I think this is worth its own post and discussion separate from the current application. What is the role and importance of the context of a theorist/philosopher in understanding his or her ideas? Can we read an essay by someone in isolation and get something useful out of it even without knowing who and what they are responding to? How incumbent on us is it to flesh out our knowledge of a theorist's predecessors?
Clearly the two extremes -- blind ignorance and perfect knowledge -- are both out. The first is dull, and the second ultimately impossible. But where is the desirable median?
* Does it make a difference whether someone is ultimately intending to use the theory in a new context, vs. whether they are focussing on the theory on its own terms? What might be the differing standards of different disciplines? And finally, what might we reasonably expect norms for this group to be?
For those who haven't been following the app, here are some pointers (not to put anyone on the spot here, but just as jumping-off points):
Here theoryshotme announces his basic contention;
here some discussion starts;
here some of it is reiterated. I think we could pull up similar points from earlier apps, too; it's a theme that comes around fairly often but I don't think we've given it its own post (unlike the more general question of what on earth theory is anyway).