Now, Martin is correct. And he is,despite his humility a pretty deep scholar in

Now, Martin is correct. And he is,despite his humility a pretty deep scholar in these subjects, precisely because he takes an author on his own terms in the context of the history of the development of thought.

I am not very empathic so I can’t really figure out what the cause of the dispute is here, other than martin is using the author’s intention and I THINK Alain is using some other criteria.

This question is interesting, becuase it comes to the heart of why legal interpretation is difficult: you must know the mind of teh author at the time. In other words, words are weights and measures using the weights and measurs of the time and place.

Reply addressees: @AlainVarenne @TheAutistocrat @anon12376301335 @whatifalthist @themaxstoic