This text explores the relationship between systematic and hermeneutical approaches in philosophy, arguing that they are mutually dependent. A systematic philosopher must be grounded in the history of thought to avoid oversight, while an interpreter must understand the systematic structure of a thinker's work to grasp implicit connections. This principle is illustrated by the author's interpretation of Emanuel Rádl's concept of truth, which required synthesizing scattered references into a coherent whole. The author further distinguishes between a pure interpreter and a systematic philosopher, noting that the latter's own philosophical identity remains evident even when engaging with diverse thinkers. Finally, the text addresses the influence of individual ideas, which often detach from their original context and are 'appropriated' by others for different purposes. This highlights a dynamic where philosophical arguments are repurposed in new frameworks, demonstrating the tension between the original systematic intent and the fluid nature of hermeneutic reception across history.