gadamer
Herder claimed that human nature and understanding are not "essentially the same in all times and places" and so by this he introduced the idea of perspectivism in to literary thought. Gadamer expands upon this idea and uses the terminology and claims of phenomenology/existentialism, in his theory of interpretation. He reminds us that "one's own perspective" is the view from within one's own horizon, that is, we are all wedged in a particular time and space, a culture and a history, so all that we can conceive, perceive and understand is done so though this view. The same is also true in regard to texts from the past and different cultures, their authors and their meanings exists in their own particular horizons, so their view-points Gadamer claims are rendered "utterly different" from our own. So how then in light of this, are we to be able to carry out interpretations of texts? How do we "avoid misunderstanding the meaning" because of our temporal and cultural bias and yet still be able to "comprehend them in their persuasive force"? Gadamer suggests that we do this by fusion of horizons, but before looking at this idea, I feel we need to look at his ideas about understanding and how they apply to the interpre
For Gadamer understanding is active, like Heidegger, he believes that we (our consciousness) are in the world and inseparable from it. So because of this, our consciousness is all ways directed at something. So as we are involved in the world, we understand things in terms of their relation of to us, and the context they have in general, like Heidegger example of a hammer. We can see if our understanding is directed a literature, it means we have to participate in it, we have to see it relation to us, and the world around it. This is why Gadamer claims that, what would not be an adequate understanding of a text is, the basic re-iteration of it, his example being a "description of the inner structure and the coherence of a given text and the mere repetition of what the author says" like the traditional biblical hermeneutics. Where the interpretation consisted of a re-examination and explanation of what the bible says. So basically not really progressing past re-iteration and so this understanding consists only of statements in the text and how they apply to what the text is and to each other. So as we have seen this is not a sufficient understanding and interpretation for Gadamer, and it does not constitute a "real understanding". Gadamer. H. G, 'Hermeneutics as a practical philosophy', in Baynes Bohman and McCarthy (eds) After philosophy, MIT Press 1987, p.330 I think that the value of Gadamer's hermeneutics is that the interpretation is in the understanding, I think also that it calls for a great deal of compassion for the auth
Some common words found in the essay are:
Gadamer Herder, King Lear, ED Faulty, Bibliography Gadamer, understanding text, Bohman McCarthy, MIT Press, king lear, own perspective, one's own, text speak, gadamer claims, texts past, hermeneutics interpretation, ourselves text,
Approximate Word count = 1039
Approximate Pages = 4 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
