Principle of Charity and Its Significance - Essay Example

Principle of Charity Discussion about principle of charity, its significance, and comparison with God of Moses, Abraham and Aristotle ____________ Grade Course: __________________ Dated: July-05-2009 Principle of Charity and its significance The principle of charity refers to the philosophy where the listener understands and make attempts to grasp the school of thoughts about an argument or a belief by interpreting the speakers argument. In oriental philosophy, it is important to adopt this logical principle so as to welcome new ideas which might prove helpful to the listener at some point in his understanding to a new construction. This methodological principle allows the listener to be optimistic while interpreting the best possible rational meaning and it is only after that the meaning is attained, the listener is able to criticize the argument. This philosophy requires that whatever one believes to be true or rational, must set aside while assuming the new opinion to be in provisional presumption. This not only helps the listener to put himself in the shoe of the speaker for the time being, but also helps him to get a clear picture of the speakers view. Moreover, this principle develops within a person the patience require to negate his personal attitudes and helps him to absorb a new concept, which might he has never come across. Interpretationism: Interpretation acts as a significant tool in the principle of charity and, is the process of evaluating attitudes to an individual on the basis of what he believes, says and does. Child (1996, p. 7) suggests that whenever we interpret someone, we actually aim to make attempt to sense of him by attributing beliefs, desires, intentions, emotions, and other propositional attitudes in the light of which we try to predict his rational action to the extent where we feel to gain an understanding of the nature of his mental reflection. An interpretation conception to this principle revolves around the notion that no individual can claim to be perfectly rational. He is always ready to learn new ideas which means he is exposed to all sorts of local irrationality in thought and action to which he believes is rational, but in fact is not rational for the set of attitudes he possess are absolutely irrational. Thus, he creates a nexus between the propositional attitudes and the notion of rationality as one of the source of interpretationists principle of charity. Why is it a mistake to argue from Contradictory Premises? Contradiction incurs when the listener has own set of premises and is not ready to consider any argument other than the one he hold. Through such attitude, the listener actually contradicts to believe in the other set of principles and is adamant to learn no new concept or approach. This deviates from the above discussed principle of prediction because no person is rational in his belief, and since the listener is not ready to grab a new concept, he believes his argument or opinion is the only rational attitude. This negates the norms of rationality which suggests that the principles governing the interpretation of a subjects words and attitudes somehow define the unjustifiability of rationality as a point about interpretation, and that is there is no specific set of rules that helps for arriving at the best interpretation of an agent. When we interpret others, we strive to make sense of them by drawing on our own conception of rationality to form judgments in each particular case. Thus, arguing or inability to perceive the speakers belief is a mistake because no theory justifies it. Proof: To say that rationality is unjustifiable is not necessarily to say that there can be absolutely no true principles of rationality, or that the person has irrational believes. But the problem is that, the presence of any such principles does not answer to elucidate a detailed proof to every question in which the person has got no option to believe in circumstances. In order to qualify as a universal principle of theoretical rationality, Child (1996, p. 59) points out the following concerns: If one believe that a tends to b, then one must believe that b exists with a reason that there is no option other than to believe if one has got the best reason to believe. Although a does not presents us with a clear picture of what to believe, therefore, different responses in context with a and b are possible. This proves that a mind must be free to adopt and assess any argument and belief. The above notion can also be put to practice in scenarios where there are religious debates. Although in religious theology, it is difficult to have patience to accept the speakers believe because of emotional attribute that pertains to religious traditions, and since religious key components are devoid of being identical or similar in nature, it becomes hard but not impossible to grasp an inter religious theology. Interpretation on the basis of religion is a sensitive comparative theology where similarities and differences are immediately taken into account, in the category of faith. Comparing the God of Moses and Abraham with the God of Aristotle Aristotles definition of God fulfills the criteria of being a deist and consider as if everything in motion is due to Gods will. Everything in space which is movable or moving has certain kind of cause and effect. That is the actual cause of change is dependent upon some source of action that initiates change. This source, Aristotle refers to the only power that governs the universe and keeps everything in continuous state of motion, until deceased. Thus, Aristotle believes that God is the only source which is unmoving but who moves the universe through continuous cause and effect that entails change. Aristotles God is a mover who maintains the eternal conditions of this world through diffusing a series of motion to create cause and effect (Edwards, 1998). The God of Abraham and Moses is more formal, since the religion is based on monotheism. The idea of God in Jews and Muslims is of an absolute being who encompasses infinite perfection, but without justification. This concept that Judaism and Islam purges is less rational as compared to Aristotles because there is less logical reasoning to prove Aristotles unmoved mover. However, God in other monotheist religions is the ultimate reality to complete the pattern of the primal cause and effect, and unlike Aristotle, God itself is the apex of reasoning towards which all explorations point (Goodman, 1996, p. 79). Or, we can say that Aristotles God is more rational to prove its existence as compared to the God of Moses and Abraham. The difference between the two lies in the patterns of understanding for which Abraham and Moses God is based solely on prophecy and faith, while Aristotles God has been proved to exist on the basis of rationality. References Child, William. (1996). Causality, Interpretation and the Mind: Oxford. Edwards Paul. (1998, Summer). God and the Philosophers. Free Inquiry, 18(3), 36. Goodman, E. L. (1996). God of Abraham: Oxford University Press: New York. Read More