“The fact that she didn’t tell repeated falsehoods is such a low bar that we should be wary of citing it as evidence of very much at all. “ and yet here we are. Thanks - appreciate the depth here beyond the surface discussion. I, too, would love to see this country do and be better. But we have a long climb uphill for that
I follow your reasoning here and agree. There seems to be a "sports mentality" to our political process. It only matters who wins and frequently no matter how. Hermeneutic charity seems far from the reality of today's political discourse.
As philosophy, this is a top-notch essay. However, I'd argue that a Presidential candidate debate (right now, in the US) is not a philosophical debate. It is political. The audience is different. There is a social and political backdrop that is impossible to ignore. Therefore, you might extend some hermeneutic charity to both candidates, as they attempt to speak to all Americans in a way that all Americans might understand. Joe Biden was discarded as a candidate after the last debate, when in my view, he attempted to utilize hermeneutic charity to some extent. He was judged by his appearance and his voice, not by the content of his comments. He was seen as "weak" and "inefficient" at exposing Trump's faults. Harris knew her audience and the task at hand. And she was prepared. Her political audience clamored for strength and clarity, and she delivered. The sway of populism is why our current political discourse is fractured. Hermeneutic charity on Harris's part would not have been effective in this political climate. And if Donald Trump's recent statements are any indication, if he is elected, political discourse will only become more difficult, as he attempts to use the power of our institutions to silence his political critics.
Thanks, Chris. Very well said. Yeah, I don't disagree, but I think that the fact that this is where our political situation is reflects big problems for our democracy. So long as power is the modus operandi and attacking the other guy can be an effective stand-in for constructive visions of social flourishing, we are screwed. Oh, and for what it is worth, I definitely don't see Biden as having used hermeneutic charity, but instead simply exposed the very real requirements of mental acuity required for this position. In that same regard, I think Trump has clearly illustrated his lack of such acuity and that he is even being supported by anyone is a reflection of a genuine disaster of epistemic judgment by a populace that has been ideologically trained to give in to appetites rather than being guided by reason.
I’m not sure exactly what hermeneutic charity really is, but I’m leaning toward “civility”. Leaders/politicians seemed to have had that not so long ago. Bullying is just not attractive nor solution oriented no matter who’s doing it. Considering the short time Harris has been at the job of actual Candidate, how can she possibly have had time to breathe?
I’m impressed that she has dreams for helping with child care, lower housing costs for new families, and higher taxes for people (corporations?) who own multiple houses.
Voters clamor for “specifics” and “details” when I’m just hoping she’s doesn’t worry about the Senate and can remember to call her sister.😉
“The fact that she didn’t tell repeated falsehoods is such a low bar that we should be wary of citing it as evidence of very much at all. “ and yet here we are. Thanks - appreciate the depth here beyond the surface discussion. I, too, would love to see this country do and be better. But we have a long climb uphill for that
Agreed. I actually did a long climb uphill today in PIsgah! hahahaha. Sadly, it is unlikely that my mtn biking will lead to a better democracy.
I follow your reasoning here and agree. There seems to be a "sports mentality" to our political process. It only matters who wins and frequently no matter how. Hermeneutic charity seems far from the reality of today's political discourse.
As philosophy, this is a top-notch essay. However, I'd argue that a Presidential candidate debate (right now, in the US) is not a philosophical debate. It is political. The audience is different. There is a social and political backdrop that is impossible to ignore. Therefore, you might extend some hermeneutic charity to both candidates, as they attempt to speak to all Americans in a way that all Americans might understand. Joe Biden was discarded as a candidate after the last debate, when in my view, he attempted to utilize hermeneutic charity to some extent. He was judged by his appearance and his voice, not by the content of his comments. He was seen as "weak" and "inefficient" at exposing Trump's faults. Harris knew her audience and the task at hand. And she was prepared. Her political audience clamored for strength and clarity, and she delivered. The sway of populism is why our current political discourse is fractured. Hermeneutic charity on Harris's part would not have been effective in this political climate. And if Donald Trump's recent statements are any indication, if he is elected, political discourse will only become more difficult, as he attempts to use the power of our institutions to silence his political critics.
Thanks, Chris. Very well said. Yeah, I don't disagree, but I think that the fact that this is where our political situation is reflects big problems for our democracy. So long as power is the modus operandi and attacking the other guy can be an effective stand-in for constructive visions of social flourishing, we are screwed. Oh, and for what it is worth, I definitely don't see Biden as having used hermeneutic charity, but instead simply exposed the very real requirements of mental acuity required for this position. In that same regard, I think Trump has clearly illustrated his lack of such acuity and that he is even being supported by anyone is a reflection of a genuine disaster of epistemic judgment by a populace that has been ideologically trained to give in to appetites rather than being guided by reason.
I’m not sure exactly what hermeneutic charity really is, but I’m leaning toward “civility”. Leaders/politicians seemed to have had that not so long ago. Bullying is just not attractive nor solution oriented no matter who’s doing it. Considering the short time Harris has been at the job of actual Candidate, how can she possibly have had time to breathe?
I’m impressed that she has dreams for helping with child care, lower housing costs for new families, and higher taxes for people (corporations?) who own multiple houses.
Voters clamor for “specifics” and “details” when I’m just hoping she’s doesn’t worry about the Senate and can remember to call her sister.😉
And who’s filling her Senate job anyway?