A12709607 2,750 Agreement and Colonization
In “Truth and Method”, Hans-Georg Gadamer analyzes and breaks down the process of understanding. He writes “Truth and Method” to respond to a philosophy of using a scientific approach to understanding. In the 1960’s, the Scientific Method was becoming popular and Gadamer believes that understanding and truth are beyond objective and subjective methods of understanding. Gadamer believes that the goal of understanding, should ultimately be to reach an agreement, however if agreement is the ultimate goal, then other values such as equality and freedom may not be upheld. If two conflicting parties need to reach an agreement, then that entails a compromise. Depending on which party one is in, a compromise …show more content…
He describes the process of understanding as “Hermeneutics has understood itself as an art or technique of understanding... (Gadamer 268)”; Gadamer did not believe that a science could be applied to understanding. Gadamer asserts that people just unconsciously fore-project, which is projecting a personal meaning onto the text. They go through this process as they experience the hermeneutic circle, a process of understanding a part of the sentence in order to understand the whole sentence and vice versa. This leads the reader to go through cycles of grappling the actual meaning of the text with the meaning they project on to it, until they can usurp the meaning of the text. These fore-projections are also accompanied by biases; a person cannot leave their biases out of the process of understanding. Gadamer breaks down the etymology of the word “prejudice”, which means a judgement that is rendered before all the elements that determine a situation have been finally examined (Gadamer 273). It is not necessarily a negative phenomenon, but rather is merely connoted with a negative action. Gadamer uses all these principles to lay the groundwork with how hermeneutics and understanding work. Ultimately, Gadamer believes that the goal of understanding is to reach an agreement. He believes that everyone has a horizon of understanding and if we join horizons we will be able …show more content…
Gadamer believed that prejudices aren’t a negative part of interpretation and prescribes that we test our prejudice. He believes that the Enlightenment provided a movement to eradicate the use of prejudice, which is a prejudice in itself. He divides prejudices in to “authority” and “over hastiness” (Gadamer 288.) Overhastiness is when the source of reason comes from one’s source of error and Authority is when one does not use their own reason at all. He further dissects the impact of authority on reason,
“Thus, acknowledging authority is always connected with the idea that what the authority says is not irrational and arbitrary but can, in principle, be discovered to be true... Thus the essence of authority belongs in the context of a theory of prejudices free from the extremism of the Enlightenment (Gadamer 288).”
Gadamer believes that the prejudice of tradition is a balance to the radical principles of the Enlightenment. He encourages that the ideas of the establishment get passed down because of traditional prejudice, which promotes a form of conservatism.
“The fact is that in tradition there is always an element of freedom and of history itself. Even the most genuine and pure tradition does not persist because of the inertia of what once existed. It needs to be affirmed, embraced, cultivated. It is, essentially, preservation, and it is
In “Truth and Method”, Hans-Georg Gadamer analyzes and breaks down the process of understanding. He writes “Truth and Method” to respond to a philosophy of using a scientific approach to understanding. In the 1960’s, the Scientific Method was becoming popular and Gadamer believes that understanding and truth are beyond objective and subjective methods of understanding. Gadamer believes that the goal of understanding, should ultimately be to reach an agreement, however if agreement is the ultimate goal, then other values such as equality and freedom may not be upheld. If two conflicting parties need to reach an agreement, then that entails a compromise. Depending on which party one is in, a compromise …show more content…
He describes the process of understanding as “Hermeneutics has understood itself as an art or technique of understanding... (Gadamer 268)”; Gadamer did not believe that a science could be applied to understanding. Gadamer asserts that people just unconsciously fore-project, which is projecting a personal meaning onto the text. They go through this process as they experience the hermeneutic circle, a process of understanding a part of the sentence in order to understand the whole sentence and vice versa. This leads the reader to go through cycles of grappling the actual meaning of the text with the meaning they project on to it, until they can usurp the meaning of the text. These fore-projections are also accompanied by biases; a person cannot leave their biases out of the process of understanding. Gadamer breaks down the etymology of the word “prejudice”, which means a judgement that is rendered before all the elements that determine a situation have been finally examined (Gadamer 273). It is not necessarily a negative phenomenon, but rather is merely connoted with a negative action. Gadamer uses all these principles to lay the groundwork with how hermeneutics and understanding work. Ultimately, Gadamer believes that the goal of understanding is to reach an agreement. He believes that everyone has a horizon of understanding and if we join horizons we will be able …show more content…
Gadamer believed that prejudices aren’t a negative part of interpretation and prescribes that we test our prejudice. He believes that the Enlightenment provided a movement to eradicate the use of prejudice, which is a prejudice in itself. He divides prejudices in to “authority” and “over hastiness” (Gadamer 288.) Overhastiness is when the source of reason comes from one’s source of error and Authority is when one does not use their own reason at all. He further dissects the impact of authority on reason,
“Thus, acknowledging authority is always connected with the idea that what the authority says is not irrational and arbitrary but can, in principle, be discovered to be true... Thus the essence of authority belongs in the context of a theory of prejudices free from the extremism of the Enlightenment (Gadamer 288).”
Gadamer believes that the prejudice of tradition is a balance to the radical principles of the Enlightenment. He encourages that the ideas of the establishment get passed down because of traditional prejudice, which promotes a form of conservatism.
“The fact is that in tradition there is always an element of freedom and of history itself. Even the most genuine and pure tradition does not persist because of the inertia of what once existed. It needs to be affirmed, embraced, cultivated. It is, essentially, preservation, and it is