why, then, do you say that interpretation is permissible or obligatory when there is a conflict with the conclusions of rational inquiry? There are several differences between the two.

First, knowledge derived from sensory perception and self-evident truths is already present in the hearers, and its clarification accompanies the speaker’s address, precedes it, or follows shortly afterward. It is well known that speech can be addressed only to someone who possesses the knowledge needed to understand its meaning, including knowledge of the speaker, his language, and so forth. Accordingly, the possession of self-evident and sensory knowledge by those addressed is indispensable for them to be properly addressed. Such knowledge is therefore among the means by which they understand the meaning of the address. Under these circumstances, the address provides guidance, clarification, and healing, rather than misguidance or confusion.

As for conclusions reached only through subtle and lengthy inquiry, and over which disputes arise: if people are addressed with words whose apparent meaning is unbelief and error, while the intended meaning is not made clear to them and they can discover it only through such methods—if they discover it at all—this would mislead and confuse them. Indeed, not addressing them would be more beneficial and more conducive to their guidance, since without that address they would know the truth through such rational inquiry without anything contradicting it. But if they are addressed with words that conflict with this knowledge,