“the background thesis makes all actions,
theories, and expressions context dependent. Taken together, circularity and
reference to a background exclude the possibility of reducing interpretations
to semantic explication or to some other procedure for fixing determinate
meanings without reference to holistic constraints. These two premises [1&2]
alone are sufficient to warrant scepticism about interpretation. It is
commonplace in hermeneutics to argue that circularity need not be vicious.”
(p137)
Annotation:
The fact that interpretation is circular, perspectival and exists within a socio-cultural context (meaning the interpreter’s actions and expressions are context dependent) does not mean that the circularity itself be vicious. Just because a determinate meaning cannot be achieved, due to such an existential problem of the individual’s understanding of being-in-the-world, doesn’t mean that understanding cannot be reached within using a hermeneutic circle. On the contrary.
No comments:
Post a Comment