Awareness in the hermeneutic circle
16
Mar
Gadamer’s analysis is that the humanities (I definitely replace the German term 
Geiteswissenschaften) is to differentiate what Mish and Dilthey called “free distance to self” as the real problem of the humanities in philosophy, which was the true presupposition of Heidegger, and not just the “problem of being”.
According to Gadamer, “he finds himself in the connection between the” life “which always implies consciousness and reflexivity and” science, “which develops from life as one of possibilities” (page 12)
Indicating that existence as “being in the world” (Heidegger’s well-known expression) “reveals the Verstehen as the possibility and structure of existence” (idem). The reason for appealing to Heidegger is clear, since “the human sciences acquire an” ontological “valence that could not remain without consequences for their methodological self-understanding [and] … they are closer to human self-understanding than the sciences Natural. The objectivity of the latter is no longer an ideal of unequivocal and binding knowledge. “(Idem)
In the second lecture he will address the question of Dilthey’s traditional hermeneutics, which we have already touched on in the previous post, and then he will return to Aristotle, who made him recognize the “particular interweaving of being and knowledge” and then to address Nicomachus Ethics. Our last theme, but without first failing to recognize “the scientific ‘scientific’ justification of the modern society in which specialization reigns” (page 13).
The last topic closes in the second, in discussing Dilthey’s “romantic” hermeneutics, at the second conference, takes up the traditional “hermeneutical circle” (here already thinking of Heidegger who outlined it), “presents itself under a new aspect and acquires importance fundamental. “(Idem)
Affirming that the hermeneutical circle is rich in content (inhalt ich erfüllt) when gathering interpret and its has in an interior unit in total movement (procedural whole). Understanding implies a pre-comprehension and this in turn is prefigured by a “determined tradition that lives the interpreter and that shapes his prejudices.” (Idem) For Gadamer, every encounter implies a “suspension of my preconceptions” (idem) that by “meeting with a person with whom I learn my nature and my limits” (idem), but his revolution is that “it is impossible to content In order to understand the other, that is, to seek and recognize the coherence immanent to the meanings and demands of the Other “(page 14), the capital is mine because there is confusion in speeches about it, and it is Gadamer himself who clarifies: “A call is always implied.” (Idem)
Its conclusion is contrary to every resource and discourse that does not use true alterity, a serious dialogism where the other, really the Other, is the reason of our capital.
Gadamer goes so far as to say: “that I am willing to acknowledge that the other (human or not) is right and to consent that he prevails over me” (Idem), could conclude but … say there friend !
