In Greek, the word "hermeneutics" means the art of interpretation and clarification. In a broad sense, it is understood as the practice and theory of revealing the meaning of texts.
The history of hermeneutics began with ancient Greek philosophy. It was here that the art of interpreting various statements that contained polysemantic symbols first arose. Used hermeneutics and Christian theologians. They used it to interpret the Bible. Hermeneutics acquired special significance in the theology of Protestantism. Here it was seen as a means to reveal the "true meaning" of Scripture.
Key to insight
The scientific method of hermeneutics has become due to the development of philosophy and other humanities. The formation of these disciplines required the search for special ways to comprehend the subject of their study. They were such methods as psychological and historical, logical-semantic and phenomenological,structuralist, hermeneutic and some others.
However, it should be understood that a specific subject, which is subjected to research by the humanities, is the text. It is a special system of signs that have certain connections with each other. Hermeneutics allows you to understand the meaning of the text, and to do this "from the inside", distracting from psychological, socio-historical and other factors. Thanks to this, it becomes possible to obtain the knowledge contained in it.
Hermeneutics is needed when there is misunderstanding. And if the meaning of the text was hidden for the subject of knowledge, then it must be interpreted, assimilated, understood and deciphered. This is what hermeneutics does. In other words, it is a method that allows you to gain humanitarian knowledge.
A bit of history
Modern hermeneutics includes more than one specific scientific method of research. It is also a special direction in philosophy. The ideas of such hermeneutics were developed in the works of Wilhelm Dilthey, a German philosopher, Emilio Betti, an Italian scientist, Martin Heidegger, considered one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century, and Hans Georg Gadamer (1900-2002). The Russian scientist who developed this direction was Gustav Gustavovich Shpet.
Philosophical hermeneutics is based on the ideas of V. Dilthey, with which he sought to substantiate the specifics of the humanities and explain their difference from the natural disciplines. He saw it in the methodunderstanding of intuitive, direct comprehension of some spiritual values. According to V. Dilthey, the sciences that study nature use a method of explanation that deals with external experience and is associated with the activity of the mind. As for the study of written knowledge, in order to obtain it, it is necessary to interpret some aspects of the spiritual life of a certain era. This is the specificity of the "spiritual sciences", which are considered to be humanitarian.
Biography of G.-G. Gadamer
This great philosopher was born on February 11, 1900 in Marburg. Hans-Georg Gadamer is included in the list of the greatest thinkers whose activities took place in the second half of the 20th century. This German scientist is the founder of philosophical hermeneutics.
Gadamer graduated from the Universities of Breslau and Marburg. As a student, he studied history and philosophy, art history, evangelical theology, and literary theory. At the age of 22, he defended his dissertation, receiving a doctorate degree. Paul Natorp was his supervisor.
In 1923, Gadamer met M. Heidegger, who at that time taught at the University of Marbrurg.
Somewhat later, Hans-Georg took up the study of classical philology. In this direction, in 1929, he defended his dissertation, the topic of which concerned Plato's Philebus.
From 1939 to 1947 Gadamer was a professor at the University of Leipzig. In 1946-1947. He was the rector of this educational institution. After that, he taught in Frankfurt am Main, and two years latertook up a chair at the University of Heidelberg, whose former head was Karl Jaspers.
Retiring in 1968, Gadamer went to the United States, where he taught at the country's universities until 1989.
Truth and Method
An essay under this title Gadamer wrote in 1960. This work became the most important work on hermeneutics created in the twentieth century. Somewhat later, the author wrote a more extensive version of his book, which was published in the first volume of his complete works. Gadamer's work Truth and Method on hermeneutics was subsequently supplemented. The author deepened his project and modified some of its parts. Of course, other philosophers were also involved in the development of this direction. And it was not only Martin Heidegger, but also Paul Ricoeur. However, without a book on hermeneutics by Hans Gadamer, this discipline would be completely different.
Main program
If we consider the philosophical hermeneutics of Gadamer briefly, then it is a reasoning about the general problems of understanding. In its traditional interpretation, this method was a real art with which the texts were explained.
Hans Gadamer's hermeneutics does not provide for links at all with the methods used by the humanities. It considers the universality of interpretation and understanding, which relates to culture and to the objects under study as a whole. Moreover, this is organized on the basis of language, and not on methodologically significant requirements.
Philosophical hermeneutics of Gadamer and Heidegger is represented by human existence. She happens to beforerunner of any methodological reflection.
If we consider the main issue of Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics briefly, then it consists, first of all, in the definition of understanding and how it occurs at a fundamental level. Answering it, the author presents this element in the form of a certain kind of circle. After all, understanding in his theory is a repeating structure, in which each new interpretation makes reference to pre-understanding and returns to it.
In the philosophical hermeneutics of G. G. Gadamer considers such a circle as an open historical process. And in it every interpretable and every interpreter is already included in the tradition of understanding. At the same time, the philosopher emphasizes that the starting point is always dialogic, and language is used in its creation.
Gadamer elevates philosophical hermeneutics to the rank of a direction in which there is a rejection of subjectivity. But in the methodology, it is precisely this that is the central perspective.
This failure allowed Gadamer's hermeneutics to make a significant contribution to the development of this discipline. Here are some highlights to consider.
First of all, it became clear that philosophical hermeneutics is a direction that involves self-understanding of the humanities. Gadamer is convinced that the scientific nature of such disciplines has been discussed too methodologically. At the same time, models adopted in the natural sciences have always found their use.
What did Gadamer do for hermeneutics?He distanced her philosophical direction from the methodological concept that was accepted in the humanities.
Some interpreters of Gadamer's hermeneutics even believed that some alternative method had been proposed to them. But the author does not intend to engage in discussion of any scientific method. He is only interested in advancing theory to a level that is more fundamental than all scientific reflections. The sub title of the book "Truth and Method" allows avoiding various interpretations. It sounds like "Fundamentals of Philosophical Hermeneutics".
The second point in the rejection of methodological understanding is the definition of a general condition that allows you to interpret the text. In his hermeneutics, Gadamer studies the roles and experiences of understanding in the practical life of man. The author considers the main task of this direction to be the placement of scientific forms of understanding the world in a set of interpretive relations of a person to it. In this case, the author is talking about a general theory of experience. And this is confirmed by the first part of Truth and Method. Here Gadamer criticizes the subjectivation of experience that takes place in contemporary aesthetics. And it starts from the time of Kant. After that, following Heidagger, Gadamer proposes to introduce a more ontological and extensive theory of aesthetic experience into philosophical hermeneutics. According to him, a work of art is not only an object of subjective experience. First of all, it should be understood as a place where some experience is gained or occurs using the game method.
New approach
What didGadamer for hermeneutics? He changed the focus of this direction. The novelty of this scientist's approach lies in the fact that he focused not at all on the philosophical aspect that belongs to hermeneutics, but on the hermeneutical one that takes place in philosophy. He connected the centuries-old rich tradition of interpretation with the direction that was proposed by M. Heidegger. At the same time, the author applied the method of successive displacement of all existing judgments concerning the ordinary idea of the surrounding world.
Among the main ideas of G. Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics, the most fundamental is the one that claims that the truth cannot be known by someone alone who will report it. The author saw the “soul” of the direction he was developing in maintaining a dialogue, the ability to give a word to a dissident, and also in the ability to assimilate everything that is pronounced by him.
Found a place in the hermeneutics of Gadamer and rethinking the phenomena of culture. The philosopher constantly emphasized the dialogical nature of the direction he was developing as the logic between the question and the answer. He carried out the interpretation of cultural tradition, considering it as a dialogue between the past and the present. And this for Gadamer was not at all a culturological task. Such a dialogue was considered by the scientist as an independent source for obtaining philosophical knowledge.
The author brought together two such concepts as traditions and culture. He called for the realization that any of the acts of understanding is a constituent element andof both concepts. And this contributes to the creation by man of the space of a holistic symbolic world.
Logos and Nous
Gadamer raises philosophical hermeneutics to the origins of Greek thought. At the same time, the starting point of his idea is a criticism of those traditions of European rationalism that tried to develop such concepts as Logos and Nous. Thoughts about them can be found in Greek philosophy.
Under the auspices of the Logos, the ancient thinkers united such directions that, while conducting research on relationships, proportions and numbers, attribute certain properties of these concepts to the whole world, as well as to its dynamic beginning. This is what logos is about. As for Nus, a centuries-old series of arguments about the relationship between thought and being begins with his submission.
Vision of Kant's ideas
The philosophy of this scientist in the hermeneutics of Hans Gadamer is interpreted in a very original and interesting way. After all, Kant, developing his ideas, relied on the rationality of modern times, justified by natural disciplines. But at the same time, the scientist set himself the task of unifying the mind as such. The reason for this was Kant's vision of a gap between life and scientific rationality.
Somewhat later, those subtleties that concerned the philosophy of the new time were put aside by him. Under rationality, the rationality of means began to be increasingly considered. After all, it was she who made it possible to present the goals as self-evident and clear. This became a reduction of the integrity of the mind in some of its manifestations, as well as its greatexpansion.
But there was another side of the coin. It was the spread of irrationalism in culture and in everyday life. That is why the question of logos began to be raised again and again, and scientists again began to discuss rationality and everyday life.
Gadamer was sure that science should not turn into an area dominated by reason alone, because it can manifest itself in a wide variety of forms that challenge human thinking.
Life experience
For a more complete understanding of the basic ideas of Gadamer's hermeneutics and the concept of the essence of this direction, it is worth bearing in mind that it is primarily practical. It is implemented in the form of an activity aimed at comprehending a certain text. If you take hermeneutics outside of this practice, then it will immediately lose its specificity.
In his doctrine of hermeneutics, Hans-Georg Gadamer deliberately avoided a systematic presentation. And this despite the fact that it is familiar to philosophical classics. The fact is that the author rejected the very "spirit of the system" and the rigid attitudes of traditional rationalism. Nevertheless, when analyzing Gadamer's Truth and Method, as well as his later writings, some key concepts can be identified. In Gadamer's hermeneutics, they are of fundamental importance.
Understanding
This word is generally accepted in everyday life. However, in the interpretation of Gadamer's hermeneutics, it takes on a special meaning. For this philosopher, "understanding" is the same as "recognition." And yet it is universal.way of being human. People are always faced with the need for understanding. They have to recognize themselves. They seek to understand art, history, current events, and other people. That is, the whole existence of a person can be called a certain process of recognition. With this idea, Gadamer raises philosophical hermeneutics into ontology, that is, the science of being.
All the development of hermeneutics that preceded the works of Gadamer convincingly proved the fact that the relations that arise between the subjects of understanding are necessarily built according to the rules and on the basis of communication and dialogue. The biggest difficulty that hermeneutics had to face at the dawn of the development of this direction was the modernization of texts written by other people, which they wanted to implement, considering their own point of view as a standard. Such attempts led to the subjectivization of such a process, which found its expression in a misunderstanding.
Meaning of text
One of the problems of Gadamer's hermeneutics is asking a question and getting an answer to it. The text transmitted to a person is a subject that requires interpretation. Getting it means asking the interpreter a question. The answer to it is the meaning of the text. The process of understanding what is written is expressed in the awareness of the question asked. This is achieved through the acquisition of a hermeneutic horizon, that is, those boundaries within which the semantic orientation of the stated is located.
Interpretation
This term is close in its meaning to the concept of "understanding". Howeverinterpretation means something else. It is understood as thinking with concepts and ideas, thanks to which a person perceives the world around him.
Those who strive for understanding and pick up the text are constantly busy "thrown meaning." As soon as it appears, a person makes a preliminary sketch, with the help of which he tries to understand the main essence of what is written. And this becomes possible due to the fact that people read texts, trying to see some meaning in them.
Developing sketches that are correct and true to the facts must be supported by concrete information. This is the main task that is put before understanding. It will acquire its true possibilities only when the previously created opinion is not accidental. In this regard, it is important for the interpreter not to study the text with a preconceived notion. He must subject the essence of what he understood at the first stages to verification from the point of view of the justification of the facts. At the same time, they should be considered based on their significance and origin.
"Situation" and "horizon"
These concepts in the concept of Gadamer also occupy an important place. What is a situation? This concept is characterized by the fact that we are constantly in it, and its illumination is a task that knows no end. Everything finite has its limits. The situation is determined by what is a certain point of view, which outlines these limits. Therefore, this concept includes such a term as "horizon". It represents an extensivea field that embraces and covers everything that can be seen from a certain point.
If we apply a similar term to the thinking consciousness, then here we can talk about the narrowness of the horizon, its expansion, etc. And what does this term mean in relation to the hermeneutical situation? In this case, finding the right horizon is considered, allowing you to find answers to the questions posed by historical tradition.
Every person is constantly in a certain situation when we need to know the text. The task of hermeneutics, according to G. Gadamer, is its clarification. Achieving success at the same time involves expanding the horizons of understanding. This allows you to shift or change the hermeneutic situation. Understanding, according to the philosopher, is a merging of horizons.
The interpreter is not able to comprehend the subject of his interest until his horizon approaches the object of study. Asking questions is essential to success. Only then will the distant become close.
Analysis of the essence of understanding allowed Gadamer to gain access to moral issues. After all, a person, once in a particular situation, will certainly begin to act. He will do this either thanks to his training, or using the universal knowledge available in his arsenal. In both cases, the main hermeneutic problem will be ignored. After all, you will first need to understand the situation that has arisen, to realize what is right in it, and only then act according to this meaning. To be guided by those values that have not been obtained through understanding is fundamentally wrong. Only when realizing hermeneutic experience does a person develop consistency with himself.
Arguing with deconstructivism
An important factor for the development of philosophical hermeneutics was the dialogue between Gadamer and Jacques Derrida. This French deconstructivist had his own point of view on the various theoretical nuances of the ideas of the German philosopher. During the dispute, methodological and methodological approaches to the problem of understanding were considered and refined.
What is the difference between hermeneutics and deconstruction? Gadamer and Derrida did not agree on the idea of a dialogical relationship between the interpreter and the text, which makes it possible to more accurately understand the meaning of the message contained in the text. Proceeding from such a thought, hermeneutics admits the possibility of reconstructing the original meaning. The position of deconstructivism is quite different. This teaching says that the text has its own premises and grounds, and that he himself denies them, generating meaning with the help of this paradox.
Criticism of hermeneutics by deconstructivism also concerned its relationship with metaphysical thinking. Derrida argued that his opponent's idea was nothing more than an extension of metaphysics. He said that hermeneutics itself is logocentric. By imposing its rationality, it suppresses difference and individuality, and also fetters the possibility of multiple interpretations of the existing text.
Gadamer did not agree with this. From his pointof view, deconstruction and philosophical hermeneutics proceed from common principles. And all of them are a continuation of Heidegger's attempt to overcome metaphysics, as well as its language. To eliminate German idealism, Heidamer developed two ways. The first of these is the transition from dialectics to direct dialogue carried out by hermeneutics. The second is the path of deconstruction, where it is not about clarifying the meaning of dialogue that has already been forgotten by man, but about its disappearance in general due to dissolution in the variety of semantic connections that precede language. This state of affairs is enshrined in Derrida's ontological understanding of writing. This concept is absolutely opposite to the Heidamerian concept of conversation or dialogue. The essence of mutual understanding and understanding is not at all in the meaning that is inherent in the word. It is in some information that takes place on top of the found words.
In this regard, with the common origins of these two philosophical trends, there are significant differences between them. They are manifested in the difference between research programs (conversation and writing), as well as in the interpretation of such a concept as meaning. According to Gadamer, he is always present, and according to Derrida, he is not at all.
