Hermeneutics: the study of meaning

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Within philosophy, however, hermeneutics typically signifies, first, a disciplinary area and, second, the historical movement in which this area has been developed. As a disciplinary area, and on analogy with the designations of other disciplinary areas (such as ‘the philosophy of mind’ or ‘the philosophy of art’), hermeneutics might have been named ‘the philosophy of interpretation.’ Hermeneutics thus treats interpretation itself as its subject matter and not as an auxiliary to the study of something else. Philosophically, hermeneutics therefore concerns the meaning of interpretation—its basic nature, scope and validity, as well as its place within and implications for human existence; and it treats interpretation in the context of fundamental philosophical questions about being and knowing, language and history, art and aesthetic experience, and practical life.

K: the above was taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, in the
article on Hermeneutics…thus we have laid out the idea of Hermeneutics…
but what does it actually mean?

the bottom line is that everything is an interpretation of something…
that our understanding of the universe is an interpretation of the
universe, not the actual universe… In my courtyard of my condo
building, there is a tree… a fairly small, innocuous tree…
a tree people just walk by all the time… but today, we shall give that
little tree the attention it deserves…

I look at the tree… I can see it from my kitchen table where my
computer is… let us remove my own understanding of tree’s…
let us look at this tree fresh… what is this tree? Now one might say,
it is a tree that is a biological entity, it is green, it seems to grow out of
the ground…the birds in the area love this tree and are quite often
on this little tree… but again, take away our own understanding of the
tree… see this tree for what it is…Just looking at this tree, doesn’t really
tell me much about this tree…as I don’t know tree’s, I can’t tell you what
kind of tree it is, I can’t tell you the name/type of tree, I can’t tell you any
history about this tree… just looking at this tree, tells me nothing,
absolutely nothing about this tree…

Now given we have no information about this tree, we can then
interpret this tree in any way we so desire… I may see this tree
as evidence that god exists… interpret this tree in spiritual terms…
as because this tree exists, that MUST mean god exists…
that would be an interpretation of the tree…
We could also see this tree in any number of, for lack of a better word,
narratives, we can see this tree scientifically, socially, biologically, and
yes, spiritually, we can choose any number of narratives about this tree to
fit into our interpretation of this tree… that is the beauty of narratives,
we can make them fit into any interpretations we wish to bring about…
Now one might say, there must, somewhere within these interpretations
of the tree, lies the ‘‘TRUTH’’…and therein lies one the many
problems of interpretations… and that is the old GI, GO…
which is Garbage in, Garbage out story… how we look at the tree,
by interpretations like spiritual or social or scientific, begins with
our own superstitions… if we begin with the idea that tree is
a sign of god, then right from the start, we have an interpretation
of that tree… Now are interpretations the ''truth?" we have
a tree, then we have a ‘‘story’’ ‘‘interpretation’’ of that ‘‘truth’’
one way to think of this is that we have a second hand idea of
the tree… we have a tree, then we have an interpretation of
that tree, the story of that tree…but a story of a tree, isn’t
the tree itself… it is second hand story about the tree…
all our narratives are second hand stories of the
original idea/event/object…

I might say, ‘‘I am sad’’ ok, now what? and so I relate the story as
to why I am sad… I am presenting a narrative about my sadness,
but is that narrative actually the sadness itself? my story or
narrative about my sadness is a second-hand story… and if
you tell that story/narrative, it becomes a third hand story…
but at no point here are we actually dealing with the original event,
which is my sadness…right now we are dealing with narratives,
stories, interpretations of that sadness, not the sadness itself…

and this is the reality of narratives, stories and interpretations…
they are second hand stories of something else…
One of the popular uses of interpretations/narratives is
the use of hermeneutics in biblical studies… that has
been going on for centuries, Spinoza in fact, at first was
famous for his use of hermeneutics in biblical studies…
his first book was on just that, biblical hermeneutics…
(of course they didn’t call it that back in the day, but that what
it was) but once again, think about it… the bible was written
by human beings on behalf of god, and its stories/narratives
are also second hand… in fact, if you think about it, it
is third hand…god/writers of the bible/ then we have
translations of the bible/ then we have the actual bible itself…
I have read the bible dozens of times, and the nature of the stories
change for me because as I age, I change and grow, thus my
own interpretations of the bible changes… my narrative or story
of the bible is different than yours, because my self has a different
path than yours and that changes the narrative of the bible for me…
I am an atheist, that fact alone changes my interpretations of the bible…
I have a scientific/philosophical background, thus my own
interpretation of the bible comes from that background…the way
I read or interpret the bible is different because I begin in a different
place than most people… my starting point is different thus
my interpretations are different… because my own starting point
is different than yours, we have a different interpretation of the bible…
from where I sit, the bible are just nice stories, from where you sit,
the bible might be the absolute, unchanging truth… and we must
ask, who is right? Who has the ‘‘truth’’ here? and how
would we go about discovering who has the truth?

There are many different, diverse ways we could, could go about
trying to find out who has the ‘‘truth’’ here. The problem with this
‘‘truth’’ seeking is that it too, is dependent on whose narrative or
interpretation are we going to seek out or accept? in the matter
of interpretations, how do we know which interpretation is
the ‘‘right’’ one? one might answer, the interpretation that is
true or the reality… but that just begs the question because
the truth or reality is just another narrative or interpretation of
what we see…

Now Kant brought out an interesting point, although he didn’t see it,
but it’s there nevertheless… he believed that we think about certain
things ‘‘a priori’’ before the evidence…via categories that already
exists within ourselves… but the problem, among many problems,
is that how do we know that narrative is the correct/true narrative
interpretation, is the right one? and yet, as I view that tree,
how would Kant’s theory of ‘‘a priori’’ held us to understand
the nature of that tree? the idea of ‘‘a priori’’ is just another
narrative, interpretation of something going on inside of us…
and there certainly isn’t any more evidence for this ‘‘a priori’’
then there is any evidence for any other theory of knowledge…
(and that is what ‘‘a priori’’ means, a theory of evidence, how
do we know what we know, what are the ways we can know
facts and evidence)

research into Hermeneutics leads us into wondering how can
we know, what we know… what is the basis for evidence
in the world because everything we know is not the direct
evidence itself, the tree, but it is an interpretation or narrative
of beliefs that one already holds…

and this is why, in part, why we must engage in, as Nietzsche
called it, an reevaluation of values… because if we hold to
a narrative or interpretation that is wrong, then we get wrong
information right from the start… GI, GO… and part of
that GI is superstitions, bigotry, prejudice, which leads us to GO…
we have to have a clear understanding of our own values
and beliefs before, BEFORE we can create ‘‘true’’ narratives
and interpretations… a narrative/interpretation can only be
as true as our beginning values or beliefs… if we begin with
wrong values/beliefs, we end up with the wrong narrative/
interpretations… GI GO…

Kropotkin

2

OK, lots of problems here:

“(and that is what ‘‘a priori’’ means, a theory of evidence, how do we know what we know, what are the ways we can know facts and evidence)” A priori does not mean “a theory of evidence.” In philosophy, a priori refers to knowledge or justification that is independent of empirical experience (e.g 2+2=4 or logical tautologies). The phrase “how do we know what we know” is the definition of epistemology, not a priori.

which leads to problems when PK tries to critique Kant based on this.

But let’s deal with the elephant in the room. He appealed to the authority of hemeneutics, which is actually a field with many positions, most opposed to his binary conclusion, to justify a subjectivist epistemology. All our interpretations are just subjective stories.

Well, if he’s right, then he’s right about his own story. It’s just an interpretation, a subjective story. Perhaps he’s only right about his own stories.

Honesty & Openness
3

I have already explained. But, of course, this may well have been forgotten or missed also.

Even here is an example of how ‘we’ know, for sure, that ‘we know’ what ‘we’ know.

But this was also missed by ‘these people’ here as well.

Once again, the view, belief, and position “greenfuse” has taken is the one and only right and true one, and if anyone has a different view, belief, or position, then they are mistaken or are not credible.

Of course, but HOW is the ‘objective story’ arrived at, and KNOWN to be the True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct One, exactly?

I have already informed ‘the posters’ here, previously, but what will be ‘seen’ is that they have either forgotten it, missed it, or misunderstood it.

Honesty & Openness
4

If you have explained something about that quote I had of PK’s, that’s fine. I’m not sure what you are trying to say to me.

There’s nothing there that I missed. I pointed out that he was using the term apriori to mean epistemology.

And so you went personal, pretended to read my mind and judged my making assertions in a way you never judge your assertions.

That was Peter Kropotkin’s position, not mine.

Imagine the temerity of not instantly agreeing with you.
You completely misunderstood my post. You did not ask clarifying questions about most of what you judged. You did not understand the context: how my post related to and quoted Peter Kropotkin and his position. And the one question you asked me, you follow with a statement that indicates that whatever my answer is it is either just like what you believe or wrong.

Honesty & Openness
5

double posts + some characters

6

What I am saying and referring to are ‘the words’ in your quote that I replied to, which were:

If you want to believe this is absolutely true, then okay.

Again, another perfect example of ‘projection’, itself.

Are you saying that the words below, quoted, are NOT ‘your words’ and NOT what ‘you’ agree with?

Did ‘I’?

Are ‘you’ absolutely sure?

Could ‘you’ have jumped to a conclusion prematurely? In fact, could ‘I’ have completely understood ‘your post’ and that ‘you’ have completely misunderstood ‘my post’? Or, is this not possible ‘to you’?

I did not have to.

Again, are ‘you’ absolutely sure of this?

This is another very False and Wrong conclusion and belief of yours.

I asked a very simple straightforward open clarifying question, which is open to anyone. And, as ‘I’ am predicting, if anyone even attempts to explain HOW the ‘objective story’ is arrived at, and KNOWN to be the Truth of things, then what ‘this one’ or ‘these people’ will do is ‘show’ what ‘I’ claimed ‘they’ would.

Now, of course, absolutely anyone is absolutely free to prove ‘me’ Wrong here.

Once more, ‘I’ have already explained HOW the ‘objective perspective’ is obtained, and HOW the ‘objective Truth’ of ALL things is also obtained and KNOWN to be True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct.

Does anyone remember? Did anyone recognise and see when I did explain? Does anyone understand HOW?

7 
 The important question is really predicated as ‘to what end?’ , that shows implicit meaning rather then the more hard driven ‘how’?

The functional link displaced into generic mode,/genetic code? serves little purpose, other than establishing a neurologically closing circle.

A representation, yes, but one which keeps repeating, a form of echo-esq self punishment of framing without content.

8

Once again, “greenfuse” asked and wrote the two following questions:

And, as I already noted:

So, once again,

Does anyone remember WHERE I have already explained, ‘HOW ‘we’ do know what ‘we’ know’?

Did anyone recognise and see WHEN I did explain this previously?

Does anyone understand the explains I have already provided about HOW ‘we’ can and do know what ‘we’ know?

If yes, then I am pleasantly surprised.

But, if no, then I am not at all surprised.

9

Surprised, or not, , , and here is a strange revelation with the verification issue: how it plays into the very notion of analytical philosophy: in fact ‘strangeness’ it’self has attained multi dimensionality, a meaningful term allied to verification.

In fact verification is is part and parcel of:

Na humbling notion to call an already well established ‘Philosophical Investigatiins’

10

Anyway, I have already shown and explained HOW ‘we’ can know what ‘we’ know, as well as what ‘the ways’ are that ‘we’ can and do know facts.

Has anyone recognised and seen WHERE and WHEN I have done this?

Has anyone understood, also, HOW ‘we’ can and do know what ‘we’ know as facts, and also what is True and Right in Life?

11

Referential consequential progress toward redundant not universalized propositions, so every recurrence preforms as if resourced from itself, if current bits of memory can not progressively support newer forms of architecture. Their resourcing of what we know by how we come to know it. Until a single universal plateau is reached at least in a single frame of reference, an eternal return is conceivable.

But since eternal simulation of universes in any universally quantified schema minus 1 progresses to the point of dissimulation any absolute perception of difference between them, the question either becomes mute, -paradoxical, or, there is a functional necessity to hold them separable, on one hand, and inseparable on the other.

This means our neeed to separate and integrate is
an unassailable prerequisite form to ask the question.?

12

There is a single frame of reference, which, by the way, is where objectivity lies and how objectivity exists.

The need for human beings to separate is because this is the way the brain can make sense of ‘the world’ and the ‘Universe’ in which it has found itself. The need human beings have to integrate is so that a full sense of ‘the world’ and ‘Universe’ can be, and was, made.

13

anew1:

There is a single frame of reference, which, by the way, is where objectivity lies and how objectivity exists.

K: there is in fact no single frame of reference… for each and every
single one of us, has a different frame of reference…There is in fact
no objective or anyone place where objectivity lies… there are
roughly 7 billion plus people and there are 7 billion points of view or
frames of reference…or said another way, there is only the subjective
viewpoint, not the objective…

Kropotkin

Honesty & Openness
14

See how curiosity has all but disappeared within these human beings here.

If this is what you believe is true, then okay.

When you have NO curiosity, then you will NOT learn and understand more.

So, to “peter kropotkin” there is NO objective viewpoint absolutely anywhere in the entire Universe, only subjective views, only.

Which, if anyone else has realised, is itself only a subjective viewpoint, and therefore could be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect anyway.

Honesty & Openness