Hermeneutics_Learning_Module_QA Flashcards
What is Husserl’s phenomenology, and how does it relate to hermeneutics?
Husserl’s phenomenology
Descartes had left philosophy with a gap between mind and world, leaving us with the question of how thought could be reconciled with reality. Modern epistemology thus focused on the problem of verification. True knowledge is what a disembodied human mind verifies based on rational principles. Thus, modern epistemology views the world as an assemblage of naked objects our minds then endow with some kind of meaning. But what if objects have intrinsic meaning in the way that they appear to us? What if there is no split between the mind and the world? What if the world and our consciousness are correlated in such a way that what appears to the mind, contrary to Descartes, really puts us in touch with the real nature of the object itself?
Edmund Husserl (1859–1938) is credited with the insight that objects always appear to human consciousness as endowed with meaning. For example, I do not have some kind of undistinguished sense experience that I subsequently interpret as an apple. My immediate experience is that of an apple itself. That human perception is always a ‘seeing as’ was the cardinal insight of what Husserl called phenomenology, a rigorous philosophical description of how phenomena (i.e. anything from a mailbox to an imagined fairy) disclose themselves to us in their meaning. Husserl’s philosophical battle cry was ‘to the things themselves’
For example, when we see an apple, whether with our eyes or in our memory, Husserl believed that we really are in touch with the essence or true meaning of apple. This is so because the mind as part of reality is not a self-enclosed sphere but essentially correlated with objects in the world. For Husserl, the task of philosophy was now to study how objects revealed themselves in their immediate relation to the observer. Husserl’s phenomenology was a big step beyond modern epistemology, but he retained human consciousness as the starting point of philosophy. It remained for his student Heidegger to challenge this foundation of modern epistemology
How did Heidegger expand hermeneutics?
artin Heidegger: to be human is to interpret
The German philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) once said that Husserl’s phenomenology ‘gave me the eyes to see’. Husserl had shown him how to close the gap between mind and world—well, almost. For Heidegger, Husserl’s link between mind and perceived objects relied still too much on Descartes’s inner world of the mind. Heidegger argued that objects in the world disclosed their meaning not merely conceptually to our minds, but through our practical relation to them in daily life. With Heidegger, our conversation about knowledge moves most fully from epistemology to ontology, that is, from theories about knowledge to the life context that provides the conditions for knowledge in the first place. The story is told about a fisherman who kept throwing large fish back into the river and kept only the puny ones. Asked by an exasperated onlooker what he was doing, the angler replied: ‘I only have a 10 inch frying pan’. For Heidegger, modern epistemology is like this frying pan which is incapable of holding the larger truths of human life that are often captured in literature, poetry, theology, and art.
Heidegger argued that hermeneutics is not a theory of interpretive principles but a philosophical analysis of the way we move about in the world. Heidegger gave Dilthey’s claim that we are historical beings its full hermeneutical weight. We don’t do hermeneutics; we are self-interpreting animals, beings whose very nature is to negotiate a complex world of meaning relations into which we are thrown at birth. We are born into families, cities and nations, languages, institutions, ideas, and social values that shape our understanding of the world. Even more profoundly, the meaning of our lives is determined by birth and death, by our fears, moods, and desires. Within this matrix of meaningful relations, we are constantly interpreting and being interpreted, told who we are but also coming to understand ourselves and trying to realize the future possibilities for our lives.
Understanding is now no longer something we come to possess after a conscious interpretive effort. This is still how Schleiermacher and Dilthey had used the term. For Heidegger, by contrast, understanding is what we unconsciously do every day by conducting ourselves, more or less skilfully, in the totality of meaningful relations that make up our world. To be human is to interpret. The task of hermeneutics as a philosophical discipline, at least for the early Heidegger, is to make visible the meaning structures within which we exist as interpreting animals. He called these structures
‘existentials’ (Existenzialien) because they determine at the deepest ontological level how we perceive the
world.
For this hermeneutic effort, the scientific posture of examining an object from a distance is completely
useless, because such a stance catapults the interpreter out of the very life relations he needs to probe.
Instead, the interpreter has to be completely engaged and try to make transparent the very structures of
being he himself inhabitsHeidegger’s ‘world’
A good point of entry into Heidegger’s hermeneutics is to consider what we mean when we say ‘world’.
Modern epistemology thinks of world as an assemblage of objects at which we look. Let’s call that a
theoretical stance towards the world. Heidegger suggested that the ‘world’ is less like a science laboratory
in which we observe things in a detached way and more like a home with which we are familiar. Let’s
call this an existential stance within the world. When we are at home, our lives are determined by the
projects we are engaged in. We want to vacuum the house, wash the car, hang up a picture, or host a
friend for dinner. Living in light of projects characterizes our being in the world as future-directed.
This future directedness expresses itself in the ontological structure of ‘attentiveness’ (Besorgnis).
Attentiveness means we relate to things around us with an eye to how they assist us in completing the
tasks we are striving to accomplish.
Heidegger’s hammer
What is the significance of Heidegger’s example of the hammer?
Heidegger’s example of the hammer illustrates how understanding emerges through use. A hammer is not primarily an object of theoretical contemplation but is understood as a tool within a practical context. This idea underscores the embeddedness of knowledge in lived experience.
What is the existential hermeneutical circle?
The existential hermeneutical circle describes the process of understanding as a dynamic interplay between the parts and the whole. Our preconceptions shape how we interpret individual elements, and these interpretations, in turn, refine our overall understanding. This circular process reflects the situated and evolving nature of interpretation.
How did hermeneutics develop after Heidegger?
After Heidegger, hermeneutics shifted to emphasise dialogue and the interplay between historical and cultural horizons. Thinkers like Gadamer expanded on Heidegger’s ideas, focusing on the role of tradition, language, and the shared nature of understanding in human life.
What was Gadamer’s role in advancing hermeneutics?
Gadamer advanced hermeneutics by developing a philosophy of understanding that emphasises dialogue and historical consciousness. He argued that interpretation is always influenced by one’s historical context and that understanding emerges through a fusion of horizons between the interpreter and the text.
What does Gadamer mean by “historically effected consciousness”?
Gadamer’s concept of “historically effected consciousness” refers to the idea that individuals are shaped by history and tradition. Our understanding is influenced by the cultural and historical contexts in which we live, making interpretation a process of engaging with these influences rather than escaping them.
What does Gadamer mean by “the language that we are”?
Gadamer suggests that language is not merely a tool for communication but the medium through which we experience and understand the world. Language shapes our identity and is the foundation of shared understanding, emphasising its centrality in hermeneutics.
How does Gadamer view tradition and authority in the interpretive process?
Gadamer views tradition and authority as positive forces that enrich understanding. Rather than being barriers to knowledge, they provide continuity and a framework within which interpretation occurs. Engaging with tradition allows for a deeper connection with the past and fosters meaningful dialogue with it.
What is Gadamer’s belief in mediation, and how does it relate to Hegel?
Gadamer’s belief in mediation reflects the idea that understanding involves reconciling differences through dialogue and interaction. Drawing on Hegel, he emphasises the dialectical process, where conflicting perspectives are synthesised to achieve a deeper truth. This process underscores the collaborative and dynamic nature of interpretation.
How does the hermeneutic ideal of knowledge contrast with modern epistemology?
The hermeneutic ideal of knowledge emphasises understanding as a participatory and situated process, rooted in dialogue and historical context. In contrast, modern epistemology often seeks objective, detached knowledge. Hermeneutics challenges this by highlighting the role of personal and cultural engagement in shaping understanding.
What role does art play in the context of hermeneutics?
Art exemplifies the power of interpretation and the fusion of horizons. It invites engagement, dialogue, and reflection, transcending individual and cultural boundaries. For hermeneutics, art reveals truths about human experience and fosters shared understanding through its evocative and transformative nature.
