Philosophy of Being and Knowledge

Hermeneutics (Philosophy of Understanding)

19th Century

The significant advancements in hermeneutics during the 19th century led to the emergence of philosophical hermeneutics, a philosophical theory of understanding and interpretation. The first major thinker in this field was Friedrich Ast (1778-1841), who introduced the key concept of the hermeneutic circle. Ast posited that understanding and interpretation are part of a closed circle: people read texts to grasp the spirit manifest in them, but they can only understand these texts in light of that spirit. For instance, readers engage with the poems of ancient Greek poets to understand the spirit of the ancient Greeks, their culture, customs, history, and beliefs. However, to understand these texts, one must be aware of the cultural context in which they were written. Ast used the hermeneutic circle to illustrate that proper understanding of a text is impossible without a comprehensive grasp of the spirit of the time and environment in which it was composed.

The general theory of hermeneutics was developed by the German theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), who is considered the father of philosophical hermeneutics. Schleiermacher analyzed the role of the interpreter (translator or commentator) in conveying the content of a text. An author, writing a text, aims to communicate information to the reader. Since the author and the reader share the same time and space, the author does not need to reflect on why they phrase their thoughts in a particular way. In contrast, the interpreter belongs to a different time or context. To understand the text, the interpreter must delve into the author's time and space, explain why the author chose specific expressions, what these expressions meant in the author's environment, and how they can be translated into terms understandable to the intended audience. Based on these principles, Schleiermacher concluded that the interpreter has a better understanding of the text than its author.

Since Schleiermacher viewed a text as encompassing not only expressed thoughts but also any processes, this principle applies universally. Natural phenomena occur due to nature, yet nature does not comprehend why it acts as it does; it is the natural scientist who interprets them. An economist better understands economic processes than an entrepreneur who directly engages in them, which is why successful companies rely on scientific consultations. A psychiatrist understands what motivates a patient’s actions better than the patient themselves. A literary scholar knows better why an author used specific imagery in their work than the author does. Any translated text is a product of the translator. The reader engages with what the translator has written, not what the author originally wrote. The translator’s role is to understand the author and convey the text’s content in a language understandable to the reader. By demonstrating that the role of the interpreter is crucial to understanding a text, Schleiermacher elevated interpretation and understanding to a distinct subject of philosophical analysis, thus securing a place for philosophical hermeneutics among the broader spectrum of philosophical disciplines.

A significant further development in hermeneutics was made by another German scholar, Johann Gustav Droysen (1808-1884). This thinker sought to classify the sciences based on their methods. He divided all sciences into natural sciences and human sciences, with the former concerned with explaining natural processes and the latter with understanding spiritual processes. To explain means to uncover immutable laws that answer why something happened in the past and what will happen in the future. For instance, the law of universal gravitation explains the nature of motion, showing why objects moved as they did in the past and how they will move in the future, with explanations based on the same principles. The task of human sciences is to understand individual phenomena. For example, sociologists can understand why a social transformation occurred but cannot derive a law to predict that society will react the same way under similar circumstances in the future. A psychologist can understand the reasons behind a patient’s actions but cannot predict that the patient will act the same way under similar conditions. Understanding, unlike explanation, does not operate with laws and does not enable prediction.

Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911) attempted to analyze the method of human sciences. He agreed with Droysen that the method of human sciences is understanding, but also noted other features in this domain. A person knows about the subject of their research only through the reflections in their senses, mind, and soul. In other words, one studies not the reality itself but its reflection within the person, so all human knowledge is contained within their psyche. In studying a subject within human sciences, a person cannot remain an external observer; they are involved in these processes. When a psychologist studies another person’s mental processes, they compare them to their own mental processes. A historian examines history from the perspective of their own time and ideology. This involvement complicates understanding processes, as the researcher cannot stay outside them; they become part of what they are trying to understand. Thus, understanding anything is impossible without an internal experience of it. Dilthey not only highlighted the importance of psychology in the study of hermeneutic issues but also demonstrated that the observer cannot remain detached from the processes being studied.