Qualifying Exams - Philosophical Ethics
- 1 Contextual
- 1.1 Discuss the practical-moral concerns that motivate Gadamer in Truth and Method. In particular, discuss how these interests caused Gadamer to radically depart from the earlier traditions in the field of hermeneutics.
- 2 Analytical
- 2.1 Discuss the influence of Aristotle and Aristotelian ethics on Gadamer’s thought. Address in particular the relationship between Aristotle’s virtue of practical rationality and Gadamer’s account of practical philosophy.
- 2.2 Analyze Gadamer’s account of hermeneutic understanding. In particular, discuss why he claims that "all understanding is self-understanding."
- 3 Normative
- 3.1 Write an essay in which you critically apply Gadamer’s insights to a particular case in medical or clinical ethics.
- 4 Syllabus
Discuss the practical-moral concerns that motivate Gadamer in Truth and Method. In particular, discuss how these interests caused Gadamer to radically depart from the earlier traditions in the field of hermeneutics.
- Gadamer begins his introduction to Truth and Method with a very simple statement of purpose: "These studies are concerned with the problem of hermeneutics."
- While in this statement Gadamer identifies the explicit topic of Truth and Method, he leaves much unsaid. For example, he indicates not only that he is interested in working in the field of hermeneutics, but that he is interested in the "problem of" hermeneutics. What problem does he have in mind?
- Going further, the title of the book indicates a focus on "truth" and "method." What is the relationship between these topics and the field of hermeneutics?
- In this lecture, I will explore the concerns that motivated Gadamer to address hermeneutics in his masterwork, Truth and Method.
- I will begin with some clarifying statements about the changing of scope of Gadamer's discussion. At times in Truth and Method he focuses on the rather particular situation of a reader interpreting a text or a person viewing a work of art. At other times he seems to speaking in the more general terms of phenomenology, of the "I" and the "thou". What does Gadamer's use of these different contexts tell us about his motivations and interests in this text?
- Behind the question of Gadamer's motivations is the question of his influences. As Gadamer would surely agree, the questions that occupy Gadamer's attention in Truth and Method are not arbitrary; they develop out of the intellectual tradition of which Gadamer is a part. Gadamer himself noted a continuity between his early development and that of nineteenth-century German philosophy, with its genealogical path starting with the German Idealists with Schleiermacher, and then continuing on to Dilthey, to Husserl, and finally to Gadamer's own teacher, Heidegger (Gadamer's autobiographical sketch, Philosophische Lehrjahre, Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1977).
- Despite this genealogy among German thinkers, Gadamer can also claim a significant influence from Greek philosophers, "I have been formed more by the Platonic dialogues than by the great thinkers of German Idealism." (76:25)
- To be sure, in Truth and Method Gadamer engages with the questions and concerns of a wide range of thinkers. His texts often move across periods and nationalities, from figure to figure, as he engages a string of related concerns.
- For my purposes, the question of influences is most important because it can help clarify Gadamer's own work. By examining those thinkers with whom he engages, especially those against whom he takes a polemical position, I hope to help clarify his concerns.
- In this lecture I will clarify how Gadamer places himself into the intellectual tradition concerned with the topic of hermeneutics by exploring how he engages with the philosophical hermeneutics of two German thinkers, Friedrich Schleiermacher and Wilhelm Dilthey. In particular, I will attend to Gadamer's concern regarding historical consciousness, a concern whose origin he finds in Schleiermacher's work. I will then touch on Gadamer's engagement with Wilhelm Dilthey on the topic of methods in light of historical consciousness.
- We will find that Gadamer's focus here is highly revealing. His explicit aim in Truth and Method is to develop his own account of hermeneutics. But his account of his predecessors in the field of hermeneutics, Schleiermacher and Dilthey in particular, reveals that Truth and Method is not so much an evolutionary step in the field of hermeneutics, but rather a disavowal of much of the tradition of philosophical hermeneutics in German thinking.
The Contexts of Truth and Method
- To begin, it will be helpful to note how Gadamer moves in his discussion between a range of specific contexts and a more abstract context. Gadamer's interest in hermeneutics crosses into several areas of application, and his account depends on movement from the specific to the general and back.
- Let us consider, then, a table with two rows (Table 1). The two rows represent the two levels of specificity and generality that Gadamer uses to examine, develop, and apply hermeneutics in Truth and Method.
- The first row represents Gadamer's engagement with others, including Schleiermacher, at the level of a specific field of application. Schleiermacher's work focused primarily on the reading of biblical scripture, so when Gadamer's is engaging with Schleiermacher his discussion frequently refers to a reader or interpreter. The person in this role is seeking to understand an element of his or her subject matter, such as an historical text. Gadamer's discussion addresses a number of these fields. For example, the greater part of the first chapter of Truth and Method is dedicated to examining how a viewer encounters a piece of visual art; Gadamer also refers frequently to the way a judge or legal scholar engages with a piece of law, such as a statute or case history (RitAoS 95, T&M 309 and following). It will be productive to think of each of these specific fields of interpretation as a type of practice. In this dimension of hermeneutics understanding is directed toward some specific purpose in an area of interest; the focus here is not on understanding in general.
- It is in the the second row that we see Gadamer's movement to a more generic framing of hermeneutics. Here, hermeneutics is concerned with understanding in general, and therefore the discussion focuses on the encounter of an "I" with a "thou". In this context, the "I" is analogous to the reader in Schleiermacher's work, and the thou is analogous to either the historical text or its author. When Gadamer moves into this frame, he is drawing from a number of figures in the tradition of philosophical hermeneutics. Heidegger, in his work on phenomenological hermeneutics, often presented his discussion using the example of an abstract I and thou. Dilthey likewise used this framing language (Linge 541).
- We will see that Gadamer's discussion moves back and forth between these two contexts, between the general and the specific. It is important to note, however, that Gadamer does not intend only to move from one discipline, like textual hermeneutics, to the general, and then make specific suggestions for another field, such as interpretation of a work of art. Rather, Gadamer's movement from the general back to a practice is intended to illuminate how all practices that are oriented toward understanding (and we will later see that he means essentially all of human life) take place.
- In particular, Gadamer is interested in the set of practices called the Geisteswissenschaften. The Geisteswissenschaften are the scholarly areas of human studies that in the schema of continental Europe include such fields as literature, aesthetics, history, sociology, and many others. In the US and UK these fields would be divided into the Humanities and the Social Sciences; on the continent these are all included within the Geisteswissenschaften.
- Gadamer he develops many of his observations about interpretation and understanding in examples drawn from specific disciplines. He then moves to the general, in which he utilizes the observations he is able to make with respect to understanding in specific disciplines to draw more general conclusions about understanding and human ontology. He then directs his observations developed in the framing of this second row toward application in his examination of the Geisteswissenschaften.
- With this aim in mind, let us turn now to a few specific issues that Gadamer raises in his discussion of two previous figures in the intellectual history of hermeneutics, Friedrich Schleiermacher and Wilhelm Dilthey.
- In Truth and Method, Gadamer develops his own account of hermeneutics in large part in contrast to the romantic tradition in hermeneutics (Bontekoe 1). Gadamer takes Schleiermacher as the founder and spokesperson for this tradition, and addresses Schleiermacher's hermeneutics project in great detail.
- This account of Schleiermacher's hermeneutics is a crucial element of Truth and Method. This is true not only because Gadamer returns repeatedly during his constructive work to some of his key observations about Schleiermacher's hermeneutics. Gadamer's interpretation and critique of Schleiermacher has also arisen as a target for a number of Gadamer's own critics (Bontekoe).
- In order to explore the relationship between Schleiermacher's hermeneutics and Gadamer's own constructive project, I will begin by briefly reviewing the general thread of Schleiermacher's hermeneutics. I will then explore a specific critique Gadamer makes of this work, and the role this critique plays in Gadamer's own philosophical hermeneutics.
- On Schleiermacher's account, hermeneutics is an activity that seeks to reconstruct the intended meaning of the authors of texts.
- Schleiermacher proposes that such reconstruction can be pursued through a back-and-forth movement between two modes of interpretation.
- The first focuses on the "grammar" of the text, including the diction and structure of the words, sentences, and paragraphs in a text, and the placement of the overall text in a specific genre. The consideration of these "grammatical" elements of a text should explicitly take account of the historical context in which the text was written. The interpretation of genre, for example, is a matter of situating the author's choice and use of genre within the author's historical setting.
- The second mode of interpretation is oriented toward understanding the author's life circumstances within his or her historical context. Schleiermacher calls this the "technical" or "psychological" side of interpretation; Gadamer uses primarily the latter label.
- Schleiermacher acknowledges that interpreters are limited in their ability to attain complete understanding of both the grammatical dimension of a text and the psychological dimension of a text. Complete understanding of a text would require both. But understanding, albeit imperfect understanding, can be attained, on Schleiermacher's account, through an approach to interpretation that moves back and forth between these two modes. Schleiermacher proposes that insights attained through an examination of the grammatical side of a text can inform work on research on the psychological side, and vice versa.
- Gadamer attends closely to what Schleiermacher has in mind on the psychological side of interpretation. He considers this Schleiermacher's "most characteristic contribution" (T&M 186, See also RitAoS 130). While he considers Schleiermacher's account of grammatical interpretation to be "brilliant," he opts to "pass over" this portion of Schleiermacher's work (T&M 186).
- Gadamer's attention to psychological interpretation is directed primarily at Schleiermacher's claim that hermeneutics can allow an interpreter to understand what an author is saying better than the author him or herself. This is clearly a key issue for Gadamer; he claims that "this statement contains the whole problem of hermeneutics" (T&M 192, 71:11).
- Gadamer interprets Schleiermacher as saying that in "reconstructing" the process by which an author produced a text, the interpreter will bring to light many influences and activities of which the the author was not conscious. Referring to his earlier discussion of genius in the production of works of art, Gadamer notes that Schleiermacher's interpretation of the production of a text is based on the "aesthetics of genius," that much of what a genius puts into generating a work is unconscious. For Schleiermacher, the reader can bring those unconscious elements to light, and thus understand the text better than the author did.
- Why Gadamer considers this statement to contain the "whole problem" of hermeneutics is of great interest, even though a complete account of the importance of this statement is beyond the scope of this discussion.
- I can make a one observation here on why this claim so troubles Gadamer. Gadamer observes that understanding interpretation as involving the reconstruction of an author's perspective is to treat a text as a "purely expressive phenomenon" (T&M 196). In this way, Schleiermacher's account of hermeneutics disregards the content of texts; it ignores a text's subject matter. Instead, it seeks to understand why an author would have thought that what he was saying was true. For Gadamer, this point of view implicitly rejects the possibility that the text might have something "true" to say quite beyond why the author believed what he or she was claiming.
Historical Consciousness: Meaning vs. Truth
- Although much of Schleiermacher's work dealt with scriptural hermeneutics, since this was the source of his practical interest in hermeneutics, he was also quite interested in understanding as it takes place in the interaction with other humans (RitAoS 113, 48:1). The same is true for Gadamer. His interest in Schleiermacher's work is directed not only at his work on textual hermeneutics, but also on understanding in general.
- In order to explore Gadamer's concern, let us consider a second table with the same two rows as the first (Table 2).
- For this new table, we can add three columns. These columns represent the orientations that an "I" can take toward a "thou". Gadamer argues that there are three such orientations. The first two of these Gadamer calls the "self-regarding" ways of experiencing the thou.
- The first column signifies one specific dimension of the human sciences. In this orientation, the I treats the thou as an object that can be understood under the rubric of human nature. In this account, neither the I nor the thou are historical figures, but rather the thou is an ahistorical object that can be known through universal, theoretical laws. The knowing subject regards him or herself as ahistorical as well, since neither the knowledge that is gained nor the methods that are utilized to gain it are regarded as historically situated. Gadamer regards this approach to the thou to be a "cliched version of scientific method" (T&M 359). Although Gadamer may find some value in this approach to a thou when the thou is an object in the natural sciences, there is no question that he rejects it in the human sciences. Gadamer emphatically argues that both the I and the thou are historical figures whose existence is determined by those elements of tradition that have formed them. While Gadamer generally rejects this stance, he also pays very little attention to it. We will see why when as we turn to the second column.
- The second column represents an orientation in which the I regards the thou in its historical situatedness. In the 19th and 20th centuries, all the fields in the Geisteswissenschaften in one way or the other has come developed an orientation to its subject matter that focuses on its history. As David Linge has observed, each field in the Geisteswissenschaften "regards it an important part of its task to examine the ideas, problems, and texts with which it is concerned from the point of view of their historical origin and development and the various historical influences upon them" (Linge 537).
- This focus within the Geisteswissenschaften on the historical roots and influences on its subject matter is more than just a topical interest in history. The pervasiveness of an historical perspective within the human studies is the result of a movement toward what Gerhard Ebeling calls "the merely historical" (Linge 538). In the pre-modern era, history was seen as a series of events that carried a meaning. For example, history could be seen as the fulfillment of prophecy, or as the result of divine providence. The passage of historical time brought meaning to the events that comprised it.
- In the Enlightenment, history persisted in carrying meaning, as it reflected human progress toward greater knowledge or other humanistic ideals.
- The "merely historical" refers to the tendency in the 19th and 20th centuries to no longer view history as illegible or meaningful. History ceased to be viewed as "disclosive of anything of absolute or transcendent significance" (Linge 538). Historical events came to be seen as reflecting only the limited perspective of persons shaped by their history.
- Gadamer and other have called this orientation "historical consciousness", and finds Friedrich Schleiermacher to be an important early figure in the movement toward this orientation.
- Gadamer's engagement with historical consciousness makes it clear that he is deeply concerned about the implications of this mindset. In fact, Truth and Method, or at least its Part 2, can be read as an extended critique of this orientation toward the past.
- In particular, he concerned with the project of the Geisteswissenschaften when it aims to a subject matter that is regarded as historically situated, but views the methods that it views as outside that historicity. We will return to the topic of method in the next section, but for now it is important to note only that Gadamer perceives a profound contradiction in an orientation that treats a thou in its historical situation from the perspective of a knowing subject that regards itself as outside that history.
- Gadamer rejects historical consciousness for at least two related reasons.
- The first reason is that he believes that persons always encounter texts, works of art, and indeed all "thous", with a set of prejudices. He even formulates this more strongly: it is through our prejudices that we are able to engage with the other. Gadamer discusses this formulation in the context of literary hermeneutics: we start by "project[ing] a meaning for the text as a whole as soon as some initial meaning emerges in the text" (T&M 267). This initial meaning only emerges because the reader brings with him or her a set of expectations that allow such a recognition. The process of understanding proceeds as we challenge our initial meaning against the evidence that arises in the text. When we encounter information that causes us to question our first impression, we revise our interpretation and move forward with the revised interpretation serving as our new prejudice (T&M 267).
- It is important to note that Gadamer wants to extend this account of the way prejudices are necessary for understanding into all occasions of understanding, into the general condition of the encounter of the I and the thou, and throughout human studies. He argues that prejudices are constitutive of our being. "The prejudices of the individual," he argues, "far more than his judgments, constitute the historical reality of his being" (T&M 276-277).
- Because prejudices are constitutive of our being, attempts to eliminate them completely from the way we encounter a text, a thou, or a tradition, as in this case in historical consciousness, are at best futile. At their worst, such attempts warp our understanding like a "distorted mirror" (T&M 276).
- This brings us to the second reason Gadamer rejects historical consciousness: because it prevents us from discovering truth in the other. A more in-depth discussion of truth will need to await a later lecture, but suffice it to say for now that when we acknowledge our relatedness with others, we no longer treat the other as an object of a knowing subject. Rather, we recognize the demands the other makes on us, and the background that we share in common. In this way, we encounter the thou as someone who has something to say to us, something that might cause us to revise our own perspective.
- Likewise, historical consciousness prevents us from discovering in our tradition those truth claims that both already constitute who we are, and challenge us to revise our present understanding.
- We can now see clearly one reason that Gadamer attends so closely to Schleiermacher's hermeneutics. In Schleiermacher's work in the context of interpreting biblical scriptures, he introduces an orientation toward the past that others, especially Wilhelm Dilthey, would later take up in the broader context of philosophical hermeneutics and the orientation of the Geisteswissenschaften.
- We will see in the third lecture in this series that Gadamer regards his own account of hermeneutics as a radical departure from that of Schleiermacher. We will see that he wants us to rethink the orientation of the I toward the thou. It is this third column, Gadamer's account of historically-effected consciousness, that provides a corrective to, and radical department from, the historical consciousness that took its direction from Schleiermacher.
- Let us now focus specifically on the issue of method, a matter that Gadamer sees as closely related to that of historical consciousness.
- Gadamer does not provide a formal definition of what he means when he refers to method, but it is clear that method for him is tightly bound to three related terms: science, certainty, and objectivity.
- For Gadamer, the development that defines the modern era is the co-emergence of science and method. Gadamer sees this pair of concepts emerge first through the work of Galileo, and notes that they later received a philosophically grounding through the work of Descartes (RitAoS 6, 43:2).
- Based on this provenance which Gadamer attributes to science and method, it is clear that he does not have in mind the scientific method of experimentation. He has something much more general in mind. His reference to Descartes is apt, given Descartes' extensive work on developing a method for discovering certain knowledge in his works Discourse on Method and Regulae (RitAoS 156, 50:4).
- However, Gadamer's interest is not directed primarily toward Descartes' specific method. Descartes' importance for Gadamer is rooted in the fact that he refined an orientation toward knowledge that demands certainty. The Cartesian heritage for the Enlightenment is the tendency to accept "nothing as certain that can in any way be doubted" (T&M 271)
- The only way to justify knowledge, then, is to utilize an appropriate method. Descartes pursued one such method in his work to devise a rational method to render concepts "clear and distinct" (Bernstein 117). Bacon and others elaborated a set of experimental methods. The common thread is that after Descartes, the certainty of knowledge is guaranteed by the use of a method that can render that knowledge objective, i.e. by a method that eliminates "every subjective presupposition" (RitAoS 99, 47:27).
- But in order to see the significance of this claim for Gadamer, we must frame Cartesian doubt with its direct corollary, what Gadamer calls the Enlightenment's "prejudice against prejudice" (T&M 270).
- He defines prejudice, at least in the period prior to the Enlightenment, as "a judgment that is rendered before all the elements that determine a situation have been finally examined" (T&M 270). In this way, prejudice can have a positive or negative connotation; there are prejudices that are legitimate or warranted. But from the point of view of the Enlightenment, the only judgments that are rationally warranted are those that have received justification through an appropriate method.
- Gadamer arguably does not reject the value of methodological justification for some types of knowledge (T&M 283). However, he has a number of concerns about the implications of the Enlightenment's focus on method. One such concern lies in its rejection of any knowledge that has been derived from some other source, such as the knowledge that is handed down in tradition. The Enlightenment does not accept that there may be "other kinds of certainty," and so such judgments are "unfounded" (T&M 271). Gadamer observes that "the methodological spirit of science permeates everywhere" (T&M xxix, 67:3), setting up a type of monopoly over truth claims.
- Nowhere has this monopoly caused more damage than in the fields of the Geisteswissenschaften.
- As I have indicated previously, Gadamer's interest in the Geisteswissenschaften is broad. In his writings he has discussed the role of method in the healing arts, philosophy, art, poetry, Scriptural exegesis, historical studies, and others. He is interested not only in those disciplines in human studies that have become social sciences, like history or sociology, but also those fields called "humanities" in the English-speaking world. He acknowledges that the tendency to focus on method to guarantee certain knowledge is especially strong in the German context. He observes that, "Nowhere else had [the human sciences] so consistently concealed the orienting, ideological determination of their interests behind the method-consciousness of their scientific procedure. In Germany, even humanities like literature have at times been reframed as sciences, as in the term Literaturwissenschaft, or literary science (RitAoS 131). But Gadamer finds this trend elsewhere, even in fields that are not regarded as explicitly "scientific".
- Although he is interested the implications of method in all of these fields, he discusses at length the growing influence of method in the field hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the field explicitly interested in the approaches interpreters take in order to gain understanding with respect to a subject matter. Just as Gadamer approaches hermeneutics from within specific practices and from the perspective of understanding in general, hermeneutics is an element of all of the Geisteswissenschaften, and a field of inquiry on its own. For this reason , Gadamer believes that certain developments in hermeneutics paved the way for method to come to dominate all of the Geisteswissenschaften.
- Let us turn now to Gadamer's account of that history.
- Gadamer traces the roots of method in hermeneutics to Schleiermacher. As I have noted, Schleiermacher developed a discipline centered on the back-and-forth movement between the grammatical and psychological sides of interpretation. However, he was explicit that no specific rules could stipulate exactly how this movement should take place to maximize understanding (Bontekoe 3, 81:4). Schleiermacher viewed his approach as a Kunstlehre des Verstehens, a teachable skill or technique for understanding (Grondin 37, 79:6 and RitAoS 129, 48:15). For Schleiermacher and for Gadamer, technique does not necessarily imply a method.
- But Gadamer sees Schleiermacher's introduction of the psychological side of interpretation as the point of entry for method into philosophical hermeneutics. Schleiermacher rejected a specific method, but he did point to the distinction between a laxer and more rigorous practice of hermeneutics (RitAoS 129-130). In order for a hermeneutic practice to be more rigorous, it should start with the assumption that when one encounters an other, a text or a person, misunderstanding is the default. The rigorous practice of hermeneutics must therefore aim to correct that misunderstanding. For Schleiermacher, hermeneutics is a Kunstlehre oriented toward avoiding misunderstanding. Although Schleiermacher rejected the goal of developing a method, he did demonstrate at least a nascent form of the Cartesian doubt.
- For Gadamer, this move would open the door for his successors to develop philosophical hermeneutics into a field oriented around method.
- It was Wilhelm Dilthey, Gadamer says, who took up Schleiermacher's account and developed it into a method for understanding. Dilthey was explicitly focused beyond specific methods to be used for interpreting texts or works of art, and intended to develop an epistemological basis for the Geisteswissenschaften through method on par with that of the natural sciences (T&M 198, 71:21).
- Dilthey, like Schleiermacher, saw human beings as historically-situated objects who could come to be understood through an examination of that historical situation. As Dilthey was well aware, however, this stance involves a problem. If we enter into an examination of historically-situated human existence from the orientation of Cartesian doubt, how can we justify this study from an epistemological basis that itself sits outside that history? In other words, how can the study of history achieve certainty if the perspective of the subject is itself historically situated? Gadamer calls this the "aporias of historicism"; it is an epistemological puzzle.
- The clue to Dilthey's solution to this puzzle can be found in his statement, "The first condition of possibility of a science of history is that I myself am a historical being" (Gesammelte Schriften, VII, 278, referenced by Gadamer at T&M 222).
- For Dilthey, the condition of being an "historical being" does not imply, as it does for Gadamer, that experience should primarily be viewed as shaped or conditioned by historical circumstances.
- Rather that history shaping lives, history is itself comprised of lives; history is the "the course of life in time" (Linge 540). Because of this, it is possible to understand history by understanding life, since "history is dependent on life and derives its content from it" (Linge 540).
- Let us consider what Dilthey means when he speaks of life. Gadamer and Dilthey agree that life involves the encounter of experience with an historical world. This encounter shapes that experience, and thus shapes life. For Gadamer, this encounter is subtle and infinitely variable. We are not aware of all of the ways that experience shapes us, and we are each shaped differently by the varying conditions that we encounter in the course of a changing history.
- For Dilthey, however, the overall structure of the encounter of experience with the world creates a type homogeneity in life. The human self is initially formed with a set of instincts and drives, and its immediate experience is that it encounters resistance from without. This sets up a reciprocity in which the intentionality of the self and the conditioning effect of the outside world enter into a "life-relation." Lived experience from the beginning involves this interaction that precedes conscious or conceptual thought (Linge 540-541).
- This structure is therefore not a conscious element in human experience, but rather it is the structure that makes conscious reflection possible.
- This "life-relation" produces a structure that causes individual lives to cohere into a unity, and that is common to all life. For Dilthey, it is both transcendent and immanent. It transcends the particular instances of life, since it is the common background for all life. Yet, it is immanent since it is present within the experience of particular lives.
- Because the structure of life makes conscious reflection possible, and is present in the lived experience of individuals, Dilthey perceives the conditions for the possibility of discovering that structure through reflection. To be sure, reflection is inadequate to discover the structure of life in toto. But in individual events of insight we can begin to discover fragments of that structure of lived experience.
- In this way, Dilthey's account of historical understanding takes on a part-whole structure. This interest in the relationship between the part and the whole can be found in other accounts of hermeneutics, including that of Schleiermacher (T&M 291). But in Dilthey this connection takes on a methodological significance. The structure of the individual human life can be elaborated through a methodological attention to those parts that can be discovered through reflection on experience. In turn, the life-structure of a community or a nation can be discovered from reflection on the individual human life. Even the structure of an historical epoch can be understood from the iteration of this method based on parts and the whole.
- Dilthey calls this method "to interpret life out of itself" (Linge 543). The significance of this label is clear. Individual lives and this history of particular nations and historical eras are historically formed, and thus represent unique or particular events. But these historical dimensions of a life, a nation, or an historical age can be understood without the influence of the historically-conditioned prejudices of the investigator. This is because the shared life-structure between the subject and the object allows the interpreter to conduct this examination from within the life that is being discovered.
- There is an affinity with Schleiermacher here, since the goal is to understand a life from within the perspective of that life. Dilthey even speaks of "reflective reconstruction". But for Dilthey, this knowledge is objective, since it eliminates the prejudices of the interpreter. This is possible because the interpreter can "transpose" him or herself into the situation of the other by drawing on the common structure of life that is shared between the I and the thou.
- Dilthey's method, then, depends on attaining historical understanding through the examination of the lives of historical individuals and, outward from there, their spatial and temporal context. Lives are understood primarily through the examination of texts, poems, and works of art. For Dilthey, as for Schleiermacher before and Gadamer after, the subject matter of hermeneutics is both understanding in general and understanding in specific fields of study.
- Gadamer saw Dilthey's Lebensphilosophie, or Life Philosophy, as a decisive and influential step. Dilthey's work led to a more widespread view from within the Geisteswissenschaften that knowing subjects can rise above their own historical situatedness to attain objectivity. This is not because the human sciences can be like the natural sciences, but quite the opposite. The human sciences are emphatically different from the natural sciences because the subject and the object both involve the human life-structure. Dilthey's innovation, then, was to develop a justification for a method that is uniquely suited to the Geisteswissenschaften.
- Let us return once again to the problems that motivated Schleiermacher and Dilthey to elaborate their accounts of hermeneutic understanding.
- Schleiermacher saw all encounters with a text as an occasion for misunderstanding, since he recognized that the historicity of the production of every text creates a barrier between interpreter and author. He believed no specific method is capable of guaranteeing that this misunderstanding is eliminated, but he clearly recognized that failing to recognize the potential for misunderstanding led to only lax attempts at interpretation. The problem of misunderstanding demands of the interpreter a rigorous approach to a text that accounts for both the language of the text and the historical situation of its author.
- Dilthey, on the other hand, sharpened this concern about misunderstanding. Like Schleiermacher, Dilthey recognized the historicity of all life, from the life of individual humans to the communities and nations they form. And for Dilthey, as well, this historicity poses a problem for understanding. Dilthey moves beyond Schleiermacher, though, in that he believes it is both possible and necessary to attain certain knowledge. He argues that the human sciences are fortunate in this respect, since the subject and the object share a life-relation that makes it possible to attain knowledge about those lives that can be justified on the basis of proper method.
- Gadamer clearly disagrees with Dilthey's solution to the problem of understanding. He argues that induction from historical experience to any specific conclusions or sets of rules is not a formal procedure. Anyone who philosophizes from experience to generalities or rules about life, will do so in way that is shaped by their own previous experience. As Gadamer says, such an approach "does not have the anonymity of a method" (T&M 241). It therefore does not allow the knowing subject to sit outside history in the way Dilthey believed it could.
- Superficially, Gadamer is much closer to Schleiermacher in his view of the approach that should be used to attain understanding. Both Gadamer and Schleiermacher disavow confidence in any specific method to bridge the gap of understanding between an interpreter and an historical object. In fact, some have argued that the hermeneutic theories of Gadamer and Schleiermacher are compatible (Bontekoe).
- This is too easy a solution, however. Gadamer's critique of Dilthey's method and relative agreement with Schleiermacher obscures a deeper separation between Schleiermacher and Dilthey on the one hand, and Gadamer on the other.
- This separation lies in the diagnoses they accept of the problem of understanding. For both Schleiermacher and Dilthey, the aim of understanding is to discover what was intended by a person when they put forth an expression, whether it be a text, a work of art, or an utterance. On this account, the meaning of such an expression lies in the originator's intention. Both agree that this intention can be reconstructed if the interpreter approaches the problem properly. As a result, and this is key, the resulting reconstruction will have the same content and the same meaning to any interpreter, in any place and time, who approaches the problem properly.
- For Gadamer, the problem of understanding is radically different. No attempt by a person to attain understanding sits outside history. This is because all understanding is sought for particular explicit and implicit reasons. A person who seeks to understand is asking a question, and the question that is asked is just as historically shaped as the answer that is received.
- The meaning of an expression, then, is determined in part by the author. It is also determined by the reader, who finds a meaning that is shaped by his or her own historical perspective. The meaning encountered by readers, then, changes from reader to reader. Meaning even changes through the life of an individual reader.
- These observations will require further analysis over the next two lectures, but I bring them up now to highlight that Gadamer, Schleiermacher, and Dilthey all share an interest in how an I comes to understand a thou. The topic of understanding, therefore, links them within the tradition of hermeneutics. But in order to understand Gadamer's project, we should recognize that what he has in mind when he discuses "understanding" and "meaning" is radically different from Schleiermacher and Dilthey.
- Gadamer's concerns reach beyond the Cartesian perspective that is so determinative for Dilthey. In order to understand Gadamer's hermeneutic project, then, we will need to consider the non-Cartesian perspectives that Gadamer himself claims were more influential for him than the thinkers who proceeded him in the intellectual tradition in Germany. In our next lecture, we will turn to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle and their influence on Gadamer's hermeneutics.
Discuss the influence of Aristotle and Aristotelian ethics on Gadamer’s thought. Address in particular the relationship between Aristotle’s virtue of practical rationality and Gadamer’s account of practical philosophy.
How Gadamer Draws on Aristotle
- Treating hermeneutics as a practice
- Treating early hermeneutics as a techne
- His own hermeneutics as a form of phronesis
- This is unusual - would not normally treat reading of a philosophical text as a practice, but rather as concepts, as if they are contemporaries
Why Make The Move to Hermeneutics as Practice?
- Interest in Human Sciences
- Anglo-American distinction between Humanities and Human Sciences
- Natural sciences as conquering nature
Practical-Moral Concerns about the Conquest of Nature by Science
- Basis for concerns about cartesian Anxiety
- Definition of Theoria has changed since Greek times
- Link between Aristotle's Moral Philosophy and Gadamer's Practical Philosophy
- Aristotle's view of moral philosophy based on different view of theoria/concrete knowledge, which is also the basis for Gadamer's take on practical philosophy
Analyze Gadamer’s account of hermeneutic understanding. In particular, discuss why he claims that "all understanding is self-understanding."
The Object of Understanding
- Philosophy of the Subject
- Underlying assumptions
- Why Gadamer rejects Philosophy of the Subject
Against Philosophy of the Subject
- Logical Priority of the Question
- Remaining Open
All Understanding is Self-Understanding
Write an essay in which you critically apply Gadamer’s insights to a particular case in medical or clinical ethics.
Patient as Question: Gadamer's Hermeneutics and Evidence-Based Medicine
- Gorowitz and MacIntyre
- Applied Science
Evidence-Based Medicine and Theory
- Not about general theories, but rather about observations of effectiveness of technologies
- Should not view EBM as applied theory.
Evidence-Based Medicine as Hermeneutic Practice
- Gadamer's Hermeneutics
- Logical priority of the question
- Aim is to turn to a piece of medical literature with a question.
- This question is: Is this text relevant to the situation my patient is in?
- In viewing EBM this way, we can start to talk about practice of reading medical literature (not too far from current view taken by medical education)
- Allows reframing reading as a part of phronesis, which includes within that practical reasoning the reading of texts in light of questions coming out of concrete patient situations
- Second round of practical reasoning about how the findings should be applied in the greater context of the patient.