{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019704433497536946, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.086142322097379, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Relevance of Radical Interpretation *

There is an interesting parallel to be drawn between the method of Davidson’s philosophy and what Davidson’s philosophy is about, or purports to show. Throughout his writings, considerations of language and interpretation are what consistently and ultimately yield his varied and bold views on the mental. Perhaps the most central of those views—and here is the parallel—is that mental states, or thought in general, emerge only in the context of communication and interpretation. The mind is born of interpretation, or language, as Davidson’s own philosophy of mind is born of his philosophy of language. Drawing the parallel reveals what I think is a persistent bias in Davidson’s work. Asking for the source of that parallel can lead one on a journey through Davidson’s assorted writings in pursuit of the origin, and thus foundation, of those views of the mental which are to spring so directly from his remarks on interpretation. What that inquiry reveals, what the parallel calls attention to is a consistent confidence on Davidson’s part in the primacy and possibility of interpretation of the mental. An appreciation of the dependence of Davidson’s arguments upon a prior view about interpretation is important. Many philosophers would not endorse such a view, which is perhaps one reason that exploring interpretation continues to be an uncommon approach for investigations into the nature of the mind. The very relevance of interpretation for understanding the nature of the mind—or at least the deep relevance Davidson sees in it—turns on a prior and controversial view.