Hermeneutics as a method of understanding and interpreting text. Hermeneutic method in humanitarian knowledge Hermeneutic method of research
The purpose of the hermeneutic method
Having analyzed the hermeneutic method in the interpretations of V. Dilthey, H. G. Gadamer, A. Demer, H. Yu. Habermas, E. D. Hirsch, V. K. Nishanov and others, V. N. Druzhinin summarizes: “If we summarize (almost mechanically) these interpretations of understanding, then we can say that understanding is used when it is required to cognize a unique, holistic, non-natural object (which bears the “imprint of rationality”) by translating its features into terms of the researcher’s “internal” language (diagnosis and interpretation) and receive in the course of it an assessment and “experience of understanding” as a result of the process” (2, p. 83).
A professional psychologist sees in every work of art its creator with his own value-semantic sphere. A text, a score, a painting, the sounding fabric of a musical work - how great is the desire, when coming into contact with them, not only to become familiar with generally valid formulas, but also to enter into the semantic world of the author! Where to find the key to understanding? Hermeneutics is looking for an answer to this question.
The founder of the hermeneutic direction, F. Schleiermacher, put forward the main goal of the method - to move from one’s own thoughts to the thoughts of understood writers. He also separated the psychological interpretation of texts from the philosophical. V. Dilthey introduced the distinction between the sciences of the spirit and the sciences of the external world. The spiritual sciences required a different research approach, and the method of understanding became central to his theory.
Gadamer's Hermeneutics
Gadamer considers hermeneutics not from the point of view of the theory of knowledge and the theory of science, but in the spectrum of ontological problems. “Gadamer's preferred authorities in his research are Heidegger and Hegel. From the first he borrows the ontological task and interest in language as the “house of being”, from the second - his struggle against the “hypertrophy of subjectivity” in philosophy; the latter, transferred to the analysis of art, excludes such an important aspect of artistic creativity as its subjective beginning, eliminating, in the words of Gadamer himself, the mental structure of the one who creates a work of art or enjoys it. The creator, according to this logic, turns into a servant of the work he created” (2, p. 139).
Hermeneutics for Gadamer is the method of agreement. “The goal of any understanding is to achieve agreement on the essence... And the task of hermeneutics from time immemorial is to achieve agreement, to restore it. ...The miracle of understanding lies not in the fact that souls mysteriously communicate with each other, but in the fact that they participate in a common meaning for them” (3, p. 73).
Modifications of the hermeneutic method
Research psychologists and psychotherapists often use the insight method. “There are various modifications of the psychological hermeneutic method, the main ones include: the biographical method, analysis of the results (products) of activity, the psychoanalytic method” (2, pp. 87–88). When it comes to art, man, understanding, and feeling, one would like a softer presentation of thoughts, but the texts of hermeneutic philosophers are specific and often accessible only to a narrow circle of scientists.
Hermeneutic circle of understanding
“The movement of understanding constantly moves from the whole to the part and from the part to the whole,” says Gadamer. “And the task is always to build concentric circles to expand the unity of meaning that we understand.” Mutual agreement between the individual and the whole is every time a criterion for the correctness of understanding” (3, p. 72).
Schleermacher distinguished between the objective - “grammatical” and subjective - “psychological” sides of text interpretation. The relationship between these sides characterizes the circular structure of understanding. Schleermacher gave preference to the objective side of interpretation over the subjective one, therefore the personal psychological aspect of interpretation for him is secondary in relation to the linguistic procedures of interpretation.
The hermeneutic circle of understanding in the interpretation of T.N. Grekova and N.L. Nagibina
T.N. Grekova and N.L. Nagibin in their work “Psychology and Hermeneutics: the intersection of methods” (1999) emphasize the psychological side of the interpretation of texts. Their goal is to designate semantic and force fields in the hermeneutic circle, depending on the dominance of the position of the author, character, and reader.
Three main models are possible.
Model 1. The character's position dominates
The semantic network of the author and the reader is emasculated. The author's task is to clearly show the character. The hierarchy of a character’s meanings is possible in two versions: 1) it is built into generally significant meanings or those that are significant for a given era. In this case, a tendentious transformation of the character’s personality often occurs. The author takes a civic position, educating the reader;
2) has a unique, intrinsically valuable semantic network. This uniqueness is emphasized by the author and seen by the reader.
The author speaks in all the versatility of his own meanings. Constantly reasoning, analyzing from the angle of his semantic hierarchy. He often compares his point of view with the attitude of his hero, compares it, even imposes it. He needs the character and the reader as a starting point for stating his position or concept.
Model 3. The reader's position dominates
The author builds and presents the character based on the reader’s hierarchy of meanings. Thus, the reader pulls the semantic field onto himself. His tastes, preferences, level of intelligence, social status determine the choice of character and his presentation.
The expansion of the sphere of understanding occurs through the fourth participant in the hermeneutic circle - the potential reader, who receives information about the book through the oral or advertising representation of the first reader. The meanings of the first reader involve the corresponding meanings of the second reader. Thus, one can speak of those “concentric circles that expand the unity of meaning” (Gadamer) through this fourth participant, bringing the hermeneutic circle into a new orbit of understanding.
Hermeneutic method
♦ (ENG hermeneutical method)
a conscious approach to interpreting texts according to certain procedures.
Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms. - M.: "Republic". McKim Donald K.. 2004 .
See what the “Hermeneutic method” is in other dictionaries:
HERMENEUTIC CIRCLE- a metaphor that describes the productive movement of the hermeneutic’s thought within the framework of hermeneutic reconstruction techniques. The thematization of G.K.’ was carried out by Schleiermacher, who relied on the achievements of the previous philological hermeneutics of F. Ast. The goal... ...
hermeneutic circle- THE HERMENEUTIC CIRCLE or circular structure of understanding was known in ancient rhetoric and patristics (Augustine: to understand the Holy Scripture, you must believe in it, and to believe, you must understand it). In hermeneutics, genetic theory is a process... ...
HERMENEUTIC CIRCLE- a metaphor that describes the productive movement of the hermeneutic’s thought within the framework of hermeneutic reconstruction techniques. Thematization by G.K. was carried out by Schleiermacher, who relied on the achievements of the previous philological hermeneutics of F. Ast. The goal... ... History of Philosophy: Encyclopedia
hermeneutic- see hermeneutics; oh, oh. Hermeneutical method. Research techniques... Dictionary of many expressions
TRUTH AND METHOD. MAIN FEATURES OF PHILOSOPHICAL HERMENEUTICS- 'THE TRUTH AND METHOD. The main features of philosophical hermeneutics’ work by Gadamer (1960), which was at the center of heated discussions for several decades and influenced the formation of modern German literary criticism, psychoanalysis... History of Philosophy: Encyclopedia
TRUTH AND METHOD. Main features of philosophical hermeneutics- a work by Gadamer (1960), which was at the center of heated discussions for several decades and influenced the formation of modern German literary criticism, psychoanalysis and neo-Marxism, as well as theorizing in the field... ... History of Philosophy: Encyclopedia
Truth and Method- “THE TRUTH AND METHOD” is a fundamental philosophical study by Hans Georg Gadamer (ategN.U. Wahrheit und Methode. Tubingen, 1960; Russian translation: Truth and Method: Fundamentals of Philosophical Hermeneutics. M., 1988). The main idea of the book is to present... ... Encyclopedia of Epistemology and Philosophy of Science
Hermeneutic method... Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms
BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS- a branch of church biblical studies that studies the principles and methods of interpreting the text of the Holy Scriptures. The Scriptures of the OT and NT and the historical process of the formation of its theological foundations. G. b. sometimes perceived as the methodological basis of exegesis. Greek word ἡ… … Orthodox Encyclopedia
legal hermeneutics- LEGAL HERMENEUTICS is the science of understanding and explaining the meaning laid down by the legislator in the text of a normative legal act. The task of the legal system is to methodologically ensure the transition from understanding the meaning of the rule of law to explaining its essence. Such… … Encyclopedia of Epistemology and Philosophy of Science
The new concept of hermeneutics was put forward by the German philosopher and art theorist Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911), who considered hermeneutics as a methodological basis for the humanities, which he classified as the sciences of the human spirit. (Geistenwissenschqft). They all deal with understanding human thought, art, culture and history. Unlike natural science, V. Dilthey pointed out, the content of the humanities, including history, is not facts of nature, but objectified expressions of the human spirit, thoughts and feelings of people, their goals and motives. Accordingly, if for explanations natural phenomena, causal laws are used, then for understanding actions and actions of people must first be interpreted, or interpreted, from the point of view of goals, interests and motives. Humanitarian understanding differs significantly from natural scientific explanation, because it is always associated with revealing the meaning of human activity in various forms of its manifestation.
Although V. Dilthey did not belong to the neo-Kantians, he put forward a program in the field of historical knowledge similar to the one that I. Kant tried to implement in "Critique of Pure Reason" for the philosophical justification of the natural sciences of his time. The main efforts of V. Dilthey were aimed at "critique of historical reason" in general, they coincided with the criticism of positivism in history, which was made by the neo-Kantians. As we have already noted, the anti-positivist criticism of the neo-Kantian philosophers W. Windelband and G. Rickert in the last quarter of the 19th century was supported by German historians and sociologists I. Droysen, G. Simmel and others. All of them, as we already know, opposed the transfer of techniques , models and methods of research in natural sciences into historical and social sciences, since this leads to ignoring their specific features.
V. Dilthey also joined this anti-positivist trend, but he did not limit himself to simple denial and criticism of the positivist concept, but set out to constructively develop a positive program in the field of the humanities. Why, as the main means, he chose the hermeneutic method, which from an essentially philological theory becomes the methodology of sciences that study the spiritual activity of man.
In the process of working on the book “The Life of Schleiermacher,” W. Dilthey thoroughly studied and mastered the methods of textual and historical interpretation of his predecessor, but gave them a more general methodological and philosophical character. He believed that neither natural scientific methods, nor metaphysical speculation, nor introspective psychological techniques could help to understand the spiritual life of a person, and especially of society. V. Dilthey emphasized that the inner spiritual human life, its formation and development, is a complex process in which thought, feeling, and will are connected into a single whole. Therefore, the humanities cannot study the spiritual activity of people with the help of concepts alien to them, such as causality, force, space, etc. Not without reason, V. Dilthey notes that in the veins of the knowing subject, constructed by D. Locke, D. Hume and I. Kant, there is not a drop of genuine blood. These thinkers viewed cognition as separate not only from feelings and will, but also from the historical context of inner human life.
As a supporter of the “philosophy of life,” V. Dilthey believed that the categories of the humanities should be derived from the living experience of people; they should be based on facts and phenomena that are meaningful only when they relate to the inner world of a person. This is how understanding another person is possible, and it is achieved as a result of spiritual reincarnation. Following F. Schleiermacher, he viewed such a process as a reconstruction and rethinking of the spiritual world of other people, which can only be penetrated through the correct interpretation of the expressions of inner life, which finds its objectification in the external world in works of material and spiritual culture. Therefore, understanding plays a decisive role in humanitarian research, since it is it that unites the internal and external into a single whole, considering the latter as a specific expression of a person’s internal experience, his goals, intentions and motivations. Only through understanding can comprehension of the unique and inimitable phenomena of human life and history be achieved. In contrast, when studying natural phenomena, the individual is considered as a means of achieving knowledge about the general, i.e. class of identical objects and phenomena; those. natural science is limited only to the explanation of phenomena, which comes down to subsuming phenomena under some general schemes or laws, while understanding makes it possible to comprehend the special and unique in social life, and this is essential for comprehending spiritual life, for example, art, where we value in particular, for their own sake, and we pay more attention to the individual characteristics of works of art than to their similarity and commonality with other works. A similar approach should be applied in the study of history, where we are interested in individual and unique events of the past, and not in abstract schemes of the general historical process. Such a sharp contrast between understanding and explanation found its vivid embodiment in Dilthey’s well-known aphorism: “we explain nature, but we must understand the living soul of man.”
However, historical understanding does not come down to empathy, or psychological penetration, of the researcher into the inner world of participants in past events. As we showed in the second chapter, such adaptation into the spiritual world of even an individual, and even more so an outstanding individual, is extremely difficult to realize. As for the motives of action and intentions of participants in broad social movements, they can be very different, and therefore it can be very difficult to find the resultant of their general behavior. The main difficulty here is that V. Dilthey, like other anti-positivists, excessively exaggerates the individuality and uniqueness of historical events and, thereby, opposes generalizations and laws in historical science. However, the hermeneutic method of inquiry that he advocated for the study of history deserves special attention.
The need to turn to methods of interpretation and understanding of hermeneutics is explained by the fact that the historian-researcher works, first of all, with various kinds of texts. For their analysis and interpretation in classical hermeneutics, many general and special techniques and methods have been developed for revealing the meaning of these texts, and, consequently, their interpretation and understanding,
Specific features in the interpretation of texts not only in the humanities and natural sciences, but also in historical and legal documents undoubtedly exist. However, interpretations generally follow a general pattern, which in natural science is sometimes called the hypothetico-deductive method. Such a scheme should best be seen as the derivation of conclusions, or consequences, from hypotheses that arise in the form of peculiar questions in the interpretation of texts. When a natural scientist conducts an experiment, he, in essence, asks a certain question to nature. The results of the experiment - the facts represent the answers that nature gives. To understand these facts, the scientist must interpret them, or interpret them, for which they first need to be comprehended, i.e. to give them a specific, specific meaning or meaning. Despite the fact that V. Dilthey, as we know, contrasted natural scientific knowledge with social and humanitarian knowledge, nevertheless, he recognized that any interpretation begins precisely with the formulation of a hypothesis of a general, preliminary nature, which, in the course of its development and interpretation, is gradually concretized and TBC. If, when setting up an experiment, a question is asked of nature, then in the course of historical research this question is asked of historical evidence or the text of a surviving document. Thus, in both cases, certain questions are asked, preliminary answers are formulated in the form of hypotheses and assumptions, which are then tested with the help of existing facts (in natural science) or evidence and other sources (in history). Such facts and historical evidence become meaningful because they are included in a certain system of theoretical ideas, which in turn are the result of complex, creative, cognitive activity. From a purely logical point of view, the process of interpreting and understanding historical evidence from sources and authorities can be considered as a hypothetico-deductive method of reasoning, which is really concerned with generating hypotheses and testing them. Currently, many scientists believe that this method can be used in various branches of social and humanitarian knowledge. Some philosophers, such as the Swede D. Folesdal, even argue that the hermeneutic method itself essentially comes down to the application of the hypothetico-deductive method to the specific material with which the social sciences and humanities deal. However, the hypothetico-deductive method serves here rather as a general scheme, a kind of strategy for scientific search and its rational justification, and the main role in this search is played by the stage of generating and inventing hypotheses, associated with intuition and imagination, mental models and other creative and heuristic research methods.
The difference between natural scientific and historical interpretation lies first and foremost in the nature of the object of interpretation.
Interpretation and the understanding based on it must take into account, on the one hand, all objective data related to historical evidence or the text of a document; on the other hand, no researcher, even in the natural sciences, and especially in the historical and human sciences, can approach to its object without any ideas, theoretical concepts, value orientations, i.e. without what is associated with the spiritual activity of the cognizing subject. It is this aspect of the matter that V. Dilthey and his followers pay attention to. We have already noted that interpretation in their view is considered, first of all, as empathy, or feeling, getting used to the spiritual world of the individual. But with such a psychological and subjective approach, the study of the activities of outstanding historical figures comes down to a hypothetical analysis of their intentions, goals and thoughts, rather than actions and actions. And there is certainly no need to talk about interpretations of the activities of large groups and groups of people.
Most often, historians deal with texts that are often poorly preserved and poorly understood; however, these texts are actually the only evidence about the past, hence some scholars claim that everything that can be said about past events is contained in historical evidence. Similar statements are made by translators, literary and art historians, critics and other specialists who deal with the problems of interpreting texts that differ in specific content. But the text itself, be it historical evidence or a work of art, in the strict sense of the word represents only a sign system that acquires meaning as a result of appropriate interpretation; How the text is interpreted determines its comprehension or understanding. Whatever form the interpretation takes, it is closely connected with the activity of the cognizing subject, who gives a certain meaning to the text. With this approach, understanding the text is not limited to how the author understood it. As M.M. rightly emphasized. Bakhtin, “understanding can and should be better. Understanding complements the text: it is active and creative in nature.” However, historical understanding should not be confused with everyday understanding, which means assimilation the meaning of something (words, sentences, motives, deeds, actions, etc.).
In the process of historical interpretation, understanding the text of a testimony or document is also associated, first of all, with the disclosure of the meaning that the author put into it. Obviously, with this approach, the meaning of the text remains something given once and for all, unchangeable and can only be identified and learned once. Without denying the possibility of such an approach to understanding in the process of everyday speech communication and even during training, it should, however, be emphasized that this approach is inadequate and therefore ineffective in more complex cases, in particular in historical knowledge. If understanding is reduced to the assimilation of the original, fixed meaning of the text, then the possibility of revealing its deeper meaning, and, consequently, a better understanding of the results of people’s spiritual activity is excluded. Consequently, the traditional view of understanding as the reproduction of the original meaning needs clarification and generalization. Such a generalization can be made on the basis of the semantic approach to interpretation, according to which the meaning or meaning Can also attach to the text as a sign structure, i.e. understanding depends not only on the meaning given to the text by the author, but also by the interpreter. Trying to understand, for example, a historical chronicle or testimony, the historian reveals the original author's meaning, but also brings something of himself, since he approaches them from certain positions, personal experience, his own ideals and beliefs, the spiritual and moral climate of his era, his value and worldview ideas. Therefore, in such conditions it is hardly possible to talk about one thing - the only correct understanding
The dependence of understanding a text on the specific historical conditions of its interpretation clearly shows that it cannot be reduced to a purely psychological and subjective process, although the personal experience of the interpreter plays an important role here. If understanding were entirely reduced to the subjective perception of the meaning of a text or speech, then no communication between people and mutual exchange of the results of spiritual activity would be possible. Psychological factors such as intuition, imagination, empathy, etc. are undoubtedly very important for understanding works of literature and art, but to comprehend historical events and processes, a deep analysis of the objective conditions of social life is necessary. However, V. Dilthey tried to build a methodology of historical and humanitarian knowledge exclusively on the psychological concept of understanding. “Any attempt to create an experimental science of the spirit without psychology,” he pointed out, “can in no way lead to positive results.” Apparently, guided by this idea, in his last work on the history of philosophy, he reduces the study of this history to the study of the psychology of philosophers. This approach could not but arouse critical objections even from scientists who generally sympathized with his anti-positivist views on history and the humanities.
The process of understanding in a broad context is comprehensive a problem whose solution requires the use of various means and methods of specific research. The use of textual, axiological, paleographic, archaeological and other special research methods acquires a special role in historical knowledge.
There is probably no more complex and at the same time more important thing in the world than understanding. To understand another person, to understand the meaning of the text intended by the author, to understand oneself...
Understanding is the central category of hermeneutics. Sounds truly fundamental. That’s right: hermeneutics as a philosophical direction and hermeneutics as a methodology originate in ancient times, and they can be applied, perhaps, to almost any area of life. But first things first.
Emergence and development
There is a god Hermes in ancient Greek mythology. In his winged sandals, he moves freely between the earth and Olympus and conveys the will of the gods to mortals, and the requests of mortals to the gods. And he doesn’t just convey, but explains, interprets, because people and gods speak different languages. The origin of the term “hermeneutics” (in Greek – “the art of interpretation”) is connected with the name of Hermes.
Also, this art itself originated in the ancient era. Then the efforts of hermeneuts were aimed at identifying the hidden meaning of literary works (for example, the famous “Iliad” and “Odyssey” of Homer). In the texts closely intertwined with mythology at that time, they hoped to find an understanding of how people should behave so as not to incur the wrath of the gods, what can be done and what cannot be done.
Legal hermeneutics is gradually developing: explaining to the common people the meaning of laws and rules.
The revival is marked by the division of hermeneutics into hermeneutika sacra and hermeneutika profana. The first analyzes sacred (sacred) texts, and the second - in no way related to the Bible. Subsequently, the discipline of philological criticism grew from profane hermeneutics, and now in literary criticism hermeneutics is used very widely: from searching for the meaning of partially lost or distorted literary monuments to commentary on a work.
The Reformation had a huge influence on the development of hermeneutics - the movement of the 16th - early 17th centuries for the renewal of Catholic Christianity, which led to the emergence of a new religious belief - Protestantism. Why huge? Because the canon, the guideline for biblical interpretation, had disappeared, and interpreting its text now presented a much more difficult task. At this time, the foundations of hermeneutics were laid as a doctrine of methods of interpretation.
Schleiermacher paid special attention to the author of the text. What kind of person is he, why does he tell the reader this or that information? After all, the text, the philosopher believed, at the same time belongs to the language in which it was created and is a reflection of the personality of the author.
Schleiermacher's followers pushed the boundaries of hermeneutics even wider. In the works of Wilhelm Dilthey, hermeneutics is considered as a philosophical doctrine of interpretation in general, as the main method of comprehending the “spiritual sciences” (humanities).
Dilthey contrasted these sciences with natural sciences (about nature), which are comprehended by objective methods. The sciences of the spirit, as the philosopher believed, deal with direct mental activity - experience.
Later, hermeneutics turns into a way of human existence: “to be” and “to understand” become synonymous. This transition is associated with the names of Martin Heidegger, Hans-Georg Gadamer and others. It was thanks to Gadamer that hermeneutics took shape as an independent philosophical direction.
Beginning with Schleiermacher, hermeneutics and philosophy are intertwined more and more closely, and ultimately philosophical hermeneutics is born.
Basic Concepts
So, as our brief story about the emergence and development of hermeneutics showed, this term is multi-valued, and at present we can talk about three main definitions of this word:
- Hermeneutics is the science of interpreting texts.
- A philosophical direction in which understanding is interpreted as a condition of being (philosophical hermeneutics).
- Method of cognition, comprehension of meaning.
However, all hermeneutics is based on similar principles, and therefore the main provisions of hermeneutics are highlighted. There are four in total:
- Hermeneutic circle.
- The need for pre-understanding.
- Infinity of interpretation.
- Intentionality of consciousness.
Let's try to briefly explain these principles of hermeneutics and start with the most significant one - the hermeneutic circle.
Pre-understanding is our initial judgment about what we will learn, a preliminary, uncritical understanding of the subject of knowledge. In classical, rationalist-based philosophy (that is, in the 18th–19th centuries), preunderstanding was equated with prejudice and, therefore, was considered to interfere with the acquisition of objective knowledge.
In the philosophy of the 20th century (and, accordingly, in philosophical hermeneutics), the attitude towards preunderstanding changes to the opposite. We have already mentioned the outstanding hermeneutic Gadamer. He believed that pre-understanding is a necessary element for understanding. A completely purified consciousness, devoid of any prejudices and initial opinions, is unable to understand anything.
Let us recall the hermeneutic circle. We compare the pre-understanding with the new text, making it, the pre-understanding, open to change. The text is learned on the basis of pre-understanding, and pre-understanding is revised after understanding the text.
The principle of infinity of interpretation says that a text can be interpreted as many times as desired; in one or another system of views, a different meaning is determined each time. The explanation seems final only until a new approach is invented that can show the subject from a completely unexpected side.
The proposition about the intentionality of consciousness reminds us of the subjectivity of cognitive activity. The same objects or phenomena can be perceived as different depending on the orientation of the consciousness of the one who knows them.
Application in psychology
As we have found out, in each period of its development, hermeneutics was closely connected with one or another area of knowledge about the world. Types of hermeneutics arose one after another: first philological, then legal and theological, and finally philosophical.
Among the hermeneutic methods used in modern psychology, one should first of all name projective methods (but at the stage of interpretation, because at the stage of implementation they represent a measurement procedure), the biographical method and some others. Let us recall that projective techniques involve placing the subject in an experimental situation with many possible interpretations. These are all kinds of drawing tests, tests of incomplete sentences, and so on.
Some sources include graphological and physiognomic methods in the list of hermeneutic methods used in psychology, which seems very controversial. As is known, in modern psychology, graphology (the study of the connection between handwriting and character) and physiognomy (a method of determining the character and state of health by the structure of a person’s face) are considered examples of parasciences, that is, only currents accompanying recognized knowledge.
Psychoanalysis
Hermeneutics interacts very closely with such a branch of psychology as psychoanalysis. The direction, called psychological hermeneutics, is based, on the one hand, on philosophical hermeneutics, and on the other, on the revised ideas of Sigmund Freud.
Free dialogue assumes that the patient himself chooses the form and theme of his narrative, and based on these parameters, the psychoanalyst makes primary conclusions about the state of the speaker’s inner world. That is, in the process of interpreting the patient’s speech, the doctor must determine what the disease that has affected him is, as well as why it appeared.
It is impossible not to mention such a remarkable representative of psychoanalytic hermeneutics as Paul Ricoeur. He believed that the hermeneutical possibilities of psychoanalysis are practically limitless. Psychoanalysis, Ricoeur believed, can and should reveal the meaning of symbols reflected in language.
And indeed, we will talk about the same event differently at home with a close friend or to a casual acquaintance in line. Thus, the true goals and motives of the speaker are hidden behind the mask of social rituals. The doctor’s task is to get to the bottom of the patient’s true intentions using hermeneutic methods. Author: Evgenia Bessonova
Hermeneutics originated as the art of reading obscure texts (in antiquity).
Second function: interpretation of scripture (Christianity).
Hermes is a mediator.
Hermeneutics is not a scientific method (not a procedure that leads to a certain result).
Types of explanation:
1. Genetic.
2. Material explanation (reduction – we break it down into parts).
3. Structural (the whole is explained from the interaction of parts, and each part from the point of view of its place in the whole).
Some types of these explanations can be applied in humanitarian knowledge (linguistics (structural)).
The structural method is universal and is used in all sciences.
Hermeneutics as a method of text interpretation:
Any text has two meanings (the meaning of the speaker and the listener).
The concept of hermeneutics.
Hermeneutics (Greek hermeneutike - the art of interpretation) - in a broad sense, the art of interpretation and understanding. The word hermeneutics itself goes back to ancient Greek myths, according to which the messenger of the Gods, Hermes, was obliged to interpret and explain divine thoughts to people.
Today, hermeneutics is, on the one hand, a method of understanding, and on the other hand, a philosophical doctrine.
Stages of development of hermeneutics
General hermeneutics is rooted in the culture of the peoples of primitive civilization. Thus, the initiation rites of young members of society among “primitive” tribes are accompanied by the interpretation of myths and ritual symbols. In ancient times and ancient cultures, priests explained the words of soothsayers and recorded these explanations in writing. But the real beginning of the art of hermeneutics was made by Greek philosophers, who set out to find the deeper meaning in myths and in the works of Homer. At the same time, they often invested ancient texts and legends with a meaning that was very far from them. Essentially, they only used myths to present their own views.
In the Middle Ages, hermeneutics was equated with an allegorical interpretation of the Bible. Certain passages of the Old Testament have been interpreted as allegorical references to the future appearance of Christ. Origen in his treatise About the beginnings develops the doctrine of three semantic layers of Holy Scripture: physical, mental and spiritual. Physical, or meaning - for ordinary people. Soulful meaning - for those who are more zealous in faith. The spiritual meaning is revealed only to a select few.
Thus, we can say that hermeneutics before the Renaissance was of a religious nature; only from this era did scientific and literary hermeneutics begin to develop. In a later period, sciences related to the interpretation of texts will develop their own hermeneutics. Since the Renaissance, there has been its own hermeneutics in jurisprudence and philology, and since the 19th century. Hermeneutics occupies a place among historical disciplines. Since all sciences are ultimately concerned with interpretation, they are increasingly aware of the need for hermeneutic reflection.
The term hermeneutics began to be used in a philosophical sense in early German romanticism. F. Schleiermacher (1768–1834), whose works were fundamental to hermeneutics, turned it into a doctrine of the art of understanding as such. The task of such an art is to develop rules of interpretation that guarantee correct understanding, i.e. allowing you to protect the latter from errors. Schleiermacher makes a methodologically important distinction between loose and rigorous interpretive practice. Schleiermacher opposed the strict practice of interpretation to the loose practice characteristic of the previous hermeneutic tradition, which sought ways to understand the “dark places” of the text and proceeded from the fact that “understanding arises by itself,” arguing that “misunderstanding arises by itself,” whereas understanding requires special effort. The work of hermeneutics begins, therefore, not with difficulties in discovering meaning, but with thinking through the methods by which meaning can be understood. The art of understanding lies in the ability to reconstruct someone else's speech. The hermeneutic must be able to recreate from individual parts the integrity of the speech recorded in a particular text. He must understand the author better than himself.
The final turn of hermeneutics towards philosophy occurs in the 20th century. Although the first hints of such a turn can be found already in the “philosophy of life” of the late Dilthey and in Nietzsche, who declared that “there are no facts, there are only interpretations,” hermeneutics as a philosophical discipline in this vein is developed by M. Heidegger and his student H.G. Gadamer. If Heidegger's hermeneutics is aimed at self-understanding of an actually existing person, then Gadamer is interested in the sphere of humanitarian knowledge, he strives to comprehend the “historicity” and “linguisticity” of human experience.
As a method of historical interpretation itself, hermeneutics was developed by the great thinker Wilhelm Dilthey (1830-1911). He considered his main task to be the development of a methodology for humanistic knowledge, which he understood as a “criticism of historical reason.” His work served as a kind of blueprint for hermeneutic philosophy. As a result, “hermeneutics” became a fashionable term and, starting in the 1920s, became part of the “philosophy of history.”
Dilthey put forward a method of understanding. Understanding is akin to intuitive insight into life. Understanding one's inner world is achieved through introspection, and understanding another's world through empathy and feeling. In relation to the culture of the past, understanding acts as a method of interpretation, called hermeneutics by Dilthey. He formulates the program of hermeneutics as a methodology. The function of the hermeneutic is to “clarify the possibility of knowing the interrelationships of the historical world, as well as to find the means necessary for the implementation of such knowledge.” Dilthey defines hermeneutics itself as “the art of understanding the written manifestations of life.” It follows that hermeneutics is present in all humanities.
Dilthey himself did not develop hermeneutics as an art of interpretation, but his many followers did so. One of the last attempts of this kind was made by the Italian scientist E. Betti.
Heidegger relied on Dilthey’s legacy in his early works: his lectures on the “hermeneutics of facticity” are devoted to human self-interpretation. Heidegger's original intuition is that the world is given to us in the mode of significance. The interpretation of things is not brought into them, but belongs to them from the very beginning. Man always deals with the world as his “life world.”
In his later works, Heidegger moves away from the hermeneutic program .
Not without the influence of Heidegger's ideas, H. Lipps made an attempt in 1936 to create “hermeneutic logic”. Its subject is living speech, and not the inert morphology of judgment, as in classical logic. The latter, in particular, is completely abstracted from the fact that speech “allows us to know something.” The true content of speech must be sought not in the statement, but in the situation where some statement or remark arises and where it has a certain impact on the speaker. These thoughts of H. Lipps are rightfully considered an anticipation of the theory of linguistic acts, created later by J. Searle and J. Austin.
This topic was further developed by Hans Georg Gadamer (b. 1900), a student of M. Heidegger. He understood hermeneutics broadly - as a doctrine of being, as ontology, and, perhaps, rather as a theory of knowledge. In his book Truth and Method: Basic Features of Philosophical Hermeneutics(1960) a synthesis of the hermeneutic tradition was carried out. Polemicizing with Dilthey and his followers, Gadamer shows that the originality of the hermeneutic position is not located at all on the methodological plane.
Gadamer, he said, tried to reconcile philosophy with science.
Understanding for Gadamer is a way of existence for a person who knows, acts and evaluates. Understanding as a universal way for man to master the world is concretized by Gadamer as experience.
The medium of hermeneutic experience is language. Language is a universal medium in which understanding itself occurs. The way to do this is through interpretation. The researcher considered language as a special reality within which a person understands another person and also understands the world. Language is the main condition under which human existence is possible.
Gadamer considered historicity to be a fundamental characteristic of human existence and thinking: i.e. Being is determined by place and time - the situation in which a person is born and lives.
Principles of hermeneutics.
The principles of HERMENEUTICS, developed from the Renaissance to the present day, can be reduced to several main provisions.
1) Texts must be studied not in isolation, but in the general context, the holistic structure of the work.
2) When interpreting a text, it is important to get as complete an idea as possible about the personality of the author, even if his name is unknown.
3) A huge role in the interpretation of a document is played by the reconstruction of the historical and cultural environment in which the author was included.
4) A thorough grammatical and philological analysis of the monument is required in accordance with the laws of the original language.
5) Since each literary genre has its own characteristics and techniques, it is important to determine which genre a given text belongs to (taking into account the specifics of its artistic language: hyperbole, metaphors, allegories, symbols, etc.).
6) Interpretation must be preceded by a critical study of the manuscripts, designed to establish the most accurate reading of the text.
7) Interpretation remains dead without intuitive participation in the spirit of the monument.
8) Understanding the meaning of the text can be facilitated by the comparative method, i.e. comparison with other similar texts.
9) The interpreter is obliged to establish what meaning what was written had, first of all, for the author himself and his environment, and then to identify the relationship of the monument to modern consciousness.
Summarizing the above, we can draw the following conclusion. Adequate understanding of various texts and their interpretation is one of the most difficult tasks facing the reader-interpreter. But it is advisable to resort to hermeneutics when we are dealing with truly complex, intricate philosophical or psychological texts.