Hermeneutics is one of those complex concepts that needs to be stopped and carefully examined, not only because its meaning has varied over the centuries, but also because it represents the basis of our life experience.
Indeed, and although we are not aware of it, throughout our lives we are constantly practicing hermeneutics. At the moment in which we decode information, interpret and acquire a series of ideas that, in turn, will configure the basis of our personality and our relationship with the world, we are applying this method so studied and dissected by philosophers of all time.
But… What, exactly, is hermeneutics? Can we reduce this bombastic and, a priori, so strange concept to a definition that is understandable and applicable to our daily lives? Let’s see it below.
Etymologically, the word hermeneutics comes from the Greek hermeneiawhich means, literally, translation, interpretation. Originally, hermeneutics was understood as the interpretation of sacred texts , like the myths and oracles of ancient Greece and, especially, made reference to the exegesis or explanation of the Bible. That is to say; Hermeneutics was based on extracting the deep meaning of a religious revelation.
Currently, the term refers to the interpretation of a text or a source in general, whether it has a religious, philosophical or literary nature But it is about real, authentic interpretation; That is, what that text really wants to communicate to us, not the vision we have of it. For this reason, there are many philosophers and thinkers who have considered hermeneutics as a method that is nothing short of impossible. Let’s see why.
Hermeneutics and prejudices
For the hermeneutical process to be correct, the interpretation of the source in question must adhere to the historical and social context in which it was developed. The philosophers who, over the centuries, have faced this type of process have not hidden the difficulty that this task entails, since the meaning of a source is multiple and heterogeneous. In other words; the interpreter is not a tabula rasa and, being imbued with his own ideas, values and prejudices, its interpretation cannot contain the objectivity necessary to be able to extract the true meaning of the source the one with which it was originally made.
But let’s stop at the idea of “prejudice.” If we think about it, something negative probably comes to mind. Indeed, in our current society, prejudice has lost all its original etymological meaning to determine a preconceived idea that, above all, is dogmatic, harmful. But the origin of the word is very different. “Prejudice” simply means “before the trial,” without judging whether this preconception is positive or negative. A prejudice is, therefore, an idea that the person has before facing a new source of information.
The philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer already commented, in his magnificent work Truth and method (1960), which prejudices make us deaf to the interpretation of the text Gadamer is famous for having renewed the concept of hermeneutics. A disciple of another great man on the subject, Martin Heidegger, Gadamer was called the “philosopher of prejudice” for his defense of prejudice as something inseparable from human nature, which did not have to be something pejorative. That’s how it is; As we have already mentioned, a prejudice is simply a prior idea resulting from past experiences.
And, in reality, we all have prejudices. It is something inherent to being human; As we grow, we acquire a series of experiences, which form the basis with which we interpret the world. It is impossible to completely separate ourselves from these experiences, because they are precisely what shape us as we are, so, in effect, we are all molded with the clay of prejudices.
From a biological perspective, we can affirm that the brain, throughout our lives, creates new connections and destroys others based on what we experience. It is a natural process that aims to better adapt to the environment, since automatic responses are created to certain stimuli that, ultimately, save time and energy. This whole process is part of our nature and it is absolutely impossible to separate ourselves from it. However, This natural process can represent a gap when it comes to correctly interpreting a source of information
Let’s take an example to see it more clearly. If we know, from daily experience, that the bus we need to take to go to work always stops at stop number. 3, it will not be necessary to take our city’s bus guide every day to confirm that, in fact, the bus stops at stop 3. Our experience already tells us which is the place in question, and we will go there every morning. This, although we may not believe it, is a prejudice. Our mind has had no need to think and reflect ; It takes a reality for granted based on experience.
Now, if one morning we arrive at stop 3 and see a sign that says: “Today the bus line . And, probably, the next day we will no longer go to stop 3 out of inertia, but rather we will take the guide and see if the bus continues stopping at stop 5 or if, on the contrary, it returns to its original stop.
In this simple way we understand what the “hermeneutic circle” is or, in other words, how we respond to a stimulus, whether textual, visual or auditory. We will see it in greater detail in the next section.
The “hermeneutical circle”
This is what this process of understanding is called, which we all do unconsciously in our daily lives. Understanding, then, is a circular act Let’s see why.
According to Gadamer, the text or source that we have to interpret is an alienated thing that we, that is, the interpreter, resurrect. But the interpreter is not, as we have already seen, a tabula rasa, that is, a blank page. The interpreter confronts the source shaped by his own experience and, therefore, by his own prejudices. Precisely for this reason, the circle of understanding is unlimited, infinite; there will always be a new interpretation depending on the interpreter and/or the moment in which he or she confronts the source in question.
Indeed, the interpreter faces the stimulus with a series of prejudices. These preconceived ideas are what will mean that, even before accessing the source, the interpreter has already established a conclusion in his mind. Following the example from the previous section, we can say that, when we head towards stop 3, we are considering that, effectively, the bus is going to stop at that stop and not another.
Let us now take another example. Let’s imagine that we are about to read a book that deals with the Middle Ages. Let’s also imagine that we have never delved into that historical period, and that our only knowledge of it comes from movies and novels. It is very likely, therefore, that we expect to find information about the poor hygiene of the time and the practically non-existent intellectual activity of its people. We see how, before reading the book, our mind has established a hypothesis about what is going to be found. This is the first point of the hermeneutic circle: the previous idea that the interpreter carries in his head when confronting the source.
Well, we have finished reading the book. After reading, we realize that: a) in the Middle Ages there were numerous bathhouses in the cities, where people came to clean themselves and spend leisure time. And b) that the Middle Ages marked, among other things, the birth of universities and scholasticism, an important current of thought that attempted, among other things, to access the divine message through human reason. And here we arrive at point 2 of the hermeneutic circle: the questioning of our previous hypothesis. The discoveries will make us question the first hypothesis and will set up a new basis, with which we will face, the next day, the reading of a new book. And this is the final and, at the same time, initial point of the circle. When we open this second book, the hypothesis with which we begin the understanding process will be the second of the first process. And so on, over and over again.
This is why the hermeneutical circle has no end. We are constantly experimenting; that is, establishing and breaking hypotheses , so it is impossible to reach the end of the process. Therefore, the experience is not a culmination, but is simply the starting point for a new experimentation, for a new process. The hermeneutic circle breaks with the idea that knowledge is a linear and ascending path, and opens our minds towards a type of circular and eternal learning. We are always experimenting and learning.
At this point, we can ask ourselves if hermeneutics really entails real knowledge of the sources of information. As we have already commented before, philosophers have asked themselves this question throughout the centuries; Martin Heidegger, for example, argued that the correct interpretation of the source must be freed from the limitations of preceding habits of mind (i.e., prejudices). But is this viable, being that we are beings shaped by a multitude of prejudices, acquired by life experience?
These “mental habits” that Heidegger speaks of have enjoyed diverse considerations depending on the historical moment. For example, during the Enlightenment, “tradition” (that is, the prejudices inherited from our parents and the society in which we developed) came to be considered as an element that “got in the way” when it came to understanding a source of information. The Enlightenment intended to conquer individual thinking, free of prejudices, the result of individual reasoning and away from any external influence. But, we repeat, is that possible, considering that human beings build their personality and their being based on a series of preconceived ideas? Is absolutely autonomous reasoning really viable?
In Romanticism, the philosophical and artistic current that emerged, in part, as a response to that preceding Enlightenment, “tradition” once again acquires a relevant status when it comes to issuing conclusions. If this tradition, if these prejudices have been maintained for centuries, and have been transmitted from parents to children, it is because they hold a truth within them. But either way, the question remains the same. Regardless of whether tradition is valid or not, is it viable to dissociate from it?
Everything seems to indicate that no, that the real interpretation of a source, which is what hermeneutics in its modern sense proposes, is not viable. The interpreter can get closer or less to the real meaning of that source, but in no case can he extract its authentic meaning, because the interpreter, as a subject, is linked to a series of preconceived ideas from which he cannot separate himself, since, if If he did, he would stop being that guy. What is viable is to be aware that, as subjects, we have these prejudices. When a prejudice is brought to consciousness, it is much easier to get away from it and, in this way, approach the source in a more objective way.
In matters of philosophy and thought, there are no blacks or whites. Let everyone draw their own conclusions from it. And remember: the conclusions you draw today will probably be your prejudices tomorrow. And so on, in a circle without end.
