In this essay, I will respond to the several charges laid at my feet by Robert Talisse and Scott Aikin engaged in their response entitled “Pragmatism and ‘Existential’ Pluralism: A Response to Hackett” (2018) about my article that also appeared in Contemporary Pragmatism entitled “Why James Can Be an Existential Pluralist” (2017). At the heart of my response lies a concern with what I call the principle of hermeneutic charity and the final view James offers us of his entire philosophy. One can recognize the need for historical accuracy and the need to investigate first-order claims that come from historically accurate interpretations.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 340 | 41 | 3 |
Full Text Views | 25 | 0 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 35 | 0 | 0 |
In this essay, I will respond to the several charges laid at my feet by Robert Talisse and Scott Aikin engaged in their response entitled “Pragmatism and ‘Existential’ Pluralism: A Response to Hackett” (2018) about my article that also appeared in Contemporary Pragmatism entitled “Why James Can Be an Existential Pluralist” (2017). At the heart of my response lies a concern with what I call the principle of hermeneutic charity and the final view James offers us of his entire philosophy. One can recognize the need for historical accuracy and the need to investigate first-order claims that come from historically accurate interpretations.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 340 | 41 | 3 |
Full Text Views | 25 | 0 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 35 | 0 | 0 |