Hermeneutics: the study of meaning

[anew1]

@greenfuse

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)”

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

@greenfuse

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.

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.

@greenfuse

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.

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.

@greenfuse

All our interpretations are just subjective stories.

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.