DOCSLIB.ORG

Truth and Method in Interpretation Author(S): Eric D

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Truth and Method in Interpretation Author(S): Eric D Truth and Method in Interpretation Author(s): Eric D. Hirsch Jr. Reviewed work(s): Source: The Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Mar., 1965), pp. 488-507 Published by: Philosophy Education Society Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20124071 . Accessed: 18/09/2012 00:24 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Philosophy Education Society Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Review of Metaphysics. http://www.jstor.org CRITICAL STUDIES TRUTHAND METHOD IN INTERPRETATION ERIC D. HIRSCH, JR. Under the somewhat ironic title Wahrheit und Methode (T?bingen, 1960) Professor Hans-Georg Gadamer has published the most substantial treatise on hermeneutic theory that has come from Germany in this century. In scope, length, and learning it bears comparison with Boeckh's Encyclop?die (Leipzig, 1877), and it is precisely in such a comparison that the deliberate irony of Professor Gadamer's title appears. For this is a polemic against that nineteenth century preoccupation with objective truth and correct method of which Boeckh's work was representative and its full title symptomatic: Encyclop?die und Methodologie der philo logischen Wissenschaften. Against this preoccupation Gadamer protests that there can be no Methodologie of textual interpretation because interpretation is not, after all, a Wissenschaft whose aim is objective and permanent knowledge. "Truth" cannot reside, as in an mean Boeckh thought, the genuine re-cognition of author's ing ("das Erkennen des Erkannten") for this unrealizable ideal naively disregards the fact that every putative re-cognition of a text is really a new and different cognition inwhich the interpreter's own historicity is the specifica differentia. "The historicity of under standing" ("die Geschichtlichkeit des Verstehens") is what the nineteenth century overlooked. No "method" can transcend the interpreter's own historicity and no "truth" can transcend this central truth. What is new in Gadamer's theory is not this central thesis, which is widely held and probably has more adherents than critics, but his mode of presentation.1 He has introduced new concepts 1 One very important critic has been Professor Emilio Betti whose Teor?a Generale d?lia Interpretazione (Milan, 1955) is by far the most signi ficant recent treatise in the tradition of Schleiermacher and Dilthey. In a later booklet, Die Hermeneutik als allgemeine Methodik der Geisteswissen schaften (T?bingen, 1962) he takes sharp issue with Gadamer, Bultmann. and their followers. TRUTH AND METHOD IN INTERPRETATION 489 new is not and given old words meanings. Vorurteil, for example, to be avoided but welcomed; interpretation does not require the horizon but involves a of neutralization of one's personal process a Horizontverschmelzung; the history of interpretation is history con of application?a Wirkungsgeschichte. In addition to these cepts Gadamer presents a detailed criticism of earlier hermeneutic theories, a series of extremely valuable excursuses into the history of ideas, and an illuminating theory of art as Spiel. Quite apart from its theoretical argument, Wahrheit und Methode is a book of substance that has begun to radiate an influence far beyond Ger many. In America the theologian James M. Robinson has ob served that, "in the present situation Dilthey and increasingly Heidegger are being superseded by the Heidelberg philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer, a former pupil of Heidegger and Bultmann, whose magnum opus grounds the humanities in a hermeneutic oriented not to psychologism or existentialism, but rather to language and its subject matter."2 Gadamer's book extends and codifies the main hermeneutical concepts of Bultmann, Heidegger, and their adherents, and can be considered a summa of what Robinson calls "The New Her meneutic." By Robinson and other theologians, and by Con tinental literary critics, Wahrheit und Methode has been welcomed as a philosophical justification for "vital and relevant" interpreta tions that are unencumbered by a concern for the author's original intention. On this point "The New Hermeneutic" reveals its affinities with "The New Criticism" and the newer "Myth Criti cism." All three have impugned the author's prerogative to be the determiner of textual meaning. Gadamer, however, grounds his anti-intentionalism only partially in aesthetics (like the New Critics) and not at all in the collective unconscious (like the Myth Critics) but primarily in the radical historicism of Martin Heidegger. To Heidegger Gadamer owes much of the vocabulary and con text of his exposition. "Distance in time could only be thought of in its hermeneutical productiveness after Heidegger had lent an 2 See "Hermeneutic Since Barth" in The New Hermeneutic, ed. by J. M. Robinson and J. B. Cobb, Jr. (New York, 1964), p. 69. 490 ERIC D. HIRSCH, JR. existential sense to the idea of understanding" (p. 281).3 But despite the modesty with which Gadamer dedicates his work to "the new aspect of the hermeneutical problem disclosed by Hei degger's existential analysis of human being" (p. 245), the theory he puts forward belongs in many of its features to a skepticism regarding historical knowledge that long pre-dated Sein und Zeit. Still, Gadamer does owe to Heidegger the positive embracing of his torically distorted knowledge as something "real" and "phe nomenal" in contrast to academic pseudo-knowledge which is "abstract" and "constructed." For "in view of the of historicity our being, the rehabilitation of (a text's) original conditions is a futile beginning. What is rehabilitated from an alien past is not a the original. In its continued alienation it has merely secondary existence" (p. 159). on That is the flavor of Gadamer's attack the philological tradi tion in Germany and its "na?ve" aspirations to objectivity. From the start it had been a dead and spiritless enterprise that lacked validity, vitality, and "humane Bedeutung." But itmay be that in his polemical fervor Gadamer has thrown out the baby with the bath. For the new hermeneutics he offers to replace the tradition of Schleiermacher, Humboldt, Droysen, Boeckh, Steinthal, Dilthey and Simmel may be more destructive in its implications than Gadamer had reckoned. In his contains inner any case, theory conflicts and inconsistencies which not one of the above named fallen masters would have allowed to pass into print. I. Tradition and the Indeterminacy of Meaning Although the nature of textual meaning is a crucial subject for hermeneutic theory, Gadamer has not devoted a substantial dis cussion to it. His primary concern has been to attack the premiss is same as that textual meaning the the author's meaning. To sup pose that a text means what its author meant is to Gadamer pure romantic Psychologismus, for a text's meaning does not lie in mental processes, which are in any case inaccessible, but in the 3 The page references throughout are to H.-G. Gadamer, Wahrheit und Methode; Grundz?ge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik (T?bingen, 1960). The translations are mine. TRUTHAND METHOD IN INTERPRETATION 491 thing meant, the Sache, which, while independent of author and reader, is shared by both. Thus, the motto to the central section of Gadamer's book is Luther's dictum, "Qui non intellegit res, non ex sensum elicere." The not author potest verbis res, the is the determiner of meaning. Now Luther's point as I understand it is firmly valid. It is impossible to elicit the sense of the word "railroad" unless one knows what a railroad is. But Luther carefully distinguishes, as Gadamer does not, between res and sensus. Indeed, Gadamer res sensus as were an identifies and though meaning autonomous entity quite independent of consciousness?which is not simply a repudiation of psychologism but of consciousness itself. It will not do to invoke Husserl as an ally on this point (p. 211) sinceHusserl's repudiation of psychologism consisted in distinguishing between mental acts, meanings and things, not in abolishing the former two. Husserl describes meaning as distinct from, yet dependent on, mental acts, and for him the author alone is the determiner of a text's meaning.4 While Gadamer is right to reject the loose iden tification of mental processes and meanings in Schleiermacher and Dilthey, he mistakenly supposes that textual meaning can somehow exist independently of consciousness altogether. He finds sanction for this supposed independence in the nature seems us of written language: "It to to be the distinguishing feature and dignity of literary art that in it language is not speech. That is to say, while remaining independent of all relation of speaking, or being addressed, or being persuaded, it still possesses meaning and form" (p. 177). Accordingly, a written text is not to be as considered recorded speech, but as an independent piece of language. "Actually the condition of being written down is central to the hermeneutic phenomenon because the detachment of a or written text from the writer author as well as from any partic or an ular addressee reader gives it existence of its own" (p. 369). The text, being independent of any particular human conscious 4 See Edmund Husserl, Logische Untersuchungen, Zweiter Band. Unter suchungen zur Ph?nomenologie und Theorie der Erkenntnis. I. Teil, 2nd ed. (Halle, 1913), pp. 91-97. For a discussion of the distinction be tween an author's verbal meaning and the part of his meaning he pays see attention to, E.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Critical Inquiry As Virtuous Truth-Telling: Implications of Phronesis and Parrhesia ______
    ______________________________________________________________________________ Critical Inquiry as Virtuous Truth-Telling: Implications of Phronesis and Parrhesia ______________________________________________________________________________ Austin Pickup, Aurora University Abstract This article examines critical inquiry and truth-telling from the perspective of two comple- mentary theoretical frameworks. First, Aristotelian phronesis, or practical wisdom, offers a framework for truth that is oriented toward ethical deliberation while recognizing the contingency of practical application. Second, Foucauldian parrhesia calls for an engaged sense of truth-telling that requires risk from the inquirer while grounding truth in the com- plexity of human discourse. Taken together, phronesis and parrhesia orient inquirers to- ward intentional truth-telling practices that resist simplistic renderings of criticality and overly technical understandings of research. This article argues that truly critical inquiry must spring from the perspectives of phronesis and parrhesia, providing research projects that aim at virtuous truth-telling over technical veracity with the hope of contributing to ethical discourse and social praxis. Keywords: phronesis, praxis, parrhesia, critical inquiry, truth-telling Introduction The theme of this special issue considers the nature of critical inquiry, specifically methodological work that remains committed to explicit goals of social justice and the good. One of the central concerns of this issue is that critical studies have lost much of their meaning due to a proliferation of the term critical in educational scholarship. As noted in the introduction to this issue, much contemporary work in education research that claims to be critical may be so in name only, offering but methodological techniques to engage in critical work; techniques that are incapable of inter- vening in both the epistemological and ontological formations of normative practices in education.
    [Show full text]
  • Hermeneutical Phenomenology and the Philosophy of Science Patrick A
    Fordham University Masthead Logo DigitalResearch@Fordham Hermeneutic and Phenomenological Philosophies Research Resources of Science 1991 Hermeneutical Phenomenology and the Philosophy of Science Patrick A. Heelan Georgetown University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://fordham.bepress.com/phil_research Part of the Continental Philosophy Commons, and the Philosophy of Science Commons Recommended Citation Heelan, Patrick A., "Hermeneutical Phenomenology and the Philosophy of Science" (1991). Research Resources. 11. https://fordham.bepress.com/phil_research/11 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Hermeneutic and Phenomenological Philosophies of Science at DigitalResearch@Fordham. It has been accepted for inclusion in Research Resources by an authorized administrator of DigitalResearch@Fordham. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Hermeneutical Phenomenology and the Philosophy of Science Heelan, Patrick, “Hermeneutical Phenomenology and the Philosophy of Science,” in Silverman, Hugh (ed.), Gadamer and Hermeneutics: Science, Culture, and Literature, (New York: Routledge, 1991). pp. 213-228 HERMENEUTICAL PHENOMENOLOGY AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE PATRICK A. HEELAN PART I: Continental and Analytic Philosophy of Science Compared The two most characteristic interests of continental philosophy1 are (1) its preoccupation with the problem of the “constitution” of knowledge, and (2) the effect of the historical and cultural world context of science on the “social constitution” of scientific knowledge. Such constitution is “hermeneutical,” when it essentially involves language, natural and artifactual symbols, and historical communities of interpreters. Continental philosophy from the start sees science as an institution in a cultural, historical, and hermeneutical setting. The domain of its discourse is values, subjectivity, Life Worlds, history, and society, as these affect the constitution of scientific knowledge.
    [Show full text]
  • Spring 2007 Professor Balbus
    Spring 2007 Professor Balbus Political Science 504. Theoretical Approaches to Policy and Governance This course encourages a careful reading of three of the most important, widely discussed and debated works of philosophy of the last quarter of the 20th century that raise questions about the epistemologies that govern the study of politics: Richard Rortys Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Hans-Georg Gadamer's Truth and Method, and Jurgen Habermass The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume I. Thus the course also serves as an introduction to central issues in analytic philosophy, hermeneutics, and critical theory. Richard Bernstein's overview, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism, is also required, as is a take-home final examination, weekly 1-2 page memos (beginning with week 4) and one oral presentation in class. The four required texts referred to above are all available for purchase at the Circle Center bookstore. Weeks 1-3 I. Introduction and overview Required: Bernstein, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism Weeks 4-7 II. Analytic Philosophy Required: Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature Recommended: 1. Works Referred to in the Text P.F. Strawson, Individuals ___________, The Bounds of Sense George Pitcher, A Theory of Perception D.M. Armstrong, Perception and the Physical World D.M. Armstrong, A Materialist Theory of Mind John Dewey, The Quest for Certainty John Dewey, Experience and Nature John Locke, Essay Concerning Understanding Wilfrid Sellars, Science, Perception, and Reality Rene Descartes, Discourse on Method Rene Descartes, Meditations Willis Doney, Descartes: Critical Essays Michael Hooker, Descartes: Critical and Interpretative Essays Gilbert Ryle, The Concept of Mind Jerome Shaffer, Philosophy of Mind O.P.
    [Show full text]
  • Gadamer's Ambivalence Toward the Enlightenment Project
    University of Tabriz Journal of Philosophical Investigations Volume 6, No. 11 Autumn & Winter 2012 Gadamer’s Ambivalence toward the Enlightenment Project − Robert J. Dostal −− Rufus M. Jones Professor of Philosophy, Bryn Mawr College Abstract This essay explores Gadamer’s ambivalent relationship with modernity. Gadamer is a prominent critic of the Enlightenment project. His criticisms are both theoretical and practical. Theoretically, representationalism is at the center of modern epistemology for Gadamer. Practically, Gadamer sees the demotion of prudence ( phronesis ) as fundamental to the “bad” Enlightenment. Gadamer’s attempt to revive an appreciation of rhetoric is a way to the join the theoretical and practical dimensions of speech and life. The central representative philosopher of the Enlightenment for Gadamer is Kant. The antithetical thinker is Aristotle. Gadamer would have his Kant and his Aristotle too. The tension between these is at the heart of Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics. Keywords: Gadamer, Enlightenment, Modernity, Philosophical Herme- neutics, Understanding, Language . − ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ وﺻﻮل: 20/7/ 1391 ، ﺗﺄﻳﻴﺪ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﻲ: 9/28/ 1391 University of Tabriz Journal of Philosophical Investigations 54 I. Introduction: Gadamer and Modernity’s Break with the Past Characteristic of much of the philosophical discourse of the 19 th and 20 th century is the rhetoric of a radical break with previous thought. This “break” is often expressed as a break with metaphysics or a break with modernity or a break with the Enlightenment. Prominent voices include, in the 19th century, Comte, Marx and Nietzsche, and in the 20 th century Husserl, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Horkheimer and Adorno. More recent is the phenomena of postmodernism, which very label announces the break with modern thought.
    [Show full text]
  • Print This Article
    Aesthetic Experience, Mimesis and Testimony Roger W. H. Savage University of California Los Angeles Abstract In this article, I relate the demand that Paul Ricœur suggests mimesis places on the way we think about truth to the idea that the work of art is a model for thinking about testimony. By attributing a work’s epoché of reality to the work of imagination, I resolve the impasse that arises from attributing music, literature, and art’s distance from the real to their social emancipation. Examining the conjunction, in aesthetic experience, of the communicability and the exemplarity of a work reveals how Ricœur’s definition of mimesis as refiguration relates to the “rule” that the work summons. This “rule” constitutes the solution to a problem or question for which the work is the answer. In conclusion, as a model for thinking about testimony, the claims that works make have a counterpart in the injunctions that issue from exemplary moral and political acts. Keywords: Aesthetic experience, Mimesis, Judgment, Testimony Résumé Dans cet article, j’établis un lien entre l’exigence que, selon Paul Ricœur,la mimèsis place dans notre façon de penser la vérité, et l’idée que l’œuvre d’art est un modèle pour penser le témoignage. Appliquant l’époché de la réalité à l’oeuvre d’imagination, j’évite l’impasse qui se dresse lorsqu’on attribue la musique, la littérature et la distance artistique du réel à leur émancipation sociale. L’étude de la conjonction du caractère communicable et exemplaire d’une œuvre – dans l’expérience esthétique - met en lumière la relation que la définition par Ricœur de la mimésis comme refiguration établit avec la “règle” que l’œuvre convoque.
    [Show full text]
  • Foucault and Gadamer: Like Apples and Oranges Passing in the Night
    FOUCAULT AND GADAMER: LIKE APPLES AND ORANGES PASSING IN THE NIGHT GARY WICKHAM* INTRODUCTION In introducing their book, Michel Foucault:Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, (first published in 1982, one of the earliest attempts in English at a book-length exposition of the direction and nuances of Foucault's work-one which has stood the test of time), Hubert Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow tell us that philosophical hermeneutics "gives up the phenomenologists' attempt to understand man as a meaning-giving subject, but attempts to preserve meaning by locating it in the social practices and literary texts which man produces."1 They go on to identify two types of hermeneutics which emerged from Heidegger's Being and Time. The first involves "the way Dasein interprets itself in this everyday activity. This 'primordial understanding' in our everyday practices and discourse, which is overlooked by the practitioners but which they would recognize if it were pointed out to them, is the subject of much recent hermeneutic investigation. '2 This school of Heideggerian hermeneutics 3 "claims to find that the deep truth hidden by the everyday practices is the unsettling groundlessness of a way of being which is, so to speak, interpretation all the way down."' They suggest that this school can be characterized as "the hermeneutics of suspicion."5 The second type of hermeneutics is that developed by Hans- Georg Gadamer. It "gives deep hermeneutics a more positive * Senior Lecturer, Sociology Programme, Murdoch University. I thank Alan Hunt and Jeff Malpas for their helpful comments and suggestions, and I thank Jay Mootz for his encouragement.
    [Show full text]
  • Gadamerian Hermeneutics and Irony: Between Strauss and Derrida Robert J
    Bryn Mawr College Scholarship, Research, and Creative Work at Bryn Mawr College Philosophy Faculty Research and Scholarship Philosophy 2008 Gadamerian Hermeneutics and Irony: Between Strauss and Derrida Robert J. Dostal Bryn Mawr College, [email protected] Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy . Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.brynmawr.edu/philosophy_pubs Part of the Philosophy Commons Custom Citation Dostal, Robert J., "Gadamerian Hermeneutics and Irony: Between Strauss and Derrida," Research in Phenomenology 38:2, (2008): 247-269. This paper is posted at Scholarship, Research, and Creative Work at Bryn Mawr College. http://repository.brynmawr.edu/philosophy_pubs/6 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Robert J. Dostal Bryn Mawr College GADAMERIAN HERMENEUTICS AND IRONY: BETWEEN STRAUSS AND DERRIDA 1. Introduction There is a well-known and well-founded, if somewhat oversimple, distinction between the hermeneutics of trust (or good will) and the hermeneutics of suspicion. Commentators on Gadamer, I among them, have counted Gadamer’s hermeneutics as a “hermeneutics of trust” and contrasted it with the hermeneutics of suscipion. 1 As is well-known, this latter phrase, “hermeneutics of suspicion,” was coined by Paul Ricoeur in his book on Freud. 2 The 19 th century masters of such a hermeneutics are Freud and Marx. It goes without saying that they have had much influence on contemporary hermeneutics. Gadamer himself devoted an essay to the hermeneutics of suspicion, which, for whatever reason, Gadamer did not publish in German. 3 In this essay Gadamer names Nietzsche as the “inaugurator” of radical suspicion, whose “most striking instances” are to be found in the critique of ideology and psychoanalysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Gadamer, Davidson, and the Ground of Understanding
    The Ground of Understanding Jeff Malpas In his contribution to Gadamer’s volume in the Library of Living Philosophers, Donald Davidson makes an explicit attempt, taking Plato’s Philebus as his focus, to connect his own thinking with that of Hans-Georg Gadamer in a way that, while it does not ignore possible points of difference, is also suggestive of important continuities in their approaches.1 In the same volume David Hoy argues that ‘the hermeneutic theory of interpretation can enter into a dialogue with the Davidsonian account’ and attempts to ‘draw on some of Davidson’s arguments to defend Gadamer’s hermeneutic theory against its critics.’2 Elsewhere Simon Evnine has suggested that Davidson belongs more in the company of two of Gadamer’s own philosophical heroes – Plato and Hegel – ‘than in the company of the Vienna Circle and Quine, with their austere, anti-metaphysical scientism’3 – while in my own work I have advanced a reading of Davidson that brings him into proximity, not only with Gadamer, but also with Gadamer’s teacher, Martin Heidegger.4 Yet although there has been much within recent English-speaking philosophy that looks towards a rapprochement between the so-called ‘analytic’ tradition as represented in Davidson’s work and the ‘phenomenological-hermeneutic’ tradition of which Gadamer was one of the leading figures, still there are reasons for hesitation in announcing such a rapprochement. From a European perspective, for instance, Davidson might be thought to be committed to a naturalism, an extensionalism, even perhaps, a scientism, quite antithetical to the more ‘humanistic’ style of philosophising to which Gadamer belongs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Science of Philology and the Discipline of Hermeneutics: Gadamer’S Understanding
    Bryn Mawr College Scholarship, Research, and Creative Work at Bryn Mawr College Philosophy Faculty Research and Scholarship Philosophy 2010 The cS ience of Philology and the Discipline of Hermeneutics: Gadamer's Understanding Robert J. Dostal Bryn Mawr College, [email protected] Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy . Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.brynmawr.edu/philosophy_pubs Part of the Philosophy Commons Custom Citation Dostal, Robert J., "The cS ience of Philology and the Discipline of Hermeneutics: Gadamer's Understanding," Internationales Jahrbuch für Hermeneutik 9 (2010): 53-62. This paper is posted at Scholarship, Research, and Creative Work at Bryn Mawr College. http://repository.brynmawr.edu/philosophy_pubs/5 For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE SCIENCE OF PHILOLOGY AND THE DISCIPLINE OF HERMENEUTICS: GADAMER’S UNDERSTANDING Robert J. Dostal Rufus M. Jones Professor of Philosophy Bryn Mawr College Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) It is notable that nowhere in his major work on hermeneutics, Wahrheit und Methode , does Gadamer consider the question of knowledge ( Erkenntnis ) or the conditions and/or limits of knowing ( Erkennen ). Gadamer is not concerned with knowledge but with understanding ( Verstehen ). He only discusses knowledge in the context of his critique of neo-Kantian Erkenntnistheorie , epistemology. Gadamer draws a direct line from neo- Kantian Erkenntnistheorie of the late 19 th and early 20 th century to the epistemology of positivism in the early and middle 20 th century, the positivism of Carnap and Hempel, among others. In the context of the historical and social sciences Gadamer aligns his hermeneutics with the Verstehenssoziologie of Weber that has its roots in Dilthey and which contrasts with the Erklärenswissenschaften of the Neo-Kantians and positivists.
    [Show full text]
  • Regev Ben Jacob
    Journal of Undergraduate Research Volume 7, Issue 5 - May/June 2006 Hermeneutics, Narrative, and Social Science: A Discussion of the Contemporary Relevance of Aristotelian Phronesis Regev Ben Jacob Practical wisdom, prudentia (prudence), and phronesis are all analogs for a type of human understanding that is directly related to experience and application. The theoretical development of this faculty harks back to classical Greece when Aristotle, in his moral philosophy, used it as the conceptual framework to bridge the gap between universal principles and their practical application. In this sense, phronesis was that mediating force in unknown and alien circumstances. We live in a world of uncertain foundations, yet there is a present existence with which must engage despite such uncertainty. For Heidegger it is “throwness,” a condition in which we find ourselves existing and interacting with the world and through which we develop the grounds for understanding. Leslie Thiele writes, “Practical judgment is called for when firm knowledge, moral certainty, and valid rules—whether promulgated by an authoritative institution or derived from an internal process of cogitation— do not supply us with clear solutions to our problems.” The person enacting practical wisdom is constantly drawing back self-reflexively on intuitions and senses developed over time through lived experiences in concrete situations. This reflex entails a correct disposition through the habituation of action. This kind of knowledge, which emerges from action and context, is a different kind of knowledge, according to Aristotle, from the apprehension of general and universal principles. In recent times, this same concept of phronesis has evolved into a center for reorienting the conversation about contemporary philosophical problems and the ways in which we can engage them.
    [Show full text]
  • Utopia of Understanding
    ONE BEING AND LANGUAGE IN PHILOSOPHICAL HERMENEUTICS I once formulated this idea by saying that being that can be understood is language. This is certainly not a metaphysical assertion. Instead, it describes, from the medium of understanding, the unrestricted scope possessed by the hermeneutical perspective. —Hans-Georg Gadamer1 1. PHILOSOPHICAL HERMENEUTICS AND THE LINGUISTIC TURN “Being that can be understood is language” is perhaps the most cited, and possibly the most famous sentence of Truth and Method.2 Written as kind of a summative statement toward the end of the book, it testifies to the centrality of language in philosophical hermeneutics. On the other hand, this centrality echoes, albeit indirectly, the movement of language from the margins to the center stage of philosophy. It illustrates the linguistic turn that Humboldt and Frege had already set in motion in radically different and independent ways in German-speaking philosophy, and finds its major twentieth-century representatives in Ludwig Wittgenstein and Martin Hei- degger. Language is destined to become the dominant—if not exclusive— theme on the philosophical landscape. At the end of the 1950s, when Gadamer wrote the third part of Truth and Method, the turn had not yet been fully achieved, and language had not yet imposed itself, as it would a few years later, also thanks to philosophical hermeneutics. The most diverse philosophical currents will coalesce under the theme of “language”: These include logical positivism and the ordinary language philosophy of Oxford, American pragmatism, 1 © 2012 State University of New York Press, Albany 2 UTOPIA OF UNDERSTANDING structuralism, and psychoanalysis, the late Merleau-Ponty and Derrida’s deconstruction, Heidegger and philosophical hermeneutics, culminating in the transcendental pragmatics of Apel and Habermas.
    [Show full text]
  • Hans-Georg Gadamer's Truth and Method Revisited: on the Very Idea of a Fusion of Horizons in Intense, Asymmetric and Intractab
    Hans-Georg Gadamer’s Truth and Method Revisited: On the Very Idea of a Fusion of Horizons in Intense, Asymmetric and Intractable Conflicts Oliver Ramsbotham Abstract: This article is the second part of a two-part paper. The first part was my chapter ‘Hans- Georg Gadamer’ published by the Dialogue Society in Dialogue Theories II in 2016. In the 2016 chapter, I showed how Gadamer’s ‘philosophical hermeneutics’ as expounded in his great book, Truth and Method (1960), influenced conflict resolution attempts to overcome cultural clashes and inspired the United Nations millennial ‘dialogue of civilisations’ forty years later. This article begins with a brief recapitulation of the theme of my previous paper,1 but then moves on to a constructive critique of Gadamer’s approach in the spirit of Critical Dialogue Studies that suggests how it can be supplemented and made more effective in circumstances where otherwise it does not yet gain purchase. In the second section I look at attempts to apply Gadamerian hermeneutic conflict resolution to the most difficult cases of intense, asymmetric and as yet intractable conflict. I argue that these attempts are premature because they ignore the chief linguistic feature of such conflicts – radical disagreement. As a result, the aim to transform or prevent actual or potential conflict by promoting hermeneutic dialogue and a fusion of horizons does not yet gain traction. In the third section, I revisit Gadamer’s Truth and Method and trace the refusal to take radical disagreement seriously to the founding assumptions of his philosophical hermeneutics. I emphasise his impressive – and less well known – struggles with the very concepts of ‘the horizon’ and ‘the fusion of horizons’ that result.
    [Show full text]