Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768–1834), perhaps, cannot be ranked among the greatest German philosophers of the 18th and 19th centuries, such as Kant, Herder, Hegel, Marx or Nietzsche. However, he is certainly one of the best thinkers of the so-called “second level” of that period. He was also an outstanding classical scholar and theologian. Most of his philosophical works are devoted to religion, but from the modern point of view it is his hermeneutics (i.e., the theory of interpretation) that deserves the greatest attention.
Friedrich Schlegel (writer, poet, linguist, philosopher) had a direct influence on his thinking. The ideas of these two outstanding people of their time began to take shape in the late 1790s, when they lived for a while in the same house in Berlin. Many of the provisions of the theory are general. Not every thesis knows exactly which of the two husbands proposed it. Since Schlegel’s methods are much less detailed and systematic than Schleiermacher’s theories, the latter are of paramount importance.
Definition
With the emergence of the theory of interpretation, such names are connected: Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Gadamer. Hermeneutics, the founder of which is considered the last of these philosophers, is associated with problems that arise when working with significant human actions and their products (mainly with texts). As a methodological discipline, it offers tools for effectively addressing the problems of interpreting human actions, texts, and other significant material. The hermeneutics of H.G. Gadamer and F. Schleiermacher is based on a long tradition, since the complex of problems that it solves appeared in human life many centuries ago and required repeated and consistent consideration.
Interpretation is a ubiquitous activity that unfolds whenever people seek to understand any meaning that they consider essential. Over time, both the problems and the tools designed to solve them have changed significantly along with the discipline of hermeneutics itself. Its purpose is to identify the main contradictions in the process of understanding.
Hermeneutic philosophers (F. Schleiermacher and G. Gadamer) connect it not with thought, but with manipulations of thinking. Consider the main points and concepts of this theory.
The development of philosophical ideas
Schleiermacher’s hermeneutics theory is based on Herder’s teachings in language philosophy. The bottom line is that thinking depends on the language, limited to it or identical with it. The meaning of this thesis is that the use of the word is important. However, between people there are deep linguistic and conceptual-intellectual differences.
The most original doctrine in the philosophy of language is semantic holism. It is he (as recognized by the philosopher himself) that significantly aggravates the problem of interpretation and translation.
Basic principles
If we consider the hermeneutics of Schleiermacher briefly and clearly, then you should pay attention to the key ideas of his theory.
Here are its basic principles:
- Interpretation is a much more complex task than is usually understood. Contrary to the widespread misconception that "understanding occurs for granted, " in fact, "misunderstanding occurs for granted, so understanding should be sought and sought at every point."
- Hermeneutics in philosophy is a theory of understanding language communication. It is defined as opposed, and not equivalent to its explanation, application or translation.
- Hermeneutics in philosophy is a discipline that should be universal, that is, one that is equally applied to all subject areas (Bible, law, literature), to oral and written speech, to modern texts and to the ancients, to work in the native and in foreign languages.
- This philosophical theory includes the interpretation of sacred texts such as the Bible, which cannot be based on special principles, for example, on the inspiration of both the author and the translator.
How is interpretation
When considering issues of hermeneutics briefly, attention should be paid to the problem of direct interpretation. Note that Schleiermacher’s theory is also based on the following principles:
- Before starting the actual interpretation of a text or discourse, you must first know the historical context well.
- It is important to clearly distinguish between the question of the meaning of the text or discourse and its truth. There are many works of dubious content. The assumption that a text or discourse must be true often leads to a serious misinterpretation.
- Interpretation always has two sides: one linguistic, the other psychological. The linguistic task is to draw a conclusion from the evidence consisting in the actual use of words in the rules that govern them. However, hermeneutics focuses on author psychology. The linguistic interpretation mainly refers to what is common in the language, while the psychological interpretation is more related to what is characteristic of a particular author.
Justification
Presenting his ideas of hermeneutics, Friedrich Schleiermacher implies several reasons why a linguistic interpretation should be complemented by a psychological one. Firstly, this need stems from the deep linguistic and conceptual-intellectual identity of individuals. This feature at the individual level leads to the problem of linguistic interpretation, namely that the actual use of words available for proof will usually be relatively small in number and poor in context.
An appeal to author psychology should help solve this problem by providing additional tips. Secondly, an appeal to the psychology of the author is also necessary to eliminate ambiguities at the level of linguistic meanings that arise in certain contexts (even when the range of meanings available for the word in question has become known).
Thirdly, in order to fully understand the linguistic act, you need to know not only its meaning, but also what later philosophers called it “illocutionary force” or intention (consists in what intention carries out: communication, prompting, evaluation, etc.)
Terms
For F. Schleiermacher's hermeneutics, it is necessary to use two different methods: the “comparative” method (that is, the simple induction method), which the philosopher considers to be dominant from the linguistic side of interpretation. In this case, he translates the interpreter from the specific use of the word in the rules that govern them all to the “fortunetelling” method (that is, creating a preliminary erroneous hypothesis based on empirical facts and going far beyond the existing database). The scientist considers this approach predominant in the psychological side of interpretation.
The philosophical concept of “fortune-telling”, widely used in literature, is a process of psychological self-projection into texts containing a grain of truth, since he believes that hermeneutics requires a certain degree of psychological common understanding between the translator and the interpreter.
Thus, in Schleiermacher's hermeneutics, the text is considered from two positions.
Consideration of parts and the whole
An ideal interpretation is by its nature a holistic action (this principle is partially justified, but at the same time goes beyond the framework of semantic holism). In particular, any given piece of text should be considered in the light of the entire array to which it belongs. Both should be interpreted from a wider point of view of understanding the language in which they are written, their historical context, background, existing genre and general psychology of the author.
Such holism introduces widespread circularity in the interpretation, since the interpretation of these broader elements depends on the understanding of each fragment of the text. However, Schleiermacher does not consider this circle to be vicious. His solution does not consist in the fact that all tasks must be carried out simultaneously, since this far exceeds human capabilities. Rather, the idea lies in the idea that understanding is not a “all or nothing” question, but something that manifests itself to one degree or another, so you can gradually move towards full understanding.
For example, as regards the relationship between the part of the text and the entire array to which it belongs, from the point of view of hermeneutics, Schleiermacher recommends that you first read and interpret each part of the text as well as possible, so as to come to an approximate general understanding of the whole work. The method is applied to clarify the initial interpretation of each of the specific parts. This provides an improved overall interpretation, which can then be reapplied to further clarify the understanding of the parts.
The origins
In fact, Schleiermacher's hermeneutics is almost identical to Herder's theory. Some general position here is due to the fact that both of them were influenced by the same predecessors, especially I. A. Ernesti. But, considering briefly the hermeneutics of Schleiermacher, it must be noted that it owes exclusively to Herder two fundamental points: the addition of the “linguistic” “psychological” interpretation and the definition of “fortune-telling” as the prevailing method of the latter.
Herder has already used this, especially in the works On the Works of Thomas Abbt (1768) and On the Cognition and Sensation of the Human Soul (1778). Schleiermacher’s theory, in fact, simply unites and systematizes ideas that have already been “scattered” over a number of Herder’s works.
Differences and features
However, there are several significant exceptions to this rule of continuity associated with differences between Schleiemacher’s hermeneutics theory and Herder’s ideas.
To see this, you should start with two deviations that are not problematic, but rather substantial. First, Schleiemacher aggravates the problem of interpretation by introducing semantic holism. Secondly, his theory introduces the principle of the ideal of universality of hermeneutics.
We take into account that Herder rightly emphasized the vital importance in interpreting the correct definition of the genre of a work, as well as the great difficulty in doing so in many cases (especially because of the constant changes and the subsequent widespread temptation to falsely assimilate unfamiliar genres).
However, Schleiermacher paid relatively little attention to this issue. Especially in his later work, he defined psychological interpretation in more detail as a process of identifying and tracking the necessary development of a unique author’s “original solution [Keimentchluß]”.
In addition, Herder included not only the linguistic, but also the non-linguistic behavior of the author among the evidence related to psychological hermeneutics. Schleiermacher thought a little differently. He insisted on restricting linguistic behavior. This also seems erroneous. For example, the recorded acts of cruelty of the Marquis de Sade seem more potentially important for establishing the sadistic side of his psychological appearance and for the accurate interpretation of his texts than his cruel statements.
Schleiermacher (unlike Herder) considered the central role of “fortune telling” or hypothesis in hermeneutics as the basis for a sharp distinction between interpretation and natural science. Consequently, and to classify it as an art, not a science. However, he probably should have considered this as a basis for recognizing understanding and natural science as similar.
His theory also tends to downplay, obscure, or skip some of the important points about hermeneutics that Frederick Schlegel has already expressed. His own attitude to such issues, expressed in some texts, such as Philosophy of Philosophy (1797) and Fragments of the Athenaeum (1798–1800), largely recalls Schleiermacher's approach. But this also includes points that are less bold, obscure, or even absent from the work of philosophers.
Schlegel notes that texts often express unconscious meanings. That is, each excellent work is aimed at more than reflected in it. At Schleiermacher, one can sometimes find a similar point of view, most manifested in the doctrine that the interpreter should strive to understand the author better than he understood himself.
However, the version of this position expressed by Schlegel is more radical, providing for a truly infinite depth of meaning, which is largely unknown to the author himself. This thinker emphasized that a work often expresses important meanings not explicitly in any of its parts, but in how they are combined into a single whole. This is a very important point from the perspective of hermeneutics. Schlegel (unlike Schleiermacher) emphasized that the work, as a rule, contains confusion, which the translator must identify (unravel), and explain to the interpreter.
It is not enough to understand the true meaning of the confused work. It is advisable to understand it better than the author himself. One must also be able to characterize and correctly interpret the emerging confusion.
