CriticalThinkingAcademy

Recently, I've been thinking about what it means to interpret something, and to what extent we can say an interpretation is "correct". During a conversation with a friend on the topic of Nietzsche, I was asked if I've read any of his writings; to which I answered yes, but then qualified it by saying he is difficult to interpret given his writing style. Nietzsche is but one example within the philosophical tradition that is difficult to understand, especially in isolation from the rest of his writings or the thinkers to which he was responding. You often have to embed a philosopher within their own lifecycle and broader cultural context to make sense of them. Wittgenstein was also brought up; to which again I responded by saying he is difficult to interpret (for the same reasons). In one of my last posts, I referenced one of Wittgenstein's writings to support something I was claiming; but then began to wonder whether quoting such a difficult-to-interpret thinker he...

In prior posts, I've written about how absurd I think this argument is. Its an argument that, if you have no familiarity with philosophical logic, it appears obvious if you are already a theist. If you have any familiarity with this kind of argumentation, it's quite dubious. This polarizing nature is interesting to me because I think it highlights problems with using philosophical argumentation to persuade anyone of anything under conditions of deep disagreement (and generally, the uses of argumentation by rational agents with differing hinge commitments ). The paper " Wittgenstein and the logic of deep disagreement " is where my thoughts are currently with regard to this question; specifically with respect to arguments for the existence of a god. Are we fundamentally disagreeing about  arational beliefs , and if so, what is the relationship between hinge commitments and trust ? Are theistic beliefs knowledge-apt beliefs or folk-beliefs ? This is an active area of...