Intl. J. Humanities (2008) Vol. 15 ( 2): ( 99 - 111 )
The Hermeneutical Circle or the Hermeneutical Spiral?
Mohammad Motahari 1
Received: 9/6/2007 Accept: 26/8/2007
Abstract The problem of the hermeneutical circle is one of the contentious issues in philosophical hermeneutics. This paper, begins with focusing on the question as to whether what hermeneuts mean by a hermeneutical circle is in fact a real circle with no analogical sense involved . Recognizing that this problem is not confined to the relation between part and whole, this study confine s itse lf to explor e the problem of the hermeneutical circle with regard to the circularity between part and whole in a sentence. I will argue that, as far as the interdependence between part and whole of a sentence is concerned, there is no real circularity betw een them . This will be followed by scrutinizing the source of such a misunderstanding, i.e. , the circular interdependence between understanding the part and the whole of a sentence . I will
Downloaded from eijh.modares.ac.ir at 23:17 IRST on Friday September 24th 2021 present my analy sis through a critical reading of two contemporary hermeneuts , Eric Donald Hirsch and Graeme Nicholson, even though both are on the right track in questioning the existence of such a circle in the first place . The argument presented could apply to contexts well beyond that of the circularity between part and whole in a sentence.
Keywords: Philosophical Hermeneutics, Hermeneutical Circle, Sentence , Part and Whole, Frederick Schleiermacher, Hans -Georg Gadamer, Eric Hirsch, Graeme Nicholson.
1. Ph. D. in Philosophy Religion, University of Toronto, Canada, E -mail: [email protected]
99 The Hermeneutical Circle or the Hermeneutical Spiral?
Introduction restricted neither to a text nor to the When examining the works of scholars interdependence between part and whole. tack ling the i ssue of circularity in However, the discussion of circularity between understanding – with or without mentioning parts and whole goes back to ancient times as the term ‘hermeneutical circle’ – one realizes far as we are aware . Referring to the principle that their understanding of circularity, in terms of interdependence of un derstanding of the of its reality, is not the same . For some, what whole and the detail, Gadamer writes: "This is described as a circle is precisely a real circle principle stems from ancient rhetoric, and and there is no analogical sense involved in modern hermeneutics has transferred to it the calling the ‘hermeneutical circle’ a circle. For art of understanding [1] ." It is a true that not others, however, no real circle is involved every one who has tackled this issue necessarily when there is a mention of circularity. In this uses t he term ‘hermeneutical circle’, for the paper, I will first briefly discuss these two classical formulation of the hermeneutical circle positions so as to clarify the distinctions got its form for the first time in Johann Gustav between them. Then, by focusing on the Droysen`s work, and this form was repeated by problem of the hermeneutical circle in terms of other writers. It consists in the rule that “the the interdependence of the parts and the whole whole can be understo od only through its parts, of a sentence, I will demonstrate why the but the parts can be understood only through circular dependence of the part and the whole the whole [2]." in a text does not exist, or is illusory. I will Many scholars who have written about present my analysis through a critical reading circularity in the process of understanding, do Downloaded from eijh.modares.ac.ir at 23:17 IRST on Friday September 24th 2021 of two contemporary hermeneuts , Eric Donald not explicitly indicate whether they use Hirsch and Graeme Nicholson, even though circularity in the real sense or merely in an both are on the right track in questioning the analogical one. If that is the case, how can one existence of such a circle at al l. The argument find out whether or not a given thinker takes the presented could apply to contexts well beyond hermeneutical circle as a real circle? I suggest that of the circularity between part and whole that the way in which a hermeneut responds or in a sentence. attempts to resolve the problem of the The Hermeneutical Circle: The Pre - hermeneutical circ le helps in determining the Heideggerian Sense degree of reality that he ascribes to the circle. If, The issue of circularity in the process of for example, he talks about ‘breaking’ the circle, it understanding, or the hermeneutical circle, is implies that he holds the circle to be real.
100 Motahari M.
Here, I briefly refer to few sch olars from he indicates, “criticism shares in the logical both sides, particularly with tw o aims: First, I circle [emphasis mine] , which arises in the intend to show that while the hermeneutical interpretive task: the single must be judged on circle is real for some, for others it is not, the basis of the including whole, and this whole serving at best as an apparent circle. Second, I in turn on the basis of the single part [5] ." He hope to emphasize the importance of the circle also points out that the circle in the by showing that the hermeneutical circle, in the interpretative task "can never be resolved." sen se of interdependence of part and whole, is Talking about the circle as “logical circle” and still addressed in the post - Heideggerian era also speaking so strictly of "never being despite the new and peculiar sense it assumes in resolved" are two indications that for Boeck Heidegger’s work [3]. the circle is a real one. The conception of circularity emerges in Looking at contemporary authors, Richard Wilhelm von Humboldt`s hermeneutics in Palmer speaks of a 'leap' into the hermeneutical relation to the task of the historian. Although circle, thus testifying that he considers the circle the term 'hermeneutical circle' had not been a real one. He writes: "Is the concept of the coined at that stage, Humboldt`s idea of hermeneutical circle invalid? No; rath er we interdependent roles between individual must say that logic can not fully account for the phenomena and the whole in an interpretation workings of understanding. Somehow, a kind of offered by a historian has a similar sense. To 'leap' into the hermeneutical circle occurs and we put i t another way, the historian interprets understand the whole and the part together [6] ." parts on the basis of the in clouding whole These , then, are three examples of scholars for Downloaded from eijh.modares.ac.ir at 23:17 IRST on Friday September 24th 2021 while the whole is understandable through the whom, the circle seems to be real. Indeed , that parts. Explaining Humboldt's opinion, Kurt is why all three are focused on offering ways of Muller Vollmer points out that "this apparent getting out of the circle, which is allegedly at paradox is always overcome by the his torian, work in the process of understanding. because he begins his work with an intuition of Bernard Lonergan seems to put forward a the invisible coherence , which unites the similar argument: individual event [4]." Overcoming the circle "Moreover, it is understanding that surmounts by invoking intuition indicates that for the hermeneutical circle. The meaning of a text is Humboldt the circle seems to be real. an intentional entity. It is a unity that is unfolded Philip August Boeck raises the notion of through parts, sections, chapters, paragraphs, circularity in relation to criticism. "Obviously,” sentences, words. We can grasp the unity, the
101 The Hermeneutical Circle or the Hermeneutical Spiral?
whole, only through the parts . At the same time , Schleiermacher to consi der the task of reading and the parts are determined in their meaning by the understanding as an unlimited one. For him, this whole which each part partially reveals. Such is movement is inevitable because "nothing that the hermeneutical circle. Logically , it is a circle. needs interpretation can be understood at once [8] ." But coming to understand is not a logical In fact, he writes that "Only in the case of deduction. It is a self -correcting process of insignificant texts are we satisfied with what we learning that spirals into the meaning of the whole understand on first reading [9] ." by using each new part to fill out and qualify and According to Schleiermacher, not just any correct the understanding reached in reading the sort of circularity, but a circularity not earlier parts [7] ." independent of whole and part, holds true on the On the contrary, to most hermeneuts , the subjective side: "To put oneself in the position of hermeneutical circle is not really a cir cle. an author means to fo llow through with this Schleiermacher gives a great deal of attention to the relationship between the whole and the parts [10] ." hermeneutical circle specifically in terms of the Gadamer criticizes Schleiermacher on both the relation between parts and whole. For objective and subjective accounts of the Schleiermacher, circularity is operative on two hermeneutical circle [11] . sides: objective and subjective. Regarding the objective side he writes: "Complete knowledge Heidegger and Gadamer on the always involves an apparent circle, that each part Hermeneutical Circle can be understood only out of the whole to which it Gadamer maintain s that the hermeneutical circle belongs and vice versa." The word 'apparent', regains the right direction in Heidegger – that is, Downloaded from eijh.modares.ac.ir at 23:17 IRST on Friday September 24th 2021 shows that in Schleiermacher`s understanding of its content -orient ed meaning. He also observes the circle , no real circle is involved. By 'part' or that the hermeneutical circle gains a distinctly 'whole', he does not refer merely to a part or the new meaning in Heidegger, marking a turning whole of a sentence , rather, the rule is applicable to point. For Heidegger, the hermen eutical circle parts and the whole of a total work. A single word does not mean going back and forth between parts finds its meaning in light of the sentence, which and whole in a text. Therefore, the circle is no finds its meaning in li ght of the whole work, which longer pri marily used to describe understanding of finds its meaning in light of other works of the a text , rather it becomes a fundamental principle same author, which finds their meaning in light of of man`s understanding of his own nature a nd the literary genre or even literature as a whole. The situation. To put it differently, "understanding, application of this dialectical elaboration leads and with it the hermeneutical circle, becomes a
102 Motahari M.
condition for the possibility of human experience Heidegger`s, though this has been disputed [17] . and inquiry [12] ." Heidegger writes: "What is One should not conclude, especially because decisive is not to get out of the circle but to come of his criticism of Schleiermacher, that into i t in the right way. The circle of Gadamer rejects any basis for the hermeneutical understanding is not an orbit in which any random circle in the sense of an interdependence of parts kind of knowledge may move; it is the expression and the whole. For example, on numerous of the existential fore -structure of Dasein [13] ." occasions, Gadamer explicitly accepts some sort In explaining Heidegger`s standpoint, of circularity between the parts and the whole. Gadamer points out that "the circl e of whole Explaining Schleiermacher`s view of the and part is not dissolved in perfect hermeneutical circle, he writes: "This is famili ar understanding but, on the contrary, is most fully to us from learning foreign languages. We learn realized [14]." It seems that Gadamer tries to that we can only try to understand the parts of a link the old meaning of the hermeneutical circle sentence in their linguistic meaning when we have with the new one offered by Heidegger. If this parsed or construed the sentence. But , the process were not the ca se, why would Gadamer use of parsing is itself guided by an expectation of 'whole' and 'part', in the quote immediately meani ng arising from the preceding context [18] ." above , to describe Heidegger`s viewpoint on To summarize so far, we have seen that for the hermeneutical circle despite the fact that scholars such as Humboldt, Boeck, Palmer and Heidegger, himself, does not describe the circle Lonergan, the hermeneutical circle seems to be on the basis of whole and part? a vicious circle. In contrast, for some other Heidegger st ates that the circle "is not to be scholars such as Schleiermach er, Heidegger and Downloaded from eijh.modares.ac.ir at 23:17 IRST on Friday September 24th 2021 reduced to the level of a vicious circle, or even of Gadamer, there is no real circularity in the a circle , which is merely tolerated [15] ." In his process of understanding. book Martin Heidegger , John Macquarie notes In explaining the two views on the existence that the hermeneutical circle "is not to be of the circle up to this point, I have dealt with understood like the circular r easoning that begs circularity in understanding in general and not the question.” It is rather “a ‘relatedness backward specifically with respec t to part and whole, and forward’ that is present in every act of whether in a sentence or otherwise. In the rest interpretation [16] ." On this account , it can be said of this paper, I will focus on the hermeneutical that for Heidegger , the circle is not a real one. circle in the sense of mutual interdependence of Gadamer, meanwhile, considers his own view of the parts and the whole of a sentence. I will the hermeneutical circle to be the same as offer my argument through a critical read ing of
103 The Hermeneutical Circle or the Hermeneutical Spiral?
the hermeneutical circle as held by two understanding of the circle, Nicholson, who is contemporary hermeneuts, Eric Donald Hirsch more accepting of the German tradition than and Graeme Nicholson. Hirsch, offers his point of view in this way : "What concerns me is the question whether this Hirsch and Nicholson’s Views should be described as a circle. There is a Despite serious disagreement over certain focal progressiveness in the process of our issues concerning the decidability or understanding that is really not circular at all. undecidability of interp retation – that is, the What one starts from is actually a sequence of openness of the text to different readings – words. Is it the case that each one needs the Nicholson and Hirsch, two prominent context of the whole sentence to be understood? contemporary hermeneuts, make a similar point I think not. ... It is not the case that the mere about the hermeneutical circle. Their positions understanding of the sentence offers a basis for are more critical of the circle than those of the finer interpretation of each part [20] ." Schleiermac her, who sees an apparent circle in We see that both Hirsch and Nicholson understanding the part and the whole. They maintain that circularity between part and question whether something circular, even whole, as generally set forth by hermeneuts, is apparently circular, is involved in so far as part somewhat exaggerated. The relation between and whole are concerned. part and whole does not produce any paradox, Hirsch writes: "[The hermeneutical circle] not even an apparent paradox. As Nicholson clouds some of the process of understanding in puts it, " We can start from a sequence of unnecessary paradox. It is true that an idea of words" which could as parts, in Hisch’s sense, Downloaded from eijh.modares.ac.ir at 23:17 IRST on Friday September 24th 2021 the whole controls, connects and unifies our "have an autonomy capable of sugges ting a understanding of parts. It is also true that the certain kind of whole.” idea of the whole must arise from an encounter We might explain Hirsch and Nicholson`s with parts. But this encounter could not occur position in another way on the basis of the word if the parts did not have an autonomy capable 'only' in the formula. If the hermeneutical circle of suggesting a certain kind of whole in the means that "the whole can be understood only first place. ... [T]he hermeneutic circle is less through its parts, but the parts can be understood mysterious and paradoxical than many in the only through the whole," the formulations of both German hermeneutical tradition have made it Nicholson and Hirsh would find the second ‘only’ out to be [19]." excessive. For both of them, parts can be, and are, Having explained Schleiermacher`s understood independently of the whole – and,
104 Motahari M.
consequently, there is no circularity involved i n part and whole’ and 'interdependence between part understanding. and whole’. These expressions, which are used in It is worth mentioning that, by referring to hermeneutics books to mark the core issue of the the aforementioned definitions, we can see that hermeneutical circle in its classical form, can be sometimes the word 'only' is missing even in quite misleading. Why? Beca use there is no those cases where the writer is defending a real interdependence between 'part' and 'whole' given circularity between part and whole. As a matter that a part is completely independent of the whole. of fact, if either one of the 'only' i s removed If there is an interdependence, as most hermeneuts from the formula, there remains no circularity believe, it is between ' understanding a part' and between part and whole. 'understanding the whole,' and not bet ween 'part' This last point provides a good place to and 'whole'. This point is not something hidden suggest my own understanding of the part - even to students of hermeneutics, much less to whole hermeneutical circle. Like Nicholson and hermeneuts themselves. However, the frequent use Hirsch, I a m primarily concerned here with the of ‘part’ and ‘whole’ instead of ‘understanding the relation between the parts and the whole of a part’ and ‘understanding the whole’ has sentence. Overall, I think that both are correct engender ed the misleading idea that there is a back in asserting that there is no circle involved in and forth movement between part and whole in a the so -called interdependence of part and circular way. This point can be better explained whole. Nonetheless, in my view there are two through several example s. particular problems with the argument they To clarify the matter, I intentionally choose, offer. Firstly, their suggestion is not adequate as a first example, the following sentence , Downloaded from eijh.modares.ac.ir at 23:17 IRST on Friday September 24th 2021 for, or applicable to, all kinds of sentences. which contains an equivocal word: 'John was Secondly, although for the most part , we can walking on the bank of the river'. When we try start from parts without any involvement in to understand the sentence, at least one meaning circularity, the whole does have some sort of for each word occurs to us, as Hirsch and impact on any understanding of the part after Nicholson explain. However, a word like 'bank' the first one. I will try to explain my stance on can be understood in mu ltiple ways. When we this matter as clearly as I can. look at the whole sentence we realize that a financial institution is not intended, but that A Key Source of Confusion 'bank' designates ‘ the raised earthly border of a In the discussion so far , we have frequently used body of water’. What route did we follow to phrases such as ‘the hermeneutical circle between arrive at such a conclusion regarding the word
105 The Hermeneutical Circle or the Hermeneutical Spiral?
‘bank’? Did we go from 'bank' to the whole After long deliberation, we realize that the sentence, and then from the whole sentence to sentence means: 'I jump in the source of water the same ‘bank’? Surely not! Instead, we like a coil in the season of spring'. If we follow began by granting that ‘bank’ has at least two our back and forth intellectual movement in different meanings, and referred to the whole understanding such a sentence, we notice that in the light of this understand ing. However, upon each deliberation we have a better we then return to an understanding of 'bank' understanding of the sentence than we did with one meaning and not to a continued previously, and so on until we figure out th e understanding of 'bank' with two possible meaning. Thus, the process of understanding in meanings. Given that the so -called circularity such a sentence would be better described as a is really a relationship between ‘hermeneutical spiral’ rather than a 'understanding the part' and 'under standing ‘hermeneutic al circle’. Here, the term ‘spiral’ the whole', there is no circularity here at all. serves as a good descriptor since the process of This is not because we understood the parts understanding is neither circular nor linear. It is independently of the whole sentence. To be not circular because, upon moving from part to sure, we remain ed unclear between the two the whole, we do not return to the same possible meanings of ‘bank’ until we understanding of the part as before our consider ed the whole. There i s no circularity departure. And it is not linear because we do because we did not return to the same return to the part in one respect or another, understanding of the part as we had initially – although n ot to the exact point of departure. that is, prior to reference to the whole. Only if someone cannot figure out at all what a Downloaded from eijh.modares.ac.ir at 23:17 IRST on Friday September 24th 2021 From latter above example, then, it can be sentence means does he return to its starting concluded that, first, using the word 'back and point and is entrapped in a real circle. But such forth' in describin g the part -whole circle is not a circle would be best described as ‘the circle of an exact description of the process because we not understanding’ rather than ‘the circle of do not return to the point of departure (with one understanding’. exceptional case to be alluded to). The second The question arises here as to whether the conclusion we may draw is that it is not true to above explanation holds true concerning say that parts can always be understood sentences , which do not contain any ambiguous independently of the whole. At first sight, a words. I shall try to answer this question on the sentence such as 'I spring in the spring like a basis of Schleiermacher`s hermeneutics – that is, spring in spring' could prove quite confusing. in a way that will not necessarily be acceptable
106 Motahari M.
to a Gadamerian thinker like Nicholson. I draw the whole' to 'understanding the part'. This is on two points in particular from Schleiermacher’s because, at our initial level of understanding of hermeneutics . The first, quoted above, is most 'John', we do not yet know anything specific helpful and profound: "Nothing that needs about him whereas after referring to the whole interpreta tion can be understood at once." The sentence and then referring back to the part, we second is Schleiermacher's belief that now know that John: 1.) is capable of moving, "interpretation does not serve to ‘indicate the and 2.) has some relation with school and so on. true understanding of a passage’. Rather, it is Thus, in terms of full understanding – that is, expressly intended to remove obscurities that understanding as much as possible – our hinder the student from achieving ‘ful l subsequent understanding of the part is understanding [21] ”. Before responding to the different from the initial one. Accordingly, full question raised at the beginning of the paragraph, understanding of the part, as opposed to true I have to add a third point. There are some understanding of the part, is not independent of stages in our understanding , which happen so the whole , even when the sentence does not quickly that we think they happen all at once include an ambiguous or equivocal word. when , in fact, they happen through a specific On this account, Gadamer’s assertion with process , as will be explained in the example respect to Schleiermacher`s hermen eutical circle, below. Considering these three points, we may that "it is always in this movement that we learn say that interpretation – in the sense of "full to understand an unfamiliar meaning, a foreign understanding" of a sentence not containing any language or a strange past [22] ," is not fully ambiguous words – does not happen all at once , correct , if he means that in other cases, like when Downloaded from eijh.modares.ac.ir at 23:17 IRST on Friday September 24th 2021 so that moving between "understanding the we read a text in our own language, the part" and "understanding the whole" is still at move ment is not at work. For full understanding, work. Nonetheless, that is not the case for “true as Schleiermacher uses the term, or more understanding.” For example, to have a true complete understanding, the movement is still at understanding of the sentence, "John is going to work for almost any sentence, although we may school," it is enough, as Hirsch and Nicholson remain oblivious to it because it happens so have suggested, to understand each word in quickly. order to understand the sentence. As such, the In a nutshell, for both true and full whole is understood through the parts and not understanding of a sentence, all or some of vice versa. For full understanding, however, whose words are ambiguous, and also for full there is again a movement from 'understanding understanding of the sentence whose words are
107 The Hermeneutical Circle or the Hermeneutical Spiral?
unambiguous, a finite or infinite (if one sees the when it does, it is a sign of the utter lack of task of full understanding as unattainable) success in figuring out what a sentence means, hermene utical spiral is at work. despite going back and forth between the part As far as I am aware, none of the previous and the whole. The attempt to understand a descriptions of the circle are in full agreement Chinese sentence for someone who knows with what I have set forth here. Nonetheless, absolutely nothing about Chinese would certain points from various scholars are worth constitute a case of ‘real circularity’ which in fact serious consideration and may encourage occurs in the process of not understanding. A furt her reflection on what has up to now been similar argument questioning the existence of the called ‘the hermeneutical circle’. These include hermeneutical circle can be offered concerni ng Boeck’s notion of "new and ever new circles," [23] the relationship between understanding any part Gadamer’s explanation of Schleiermacher’s and whole, for example in literary works or in the view as involving a "constant expanding of the examination of various histories. The above circle," [24] and Gadame r’s own suggestion that analysis, then, is not confined merely to "the movement of understanding always runs understanding of the parts and the whole of from whole to part and back to whole. The task sentences, and suggests that in other fields as is to expand in concentric circles [italics mine] well, the so -called ‘hermeneutical circle’ may the unity of the understood meaning [25]." In in fact be more illusory than real. all these descriptions, one can see the trace of the notion of spiral. References To conclude, we can assert that c ontrary to [1] Hans-Georg Gadamer (2000), Truth and Downloaded from eijh.modares.ac.ir at 23:17 IRST on Friday September 24th 2021 what is commonly suggested – that there is at Method, trans. Joel Weinsheimer and the very least an apparent circle in so -called Donald G. Marshal (New York: T he part -whole circle – there is no circle at all when Continuum Publishing Company), 263. it comes to understanding the part and the [2] Kurt Mueller -Vollmer, ed (2000), The whole of a sentence. Rather, there is, in Hermeneutics Reader : Texts of the German Nicholson's words, a “progressiveness in the Tradition from the Enlightenment to the process of our understanding” [26] in the Present (New York: The Continuum understanding of the part and the understanding Publishing Company), 50. of the whole that can best be described, [3] As further evidence for the importance of perhaps, as a finite spiral . Real ci rcularity the hermeneutica l circle in its classical sense rarely occurs, and in those exceptional cases it is worth mentioning that Josef Bleicher, in
108 Motahari M.
his book Contemporary Hermeneutics: participation in shared meaning." (Hans- Hermeneutics as Method, Philosophy, and Georg Gadamer, “On the Circle of Critique (London: Routledge and Kegan Understanding” in Hermeneutics Versus Paul, 1980) elaborates the difference Science : Three German views , eds. John between the three strands of hermeneutics Connolly and Thomas Keutner (Notre by reference to the conceptions of the Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, relationship between whole and part. 1988), 69-70). He evaluates the objective [4] Vollmer, The Hermeneutics Reader , 16. side of the circle in relation to the subjective [5] Ibid., 144. side as "equally wide of the mark" (Ibid.). [6] Richard Palmer (1969), Hermeneutics: Gadamer makes a similar point in Truth and Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, Method and follows this with criticism of Dilthey, Heidegger, a nd Gadamer Schleiermacher`s view of the objective sid e (Evanston: Northwestern University Press), of the circle, contending that it "does not get 88. to the heart of the matter" ( Truth and [7] Bernard Lonergan (1990) , Method in Method, 255). Theology (Toronto: University of Toronto [12] David Couzens Hoy (1978) , The critical Press), 159. As we see, Lonergan makes use circle: literature, history, and philosophical of the notion of ‘spiral’. His analysis hermeneutics (Berkeley: University of differs, however, from what I wil l offer in California Press),vii. the last part of this article. [13] Martin Heidegger (1962), Being and Time , [8] Quoted in Gadamer, Truth and Method, 192. trans. J. Macquarie and E. Robinson (New Downloaded from eijh.modares.ac.ir at 23:17 IRST on Friday September 24th 2021 [9] Ibid., 84. York: Harper and Row), 195. [10] Vollmer, The Hermeneutics Reader , 84. [14] Gadamer, Truth and Method, 293. [11] In his article "On the Circle of [15] Ibid. Understanding," Gadamer sets the subjective [16] John Macquarie (1968) , Martin Heidegger side completely aside because "when we try (Richmond: John Knox Press), 10. to understand a text, we do not place [17] Graeme Nicholson writes: "We have seen ourselves in the author`s inner state; rather, that Heidegger`s hermeneutical circle resulted if one wants to speak of 'placing oneself', we from the primacy of Verstehen, projection , place ourselves in his point of view. ... [T]he over Auslegung , interpretation. But when we task of interpretation ... is not a mysterious look at Gadamer`s account, we find out that communicat ion of souls, but rather a what is operative in his argument is not
109 The Hermeneutical Circle or the Hermeneutical Spiral?
precisely the influence of projection upon [19] Eric Donald Hirsch (1967), Validity in interpretation, but rather the influence of Interpretation (New Haven:Yale University historical finitude upon the projecti on." Press),77-8. Nicholson follows the above objection with [20] Nicholson, Seeing and Reading , 169-70. the noteworthy assertion that "Gadamer`s [21] Gadamer, Truth and Method, 183. circle exists only in the cases where a scholar [22] Gadamer, Truth and Method, 183. is interpreting the formative materials of his [23] Vollmer, The Hermeneutics Reader, 147. own tradition"; (Graeme Nicholson, Seeing [24] Gadamer, Truth and Method, 190. and Reading ( Atlantic Highla nds, N.J.: [25] Gadamer, “Circle of Understanding,” 68. Humanities Press Inc. 1984), 202. [26] Nicholson, Seeing and Reading , 169. [18] Gadamer “Circle of Understanding,” 79. Downloaded from eijh.modares.ac.ir at 23:17 IRST on Friday September 24th 2021
110
1
1386 /6/4 : 1386 /3/19 :
,-./ ! ) $ ! '() * " + "# $%!& " ! " =$8 ' # + ;<5 %! 7 $8 " .9 (:( 34 56 0 « » ' 0 $%!& ) * " + .-> 0 ? @A> BC D! %5 # $%!& H: IJ:7 K. 0 ? BC @A> BC PQ :8 $> , "%L 0 $%!& D:%-M8 ' ,F+ , NO4 + L :8 + , HW >$ G?.X " .S ! UM8 T ' D-S " RM%! H: H DM8 E: Y& LS H: D$F $#8 !S & 0 G0 $%!& 95! D:%-M8 ' " ,) .:%8 -8 0 # $%!&
!"# $ # %# $ & '( ) * $ $+,* ) :
Downloaded from eijh.modares.ac.ir at 23:17 IRST on Friday September 24th 2021 .0 123 $43 $ ,5" 4 $/ ) $ -.
(E-mail : mo .motaharifarimani @utoronto .ca ) G8 G$78$ H[M8 G" ZF. ,7 .1
111