Gadamer's work Truth and Method

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fr_of_Jazz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
levinas12 said:
But that’s not fusion of horizons …
It is not simply a question of understanding the propositional meaning of what the other has said … although this is important …
Click to expand...
Don’t forget Gadamer is interested in a methodology of the human sciences, and the texts that are being interpreted are traditionary texts–past texts that come to us through tradition. That’s why I qualified my answer as I did. Gadamer: “Every encounter with tradition that takes place within historical consciousness involves the experience of a tension between the text and the present.” (306)

Gadamer uses a conversation between two contemporaries where they seek to come to agreement over the subject matter as a kind of model (or maybe analogy) for hermeneutics, but such conversations is not primarily what he is exploring.
Husserl (early) talks about the idealization of meaning … e.g., the Pythagorean Theorem (PT) is the same whether today or 2500 years ago … our understanding of the PT is identifical with the ancient Greek understanding …
But I don’t think this is not what G means by fusion of horizons - fusion does not mean achieving the same idealized meaning …
Fusion does allow for a sharing of sorts, for us having something in common … the earlier question or issue can seize hold of us - but the historical context is different - so there is a shift from the earlier original meaning
It’s interesting to note that Husserl himself came to emphasize history in his later work (e.g., the Crisis).
Click to expand...
Re Gadamer: I don’t quite see him saying this. As I read him he is saying that a text is, in some ways, like an object in reality: it can be approached from many different angles and with many different questions–analogous to the material vs. formal object distinction. The truth it contains is inexhaustible.

So while we are able to ascertain the inner word of the author and come to agreement over the subject matter we are also approaching it with our questions from our culture in our point in history or even from our personal history. So the total meaning an interpreter of a text gives will contain these considerations and meet these questions. An interpreter is a child of his times including the impact of linguistic, philological, archeological, and historical advances on teh hermeneutic process.

Re Husserl: I have read The Crisis, The Vienna Lecture, and Philosophy as a Rigorous Science, and some secondary sources on his thought in general in books and classes.
 
Fr_of_Jazz said:
Has any here read Hans Georg-Gadamer’s Truth and Method?

Nothing is perfect but, by and large, it is an absolutely remarkable work—many great insights.
Click to expand...
The way I see “text” is like this. What is the intention of the author? What are the ideas that an author is trying to develop in his work? Are these ideas truthful?

We do not belong to history, we are history.
 
Thanks for joining the discussion.
joshrp said:
The way I see “text” is like this. What is the intention of the author? What are the ideas that an author is trying to develop in his work? Are these ideas truthful?
Click to expand...
Gadamer is considering the human sciences and seeking to describe what in fact takes place when one reads a text—usually a traditionary text (a past text in our tradition, e.g., Plato, Homer, Shakespeare). A text is actualized in reading since it is just ink stains on paper prior to that. When one reads they seek to come to an understanding with the author over the subject matter. Reading with understanding always involves interpretation although in passages that pose no problem it is not directly adverted to.

The goal is to reach the inner word (verbum interius) of the author expressed through the uttered word of his work. If this is what you mean by “original intent,” I agree and so does Gadamer. . . although there is also more to it than that.

Following the ideas the author sketches out is part of understanding. Whether they are truthful or not is a philosophical act dependent upon understanding but not part of hermeneutics proper.
We do not belong to history, we are history.
Click to expand...
“We” as individuals (reading a text) enter an environment that is already there, a culture and language that is already there, and a past that is already there. So to that extent we belong to history.

“We,” as in all humanity considered as a whole, is closer to the truth, but the nonhuman environment with its impact on culture formation and the nonhuman passage of time are both a part of history but are not “we.” Still, they do enter into history only with “we.”
 
Fr_of_Jazz said:
NP. Sounds like a good discussion.
Click to expand...
Are you still interested in discussing Gadamer’s supplement “to what extent does language preform thought” …

I’ll be glad to post something if you like …
 
levinas12 said:
Are you still interested in discussing Gadamer’s supplement “to what extent does language preform thought” …

I’ll be glad to post something if you like …
Click to expand...
Oh privileged few, hold on to your toes and blow your nose. You are about to witness me say something random and completely irrelevant to your discussion.

Language is not the cause of thought. Its a medium. May i please now have a banana fritter?
 
Fr_of_Jazz said:
Has any here read Hans Georg-Gadamer’s Truth and Method?
Click to expand...
Fr of Jazz,

Sorry about my absence … I’ve been sick for a while … but if you would like to continue the Gadamer discussion, please let me know …
 
levinas12 said:
Fr of Jazz:

Sorry about my absence … I’ve been sick for a while … if you would like to continue the Gadamer discussion, please let me know …
Click to expand...
NP, levinas12. I’ll say one for you.

You were thinking about discussing the supplement to Truth and Method “To What Extent Does Language Preform Thought.” That would be interesting, if it’s still of interest to you.

Get well fast!!
 
Fr_of_Jazz said:
NP, levinas12. I’ll say one for you.

You were thinking about discussing the supplement to Truth and Method “To What Extent Does Language Preform Thought.” That would be interesting, if it’s still of interest to you.

Get well fast!!
Click to expand...
Allow me to be a bit of a slacker. Would you like to post something first on this supplement? I have read it … but, as you may have alreadly noticed, I have a tendency to read Gadamer through the lenses of other thinkers … the title of the supplement is itself provocative … if language preforms thought, then the notion of an “internal word” which is the same for everybody (in every culture) may have to be discarded … Aristotle talks of the “internal word” when he discusses writing and speaking (the written signifier stands for the spoken signifier, and the spoken signifier stands for the “internal word” … both the written signifier and the spoken signifier will vary across cultures … but the “internal word” does not … the “internal word” in a sense is a natural signifier … of course, we have to immediately ask, what does the “internal word” signify, what is its “signified” …
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top