Rehabilitating Gadamer
Listen, I'm not under any false illusions that Hans-Georg Gadamer needs my help, but I was a little rough on him in a previous post as being the quintessence of philosophical abstruseness. In fact, Gadamer is an incredibly important figure in 20th century philosophy, so all four of you who read this should have a better appreciation of him.
In the post-Kantian turn in philosophy, F. Schleiermacher and W. Dilthey emphasized that for a human being to understand a text, one must interpret it. They are (in)famous for stating that I, as a reader, can actually know what's going on in a text better than the author himself knew. They then developed a methodology for interpreting texts.
Gadamer, however, disagreed that a method can be developed; that is still too a part of the Enlightenment project (i.e., you can step outside of interpretation and develop a method, then step back into the interpretation). Gadamer said that all we do is interpret, and he used art as an example: most of us would say a painting or work of music conveys "truth," but it's not in the same way that a written text does. Since a painting does not use words, but we think in words, we have to translate or interpret what the painting is "saying." In other words, we interpret all the time -- interpretation is the human condition.
So here's a more helpful quote from Truth and Method:
"The hermeneutical situation is not a regrettable distortion that affects the purity of understanding, but the condition of its possibility. Only because between the text and its interpreter there is no automatic accord can a hermeneutica experience make us share in the text. Only because a text has to be brought out of its alienness and assimilated is there anything for the person to understand it to say"(472).
In the post-Kantian turn in philosophy, F. Schleiermacher and W. Dilthey emphasized that for a human being to understand a text, one must interpret it. They are (in)famous for stating that I, as a reader, can actually know what's going on in a text better than the author himself knew. They then developed a methodology for interpreting texts.
Gadamer, however, disagreed that a method can be developed; that is still too a part of the Enlightenment project (i.e., you can step outside of interpretation and develop a method, then step back into the interpretation). Gadamer said that all we do is interpret, and he used art as an example: most of us would say a painting or work of music conveys "truth," but it's not in the same way that a written text does. Since a painting does not use words, but we think in words, we have to translate or interpret what the painting is "saying." In other words, we interpret all the time -- interpretation is the human condition.
So here's a more helpful quote from Truth and Method:
"The hermeneutical situation is not a regrettable distortion that affects the purity of understanding, but the condition of its possibility. Only because between the text and its interpreter there is no automatic accord can a hermeneutica experience make us share in the text. Only because a text has to be brought out of its alienness and assimilated is there anything for the person to understand it to say"(472).
posted by tony at 1:03 PM
4 Comments:
Since a painting does not use words, but we think in words, we have to translate or interpret what the painting is "saying." I think this is very interesting - perhaps a good application of this notion to human life would be to have a retreat, where people communnicated through arts - no words - just draw what you mean, or sing, without words, it would be interesting.
Can humans get away from using words? Those tribes in the jungles that simply make clicking noises...is that words?
And how does the presntation of the Christ in John 1 being called the word affect language? Does salvation come in the context of words?
We've been talking about Gadamer, Schleiermacher, Dilthey and Saussere in my Intermediate Hermeneutics class, but I've been spared from actually having to read them. It seems to be that all language is metaphorical - that words only have meaning in how they are interpreted by the reader/hearer. The author/speaker may have an intention, but has no influence on how s/he is interpreted.
(Tony - are you doing the "Congregational Mission & Leadership" (or whatever its called at Princeton) Phd? I just started looking into the one at Luther with Van Gelder. I'd love to talk with you about it sometime. I'm a friend of Doug's; we met briefly at the EC Nashville).
I know nothing of Gadamer....but I just heard you aren't coming to either EC(s)this year...is this true?????
Nope, my PhD will be in practical theology. As far as I know, there isn't one in congregational leadership here. I've heard good things about the one at Luther.
And, no, I won't be at the emergent conventions this year. I'll be studying for and taking the first three of my comprehensive exams. As Andy Root said to me a month ago after he finished his fifth comp and oral defense, "Welcome to hell."
Post a Comment
<< Home