Arquivo para November 4th, 2016

Exegesis and Hermeneutics: dichotomies

04 Nov

Any text out of context is critical, but what exactly is the context, whichtext means the terms in the language of the time it was written and mostly what the exact interpretation that can give him is hermeneutics, since exegesis depends only on the interpretation.
The first great fallacy is that one is of biblical origin, in this case exegesis and other Greek origin fallacy because both are of Greek origin, Exegesis (the ἐξήγησις Greek ἐξηγεῖσθαι “take out”) is an interpretation or critical explanation , although it has the particularity to the religious text, while hermeneutics comes from the Greek “ermēneutikē” which means “science” and “art”, but refers to the god Hermes, who gave rise to language and writing.
If we consider classical antiquity, since hermeneutics is more complete because it means studying the language, literature, culture or civilization in a Historical view in written documents, while not explicitly speak of memory, speech culture and literature.
Already pointed out here that was Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), in the early nineteenth century, hermeneutics receives one of the goals was to unify the Biblical hermeneutics and law, so called universal hermeneutics, had profound influence on the thought of Dilthey and Heidegger.
Heidegger says that understanding has a “circular structure” from which comes the hermeneutic circle: “Any interpretation to produce understanding, must have understood what is going to interpret” (Heidegger, Martin Being and Time, New York: Harper & Row, 1972).
Wilhelm Dilthey, says the explanation (itself the natural sciences) and understanding (own science of the spirit or human sciences) would be in opposition that is, “clarified through intellectual processes, but we understand the cooperation of all the sentimental forces in the apprehension by dipping the sentimental forces in the object.” (PALMER, Richard Hermeneutics:. Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidgger, and Gadamer Evanston. NUP, 1969).
Paul Ricoeur wants to overcome this dichotomy, for him to understand a text is to chain a new discourse in the text of the speech, because on the one hand there is no reflection without meditation on the signs; on the other, there is no explanation without understanding the world and yourself. (Ricoeur, Paul. Theory of Interpretation, Fort Worth: Texas Christian University, 1976).