[lit-ideas] Hermeneutical Addendum -- Hitler does not want war
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Lit-Ideas" <Lit-Ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:42:41 -0800
Tangents and quibbles are two of my pet peeves. If they were introduced as
dialogue that would probably remove my disapproval of them, e.g., "I took
you to mean X, but that wouldn't make sense. Did you mean X? Why don't you
mean Y"
Three possibilities exist:
(1) I really did mean X and am an idiot.
(2) One needn't read my statement to mean X, it can also be read to mean
Y. I meant Y.
(3) I mistakenly wrote X when I meant Y.
My interlocutors invariably imply (1). And while I may occasionally be
guilty of (3) and may one day enter my dotage and be guilty of (1), chances
are we are in the middle area of (2).
In another discussion group I once made the statement that no one could make
any but the simplest of statements without the possibility that someone
could take them in a way other than that intended by the author. For all
practical purposes, any statement can be ambiguous to someone. This is one
of the reasons hermeneutics doesn't rely upon saying something right the
first time, but upon dialogue. The Hermeneuticist Hans Georg Gadamer spent
his later years reading Plato. I was interested to learn that Leo Straus
did the same thing.
It isn't even useful to hold an opponent's feet to the fire and insist that
his words mean X when he tells you he means Y. Why insist that he must mean
X if he tells you he doesn't? Are you playing "Gotcha" or trying to find
out what he means?
I gave up on the other discussion group. They believed they could find
truth by sticking to ASCII and quoting in an abundance of carrots everything
that had been said. All truth regarding intention must be there, they
believed and considered me a heretic for refusing to believe in that
procedure. If you don't understand me the first time, then let me say it in
a different way. Also, put what I say in your own words and I'll tell you
if that's what I meant.
The alternative to this hermeneutical approach to understanding is the
hypothesis that some words (texts) are self-authenticating. Texts are not
self-authenticating. The last time I mentioned this, in a different group,
it wasn't clear to others what I meant by "self-authenticating."
Hermeneutics developed in relation to Biblical Texts. To oversimplify, the
Roman Catholic Church insisted that the ordinary Catholic wasn't in a
position to understand the Gospel. He needed a priest to explain it to him.
He didn't, therefore, need a Bible. During the Reformation, the possession
of Bibles became common. The watchword of the Reformers was sola scriptura,
meaning "only scripture." You only needed scripture to tell you about the
Gospel and the only source of God's truth was scripture, not the traditions
of the Church.
However, the Reformers didn't quite mean that everyone could take up his
Bible and understand precisely the same thing everyone else understood. If
that were true then the Bible would be "self-authenticating." But it isn't.
It requires someone to explain what it means, dogma. Even Protestants
rely upon the "traditions" of the Church, hermeneutical traditions.
Chrysostom interpreted a passage this way. Calvin followed Chrysostom but
elaborated, etc., etc. until today we have many excellent sets of
commentaries, but they may differ radically depending upon the hermeneutical
approach. We can also call this the "method of interpretation."
Today, the Conservative denominations could be said to use a
Historical-Grammatical approach. The Liberal denominations prefer a
Historical-Critical approach. The former treats scripture as being inspired
by God, the latter as the yearnings of holy Jews.
Today, philosophers with little interest in scripture use hermeneutical
tools to approach "the text." In the old days "the text" meant scripture,
but today it can mean anything. It can even mean a note posted on
Lit-Ideas. The goal of the hermeneuticist isn't to debate anyone, but to
understand the text. Lest someone jump to a hasty conclusion about what
that might entail, let me add that presuppositions come into play, for any
reading of the text can be seen as dialogue. There is the author who wrote
the text and there is the reader reading the text. The author has a
different set of presuppositions, prejudices, opinions, etc than the reader;
so when the reader reads the text, he will not interpret it exactly as the
author intended. Now if all the reader wants to do is piss the author
off, then he can form his hasty conclusion and insist that this is what the
author means and add, "therefore, the author is an idiot," or some such
equivalent gloss. But if he has a hermeneutical spirit, he will not allow
his prejudices to overcome his good sense and will inquire, "I take you to
mean X. Is that what you mean?"
Assuming the above is understood, which it won't be, let me say that
inasmuch as I am admirer of several hermeneuticists, especially Gadamer, I
have attempted to move past the implacable text and the idea that someone's
hallowed words are self-authenticating and get a dialogue going to attempt
to achieve understanding. No such attempt has worked for me, usually
because someone pisses me off before we get very far - not to mention the
possibility that I might piss someone else off - surely not.
And part of the problem is our presuppositions. Someone like Geary has a
set of presuppositions that are radically different from mine. He avoided
the draft, if I remember correctly, whereas I enlisted in the Marine Corps.
I support Liberal Democracy and he prefers something closer to Socialism; so
there seems a vast chasm between our "constellations of presuppositions."
Neither of us is going to be motivated, probably, to bridge that chasm, but
perhaps on smaller issues we can do better, if we have a mind to. . . maybe.
Lawrence Helm
San Jacinto
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Hermeneutical Addendum -- Hitler does not want war
