4 ms·
Read Gadamer’s Warheit und Methode (unless you have a pathological aversion to continental philosophy in any form). All understanding is hermeneutic and thus in
by dmvdoug 2y ago
Read Gadamer’s Warheit und Methode (unless you have a pathological aversion to continental philosophy in any form). All understanding is hermeneutic and thus infinitely wheeling us around the hermeneutic circle. It’s the entry-point (without an exit) to answering Plato’s questions about questions. It’s how we learn and deepen language understanding. It’s how we interpret texts. It’s how science works, except that science enshrines its Methode as a sine qua non. It’s how we come to understand other people and why we can be continually surprised (or not!) by them.
The real shame is that academic fashion jerked violently in the direction of Derrida and company in the mid-to-late-60s before anyone had time to really dwell with and appreciate the power of Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics. His masterpiece was only published in 1960, when he himself was 60! It’s a mature and deep reflection on themes he had been studying for 40 years. Ricoeur grasped its power, of course, but the whole Habermasian-Derridan-Foucauldian critical project flavored Ricoeur’s approach. Richard Rorty gestured in similar directions, with less depth (and certainly far less phenomenological power).
But invest the time to read Gadamer. It’s worth it.
- xwolfi 2y agoYour words are beautiful, yet devoid of any information. I hope Gadamer writes differently :)
- Slow_Hand 2y agoOf course there’s information there. Perhaps - to take a note from the article - you’re not ready for it at this point in your life.
- tbrownaw 2y agoThat sounds like the sort of response I'd expect from a mystery religion or cult. As opposed to say expending part of the contained information into a form that's comprehensible to non-initiates.
- dmvdoug 2y agoInformation I see: I think all understanding and therefore all learning is hermeneutic. I was persuaded by Hans-Georg Gadamer’s magnum opus, Truth and Method. I think his theory, which he called “philosophical hermeneutics,” is a skeleton key for understanding our understanding. Right around the time he published the book, there was a large shift in academic fashion towards critical theory and deconstructionism, of which Gadamer is neither. The result is that Gadamer and his work took a backseat to critical theory. We lost something important in that shift. Others recognized the importance of Gadamer’s work but diluted it by trying to merge it with their pet theories (Ricoeur with critical theory, Rorty with American-style pragmatism). —————————— That said, Gadamer’s work is dense but not impenetrable. And it is beautiful. And profound. Go forth and read!
- nurettin 2y agoAdding cultural context won't make water flow faster through a tube, or allow planes to fly more efficiently, but you can make the pipes and planes really pretty I guess. Definitely something to read after you are 60.
- dlkf 2y agoWould new developments (or old developments that had gone underappreciated) in an adjacent stem field count as ”added cultural context” ?
- dmvdoug 2y agoI… don’t know what point you’re trying to make, but I’m pretty sure it’s not relevant to anything I said above.
- DiscourseFan 2y agoYes if you want something with phenomenological flavor that discusses the impact of technological development on human experience in a progressive manner, I suggest Walter Benjamin, who was Heidegger's classmate and developed his philosophy in opposition to him. Here is a good introductory article for him [0] [0]https://monoskop.org/images/6/6d/Benjamin_Walter_1936_2008_The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_Its_Technological_Reproducibility_Second_Version.pdf https://monoskop.org/images/6/6d/Benjamin_Walter_1936_2008_T...
- DiscourseFan 2y agoI might check it out. I'll stick with Benjamin for now.
- datadrivenangel 2y agoThe postmodern scourge corroded the entire discoursive landscape! All can be torn down, and Foucault is the arms-dealer of modernity
- dmvdoug 2y agoMy favorite thing a history professor ever said to me about Foucault was “well we don’t really read him for figuring out the truth. We just read him for provocative ideas.”