's helpful to spell things out.

1. In trying to understand what has been said, assume that the interlocutor is rational (minimally, has a good reason to say what he or she is saying).

2. In trying to understand another's argument, construe the argument in the strongest possible form. (If there is a version of the argument that avoids any perceived errors or falsehoods in the version offered, attribute the better version of the argument to one's interlocutor.)

3. Assume that one's interlocutor is sincere, truthful, coherent, logical, and is saying something relevant, significant, or interesting.

4. Interpret what the other is saying in a way that yields the greatest possible agreement between oneself and the other.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Frederick M. Dolan:

Might it be helpful to list the elements of the principle of charity?

---

Probably not. If the goal is to hold rational discussions, charity won't get you very far. Principles of realism should apply.

Quote:

---

1. In trying to understand what has been said, assume that the interlocutor is rational (minimally, has a good reason to say what he or she is saying).

---

First Principle of Realism: In trying to understand what has been said, check the posts for self-consistency, for declarations of faith in propositions that are contradicted by empirical fact, and for common symptoms of mental illness (magical thinking, etc.).

Quote:

---

2. In trying to understand another's argument, construe the argument in the strongest possible form. (If there is a version of the argument that avoids any perceived errors or falsehoods in the version offered, attribute the better version of the argument to one's interlocutor.)

---

Second Principle of Realism: Ask questions to determine which version of an argument the interlocutor is proposing.

Quote:

---

3. Assume that one's interlocutor is sincere, truthful, coherent, logical, and is saying something relevant, significant, or interesting.

---

Third Principle of Realism: Assume that one's interlocutor is sincere, etc. if his past contributions to Wacco have shown sincerity, etc. Otherwise, no.

Quote:

---

4. Interpret what the other is saying in a way that yields the greatest possible agreement between oneself and the other.

---

Fourth Principle of Realism: State your interpretations up-front and ask your interlocutor how well your interpretations match what he is trying to say.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Willie Lumplump:

Probably not. If the goal is to hold rational discussions, charity won't get you very far. Principles of realism should apply.

First Principle of Realism: In trying to understand what has been said, check the posts for self-consistency, for declarations of faith in propositions that are contradicted by empirical fact, and for common symptoms of mental illness (magical thinking, etc.).

Second Principle of Realism: Ask questions to determine which version of an argument the interlocutor is proposing.

Third Principle of Realism: Assume that one's interlocutor is sincere, etc. if his past contributions to Wacco have shown sincerity, etc. Otherwise, no.

Fourth Principle of Realism: State your interpretations up-front and ask your interlocutor how well your interpretations match what he is trying to say.

---

This post seems to be based on a misunderstanding that goes back to Conrad introducing charity as "giving everyone the benefit of the doubt as a fellow human ape until such time as they literally shit on your rug" while Frederick took this in the sense of the Principle of Charity, which is a interpretational principle proposed when we "translate" or "interpret" the buz of sounds and letters trown at you into meaningful statements.

Principle of Charity goes back to discussions in the Philosophy of Language by Grice (?) and Davidson. Two things??

Frederick should clarify, please.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Zeno Swijtink:

This post seems to be based on a misunderstanding that goes back to Conrad introducing charity as "giving everyone the benefit of the doubt as a fellow human ape until such time as they literally shit on your rug"

---

So far I don't see the misunderstanding, and the fourth "principle of charity," at least, seems self-defeating to me. I'm more likely to understand your views if I search out apparent differences between us and check to see whether or not those differences are only apparent. Assuming without good reason that we have the same view might easily lead me to overlook real differences, and if that happened, I'd deprive one or both of us of a learning experience. In any case, I don't see that it's any more charitable to think we're the same than than to think we're different. Thinking that you're like me could be only a display of egotism.

Oops, I as an interloper was not aware of the earlier conversational context. Mea culpa.

The principle of charity as I introduced it is definitely the idea of Donald Davidson. (Grice certainly influenced Davidson with his idea of the conversational maxims, but I don't believe he ever invoked the idea of charity. It's no accident that they were both at Berkeley.)

However, I need to look more carefully at the principles of realism before I respond. It seems to me that in the Davidsonian sense that I had in mind, the principles of realism would be applications of the principle of charity. The idea is always to construe what the other says in a way that seems reasonable to you, then to formulate on that basis objections that still seem relevant, and shoot them back to the interlocutor so that he can qualify, amplify, etc. Charity means not taking the other at his word, but offering up a version of what he says that is as compelling as you can imagine he could say under the most favorable conditions -- and then stating whatever objections remain.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Zeno Swijtink:

This post seems to be based on a misunderstanding that goes back to Conrad introducing charity as "giving everyone the benefit of the doubt as a fellow human ape until such time as they literally shit on your rug" while Frederick took this in the sense of the Principle of Charity, which is a interpretational principle proposed when we "translate" or "interpret" the buz of sounds and letters trown at you into meaningful statements.

Principle of Charity goes back to discussions in the Philosophy of Language by Grice (?) and Davidson. Two things??

Frederick should clarify, please.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Frederick M. Dolan:

Oops, I as an interloper was not aware of the earlier conversational context. Mea culpa.

The principle of charity as I introduced it is definitely the idea of Donald Davidson. (Grice certainly influenced Davidson with his idea of the conversational maxims, but I don't believe he ever invoked the idea of charity. It's no accident that they were both at Berkeley.)

However, I need to look more carefully at the principles of realism before I respond. It seems to me that in the Davidsonian sense that I had in mind, the principles of realism would be applications of the principle of charity. The idea is always to construe what the other says in a way that seems reasonable to you, then to formulate on that basis objections that still seem relevant, and shoot them back to the interlocutor so that he can qualify, amplify, etc. Charity means not taking the other at his word, but offering up a version of what he says that is as compelling as you can imagine he could say under the most favorable conditions -- and then stating whatever objections remain.

---

I am on my way out and will leave you having fun with this aspect of the issues of Quinian/Davidsonian "radical translation/interpretation."

I am not sure how relevant this is to what Conrad brought up and what certainly concerns Willie. The Quinian/Davidsonian point involves that you have to agree about a lot to disagree about a little. Willie may think that what you need to agree on (both calling a cat a cat, most of the time, having the ordinary human needs and urges) is rather trivial. The project may be too radical to him, in the sense of concerning the roots of mutual human understanding.

How are we to judge between the principles of charity and those of realism? If we are trying to achieve the most rational conversation, it seems to me that only charity will do. If it's a matter of crawling through the web and assuming that there's nothing out there that could possibly challenge one's ideas about what is and isn't rational, simply on empirical grounds that 99% of what's out there is garbage, then realism is appropriate. But we have no way of knowing in advance that we are in possession of the best conception of rationality, and if we care about that, we will be alert to anyone who comes along who challenges that concept. We will always challenge ourselves to formulate whatever is said in a way that makes it as compelling as it can be to us. In the belief that there is a kernel of truth in whatever is said.

All this applies only to a conversation that aims at "objective" truth. Obviously there are other, equally important conversations, such as those in which we express who we are and how things appear to us.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Willie Lumplump:

Probably not. If the goal is to hold rational discussions, charity won't get you very far. Principles of realism should apply.

First Principle of Realism: In trying to understand what has been said, check the posts for self-consistency, for declarations of faith in propositions that are contradicted by empirical fact, and for common symptoms of mental illness (magical thinking, etc.).

Second Principle of Realism: Ask questions to determine which version of an argument the interlocutor is proposing.

Third Principle of Realism: Assume that one's interlocutor is sincere, etc. if his past contributions to Wacco have shown sincerity, etc. Otherwise, no.

Fourth Principle of Realism: State your interpretations up-front and ask your interlocutor how well your interpretations match what he is trying to say.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Willie Lumplump:

So far I don't see the misunderstanding, and the fourth "principle of charity," at least, seems self-defeating to me. I'm more likely to understand your views if I search out apparent differences between us and check to see whether or not those differences are only apparent. Assuming without good reason that we have the same view might easily lead me to overlook real differences, and if that happened, I'd deprive one or both of us of a learning experience. In any case, I don't see that it's any more charitable to think we're the same than than to think we're different. Thinking that you're like me could be only a display of egotism.

---

You may have a point here, even with respect to the Davidsonian philosophy of meaning project that you are not cognizant of. The posting I made three days ago

The Curse of Knowledge - Innovative Minds Don’t Think Alike

may show limitations to the fourth principle.

Zeno, I'm so sorry you are leaving because it seems you are the verge of articulating our confusion. What a great service! But we can pick it up another time. Right now the practical calls me, an old friend is in a snowstorm in Tahoe and his daughter has to get back to Edinburgh and needs a place to stay before her flight. Who knew that life would be so complicated?!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Zeno Swijtink:

I am on my way out and will leave you having fun with this aspect of the issues of Quinian/Davidsonian "radical translation/interpretation."

I am not sure how relevant this is to what Conrad brought up and what certainly concerns Willie. The Quinian/Davidsonian point involves that you have to agree about a lot to disagree about a little. Willie may think that what you need to agree on (both calling a cat a cat, most of the time, having the ordinary human needs and urges) is rather trivial. The project may be too radical to him, in the sense of concerning the roots of mutual human understanding.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Zeno Swijtink:

The project may be too radical to him, in the sense of concerning the roots of mutual human understanding.

---

Too radical to me? Hey! I'm from Berkeley too.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Frederick M. Dolan:

But we have no way of knowing in advance that we are in possession of the best conception of rationality.

---

I am being rational when I base my opinions on the best available evidence and match my level of confidence to the amount and quality of evidence. My general criteria for determining what "best available" means are mostly too obvious to need explanation (no appeals to supernatural intervention, etc.). The less obvious, and more interesting, criteria I usually can define only in specific cases. "Best" usually admits a range of interpretations, and a good part of that range may fall within bounds of rationality. However, out-and-out irrationality usually isn't hard to spot or describe.

In any case, some waccovians are either not interested in rationality or unable to recognize it. Some people just don't value it, others spurn it because it interferes with their sociopathic agenda, and still others have thoughts are too disordered by mental illness for them to recognize it. I've met all three types of people in wacco.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Willie Lumplump:

Too radical to me? Hey! I'm from Berkeley too.

---

If you rebelled against social mores you may in the end have rebelled against nothing more ...

If you think that you, in the context of an inquiry you are committed to and based on its rules of evidence and argument, have what it takes to claim X, then you're being rational. Some groups, to carry out inquires that interest them, may rule out certain sources of information, for example what they deem to be supernatural. Others may rule in or out other kinds of evidence and other forms of argument. If someone wants to participate in their language-game, they must play by their rules. But no language-game, whether it be that of science or religion or whatever, gets to rule on what is an isn't rational as such. That's up to history, if anything. Unless you believe that the eternal laws of reason for all possible inquiries have been discovered once and for all, then you have to concede that we do what we can with the vocabularies of inquiries we possess -- and that we should be on the lookout for more vocabularies.

The "best evidence" is always relative to an established language-game. There are only a very few of those where discussion is rigorous in any scientific sense, e.g. mathematics, physics. The rest have to do with more human concerns, i.e. how we are to live together, what we should live for, hope for. Most of the "factual" disputes I've seen here are really proxy arguments for value disputes. People couch value disputes in factual terms because they've been convinced that the latter are somehow more "rational." But they aren't.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Willie Lumplump:

I am being rational when I base my opinions on the best available evidence and match my level of confidence to the amount and quality of evidence. My general criteria for determining what "best available" means are mostly too obvious to need explanation (no appeals to supernatural intervention, etc.). The less obvious, and more interesting, criteria I usually can define only in specific cases. "Best" usually admits a range of interpretations, and a good part of that range may fall within bounds of rationality. However, out-and-out irrationality usually isn't hard to spot or describe.

In any case, some waccovians are either not interested in rationality or unable to recognize it. Some people just don't value it, others spurn it because it interferes with their sociopathic agenda, and still others have thoughts are too disordered by mental illness for them to recognize it. I've met all three types of people in wacco.

---

I'm not interested in "people" in the abstract. Individuals will get involved in conversations to the extent that they are interested in them, attracted to them. They may understand little or nothing, initially. I first discovered Samuel Beckett when I was 12 or 13, wandering through the stacks of my undistinguished local public library. I don't know why I spotted "How It Is," but I was so astonished when I began reading it that I literally sat down on the floor. I simply hadn't realized that a novel such as this was possible. Did I understand it? No. What I did know is that I WANTED to understand it. I don't think that a watered-down "introduction" to Beckett would have been so inspiring.

On the other hand, once inspired, I benefited from "introductions." If something is interesting or puzzling, ask for expansion or explanation regarding what's unclear. I'm happy to explain all I can, and I recognize the duty to do so, but specific questions, please!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by mykil:

Great Edward Dude err Dudette. Whichever you prefer today! Here is your new post. “What is Rational”?

Fredrick and all you other extremely book smart and over educated individuals, I will tell you the same thing I have told Zeno in the past. Dumb Down Dudes and Dudettes! If you want people to pay attention to what you are writing about you might want people to pay attention to being with. It is hard and not even worth trying if you are going to try and show how to use all the big words in the book. No one really cares. You can say the same thing without show exactly how bright you are. And you will get way more fans in the end by explaining things that people in the real world can actually comprehend! Peace and this ain’t no lie!

---

I split off the various conversations that erupted here into:

The Element of Charity

and

Big Words VS Dumbing Down - Round 5

Please carry on in the appropriate thread!