3. Ways In and Out of the Hermeneutic Circle

Introduction to Hermeneutics

In this section, the professor introduces the concept of hermeneutics and its history.

What is Hermeneutics?

• Hermeneutics is the art or principles of interpretation.

• The word "hermeneutics" wasn't available in ancient times, but there were treatises on interpretation.

• The notion of hermeneutics arises primarily in religion first, specifically in the Christian tradition.

Rise of Hermeneutics

• Protestant Reformation gave rise to hermeneutic studies as people began to interpret the Bible for themselves.

• Interpretation becomes important when meaning becomes difficult to ascertain.

• As constitutional democracies rose, hermeneutic studies expanded to include law interpretation.

Importance of Meaning

• It's crucial to understand what sacred scripture means and why it's important.

• The meaning of laws also became almost as important as that of sacred scriptures.

Literature and Hermeneutics

• There is no specific hermeneutic art devoted to literature mentioned in this section.

Literature and Hermeneutics

This transcript discusses the history of hermeneutics, which is the study of interpretation. It begins by discussing how literature was viewed in the eighteenth century and then moves on to discuss how Romanticism changed this view. The transcript then describes the work of various philosophers who contributed to the development of hermeneutics, including Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamer. Finally, it explains the concept of the hermeneutic circle.

Literature in the Eighteenth Century

• Literary scholars were not concerned with interpretation but rather evaluation.

• Good writing was considered clear and transparent in meaning.

• Playwrights wrote prologues that criticized each other for being obscure or requiring interpretation.

Romanticism and Hermeneutics

• Romanticism brought about a cult of genius where literary creators were seen as divine creators.

• Literature became more subjective and difficult to understand.

• Theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher established principles of hermeneutics that applied to both literature and scripture.

Development of Hermeneutics

• Wilhelm Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamer contributed to the development of hermeneutics.

• Gadamer's tradition focused on understanding the relationship between a reader and a text rather than between a reader and an author.

The Hermeneutic Circle

• The hermeneutic circle is a relationship between a reader and a text or author aimed at understanding intention.

• E.D. Hirsch views it as a relationship between a reader and an author where the text mediates meaning.

• For Gadamer's tradition, it is understood as a relationship between a reader and a text.

Understanding Hermeneutics

In this section, the speaker discusses how hermeneutics involves moving back and forth between a preconception about the whole and successive parts of a text. The circularity of this interpretative engagement has to do with referring back and forth between one's particular historical horizon and some other historical horizon that one is trying to come to terms with.

Circular Interpretation

• Hermeneutic engagement involves moving back and forth between a preconception about the whole and successive parts of a text.

• This circularity has to do with referring back and forth between one's particular historical horizon and some other historical horizon that one is trying to come to terms with.

• The effort of a reader in coming to terms with the meaning of a text is an effort to master the subject matter, what is there, or what the text is really about.

• Hermeneutics applies not only across an historical gulf but also across social or cultural gulfs when engaging in conversation.

Gadamer's Version

• Gadamer describes the circularity of our reading as projecting before oneself a meaning for the text as a whole as soon as some initial meaning emerges in the text.

• The working out of this fore-project which is constantly revised in terms of what emerges as one penetrates into the meaning, is understanding what is there.

• What is there really has to do with what Gadamer means when he talks also about die Sache, or the subject matter.

Concerns

• One may be hopelessly prejudiced about what they read if they have some sort of preliminary conception of what it's all about.

• The effort of a reader in coming to terms with the meaning of a text is an effort to master the subject matter, what is there, and what the text is really about.

• This way of thinking suggests that one can't get away from preliminary conceptions about things.

The Circle Isn't Necessarily Vicious

In this section, the lecturer discusses how preconceptions can be constructive and not necessarily vicious. He uses an example from a poem to illustrate how good and bad prejudices can affect interpretation.

Preconceptions Can Be Constructive

• Gadamer and Heidegger argue that a circle isn't necessarily vicious.

• The way into the circle can also be constructive.

• An interpretation can draw from the entity itself or force it into concepts to which it is opposed in its manner of being.

• Good prejudice is our prior awareness that plastic meant something different in the eighteenth century than it means now.

Example of Good and Bad Prejudice

• In the eighteenth century, "plastic" meant "sinuous," "powerful," "flexible."

• Akenside's line "The great creator raised his plastic arm" makes perfect sense when we bring our prior knowledge of what plastic meant at that time.

• Bad prejudice is when we leap to conclusions without considering other historical horizons.

Gadamer's Objection to Historicism

In this section, the lecturer explains Gadamer's objection to historicism as a methodology for interpretation.

Methodology of Interpretation

• Other people believe there is a methodology of interpretation.

• Gadamer objects to historicism as a basic methodology for hermeneutics.

New Historicism vs. Historicist Methodology

• New Historicism has nothing to do with what Gadamer objects to in historicism.

• The lecture will return to New Historicism later in the semester.

Historicizing and Gadamerian Hermeneutics

This section discusses the object of historicizing, which is to enter into the mindset of another time or place. It also introduces Gadamer's objection to this idea, stating that preconceptions cannot be factored out.

Object of Historicizing

• The object of historicizing is to completely enter into the mind of another.

• This allows for a merging of present with past and here with there.

• The result is what Gadamer calls "horizon merger."

Gadamer's Objection

• Gadamer objects to historicizing because preconceptions cannot be factored out.

• He believes that recognizing one's own horizon and bridging it with another's is the best approach.

• This results in "effective history," which is useful history that can go to work for us.

Immorality of Historicism

• According to Gadamer, there is something immoral about historicism because it condescends toward the past.

• Historicism supposes that the past is simply a repository of information and does not consider the possibility of being taught something by pastness or otherness.

Heidegger on Interpretation

This section discusses Heidegger's views on interpretation and how it relates to our understanding of history.

Structure of Interpretation

• Heidegger argues that even simple acts like seeing bear in themselves the structure of interpretation.

• To grasp something free from interpretation requires a certain adjustment.

Preconceptions in Interpretation

• We bring preconceptions to bear on what we take as simple acts like looking at a sign that says 'exit.'

• It would be difficult if not impossible to just see something without seeing it as something first.

Possibility for Learning from History

• According to Gadamer, historicism forgets the possibility of being taught something by pastness or otherness.

• Heidegger's views on interpretation suggest that we cannot escape the fact that we bring preconceptions to bear on our understanding of history.

• Therefore, it is important to recognize our own horizon and try to bridge it with another's in order to learn from history.

I'm sorry, but I cannot see any transcript or video to summarize. Please provide me with the necessary information so that I can assist you better.

Gadamer vs Hirsch

This section discusses the differences between Gadamer's and Hirsch's positions on interpretation. Gadamer believes that arriving at meaning involves arriving at something that speaks to us as true, while Hirsch argues that we should approach entities for themselves and not instrumentalize them.

Gadamer's Position

• Gadamer is interested in something true.

• The text that is understood historically is forced to abandon its claim that it is uttering something true.

• Implicit in the notion of objectivity is an abandonment of the possibility of learning from the object.

Hirsch's Position

• Kant held it to be a foundation of moral action that men should be conceived as ends in themselves, not as instruments of other men.

• Approaching an entity for oneself turns the whole idea of being open to the possibility that the other is speaking true on its ear and says, Oh, no, no. You're just appropriating the other for yourself.

• When we fail to conjoin a man's intention to his words, we lose the soul of speech which is to convey meaning and understand what is intended to be conveyed.

Comparison

• It poses for us a choice which suggests perhaps differing forms of commitment.

• It is significant that Hirsch does not talk about truth.

Interpretation and Meaning in Literary Theory

This section discusses the distinction between E.D. Hirsch's view of interpretation and Wolfgang Iser's view of meaning in literary theory.

Distinction Between Interpretation and Meaning

• Hirsch is willing to sacrifice historical or cultural exactitude of meaning, acknowledging that there's always something of him in his interpretation.

• Hirsch believes that there is nothing of him in the interpretation, allowing him to arrive accurately and objectively at the meaning of the other.

• It doesn't seem to be a question for Hirsch of whether the other speaks true.

• Truth actually does matter to Hirsch, but it's not implicit in the philosophical position he's taking up here.

• The distinction between these two positions is irreconcilable, leaving us with a choice that really does have to be made.

Literary Theory Choice

• The choice between these two positions looms over a course in literary theory and coming to understand the tradition of literary theory.

• Some will take one side, others will take another, and we'll find ourselves siding or not siding with them based on this distinction.

Overall, this section discusses how different views on interpretation and meaning can impact our understanding of literary theory.