Customer Reviews

Truth and Method

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is one of my favorite books of all time. It is Gadamer's masterpiece - published when he was sixty years old, and the result of a life time of scholarship. T&M is a critique of romantic hermeneutics -a doctrine that holds that the meaning of a text is identical with the intention of its author. On this account, the purpose of interpretation is to reconstruct the author's intention, the experience they had while writing it that is held in the text. To this Gadamer contrasts his own theory of historically effected consciousness. Gadamer claims that 'understanding a text' involves understanding the tradition of which it (and you) are a part. In the course of doing so, Heidegger ranges over the history of aesthetic theory, phenomenology, and hermenutics, biblical interpretation, as well as examining the nature of all human understanding.

Gadamer is a student of Heidegger. In this book he is interested in demonstrating the way a Heideggerian account of consciousness (and being in the world) can help us make sense of the act of interpretation. He is also interested in demonstrating that one can use Heidegger without being a Nazi or obsessed with anxiety and being-towards-death.

This book is highly technical, the prose if difficult, and demanding (it helps to have read Being and Time, Kant's Critique of Judgement, some Augustine and Aquinas, etc etc etc.). For people who can get into the work, however, it promises a comprehensive theory of human being, the history of philosophy (and indeed, western thought as a whole) and a holistic worldview of unmatched death and detail. And that's no small potatoes.

For those interested in in reading Gadamer but not ready to tackle T&M, I recommend some of the shorter volumes of his speeches and writings. One of these, _Philosophical Hermeneutics_, is (relatively) accessible and generally considered by Gadamerphiles to be 'Truth and Method Lite'.

First, Truth and Method is a true classic. Basically, it sees Gadamer revitalise 'nonscientific' truth, i.e. the experience of truth inaccessible to method and irreducible to bare statement. The book itself does have a structure/setting that makes it difficult to get into initially (it is usefully read in tandem with a good commentary eg. Joel Weinsheimer's 'Gadamer's Hermeneutics'), but it is simply worth the effort.

Second, the review below is mistaken when it attributes to Gadamer the idea that the Old Testament should be read literally. Gadamer refers to Luther's position that "the Scripture has a univocal sense that can be derived from the text", but he does this as part of an historical overview of hermeneutics and, on the very next page, Luther gets refuted by 18thC historicism. Gadamer moves beyond both these positions to reveal how 'literalism' (and - more pressingly - 'historicism') is a projection of unproductive prejudices. It is an "obstruction", that gets in the way of the truth Gadamer seeks. Also, while T&M is relevant to theology, it should be made clear that Gadamer is writing of a philosophical-universal hermeneutics and not something regional.

Hans-Georg Gadamer's Truth and Method is a result of sixty years of reflection on the nature of the hermeneutic experience and an exemplary document of lucid and fascinating scholarship. The purpose of the treatise on understanding is `what takes place above our thinking and doing', in other words, the constitutive events in art, literature and ethics.
As Gadamer's examination of the romantic human sciences, or Geisteswissenschaften, is constantly referred back onto the tradition and the sources from which it emerges and supports itself, some background knowledge is required, particularly of classical philosophy, Hegel and Heidegger.
The project of Truth and Method opens by engaging the reader to a critique of Kantian aesthetic exposition, and uses it as a starting-point for an examination of hermeneutics, the art of understanding. In the course of the examination Gadamer does not, however, engage in a dialogue only with the philosophical tradition, but by continuously exploring the universality of the hermeneutic experience demonstrates its relevance and presence in history, study of languages, legal theory and theology.
For a reader coming from the analytic-linguistic tradition, the final section on the hermeneutic character of language should be of particular interest. In it Gadamer outlines his conception of language as the horizon through which the experience of the world is understood. But as throughout the book, the horizon of understanding is not determined solely on the basis of the grammatical or the logical structure present; indeed, the horizon itself is a constant possibility for the historically effected consciousness to gain further self-knowledge through its experience in language as a historically and temporally defined phenomenon.
The style of the book is thoroughly lively and engaging; despite the abstract subject-matter the argument is never lost from sight and Gadamer's sense of clarity in terms of expression makes the book a pleasure to read and come back to.

I recommend this book whole-heartedly, not as a conclusive and total life-philosophy, but as an exploration and fascination of the possibilities of human potential in its recurring activity of living and perpetuating, its own culture, tradition and being.

Hans-Georg Gadamer's Truth and Method must be considered alongside the great works of Dilthey, Husserl, and Heidegger as a major treatise on hermeneutics, defined by Gadamer as understanding and the correct interpretation of what has been understood. More commonly, people define hermeneutics as the study/theory of interpretation.

Two major contentions that help frame his analysis are: (1) rejection of the view that proper understanding calls for eliminating the influence of the interpreter's context; (2) rejection of the view that the author's intent in writing a text has any special weight to it.

As to the first point, he argues that it is simply not possible for the interpreter to escape his present situation. He advances the concept of the "horizon." For Gadamer, the horizon is ". . .the range of vision that includes everything that can be seen from a particular vantage point." It is the grounding of the interpreter, including that person's language, that fixes the possibilities of what that person can see and understand. In Gadamer's words, it is

". . .the way in which thought is tied to its finite determination, and the nature of the law of the expansion of the range of vision. A person who has no horizon is a man who does not see far enough and hence over values what is nearest to him. Contrariwise, to have an horizon means not to be limited to what is nearest, but to be able to see beyond it. A person who has an horizon knows the relative significance of everything within this horizon, as near or far, great or small."

To interpret the words of the past, Gadamer says that:

"Just as in a conversation, when we have discovered the standpoint and horizon of the other person, his ideas become intelligible, without our necessarily having to agree with him, the person who thinks historically comes to understand the meaning of what has been handed down, without necessarily agreeing with it, or seeing himself in it."

In interpreting texts, two horizons are involved--one is the horizon of the interpreter and the other the particular historical horizon into which he or she places him or herself in trying to understand the text. Thus, the two horizons interact to produce understanding.

The historical horizon of the text is not fixed; it cannot take on a meaning that is unchanged for all times and places. Here, he gets to the heart of successful hermeneutic inquiry--the fusing of horizons. He says:

"Hence the horizon of the present cannot be formed with the past. There is no more an isolated horizon of the present than there are historical horizons. Understanding, rather, is always the fusion of these horizons which we imagine to exist by themselves. . .Every encounter with tradition that takes place within historical consciousness involves the experience of the tension between the text and the present."

But what of the intention of the original author of a text? That leads to another of Gadamer's major points, by now clearly implicit in his idea of fusion of horizons. In short, it is not particularly important in trying to interpret a text. Once a text is created by its author, it becomes, so to speak, freed from the creator and begins to take on its own meaning, based upon its historical horizon, continually evolving as circumstances change. It is the text's horizon that interacts with the interpreter's horizon.

So what? To the extent that "reality" is the subject of inquiry, our understanding of "reality" will change as the historical horizon of a particular claim about reality changes. We can, then, never come to a satisfactory conclusion about a transcendental reality, about an absolute truth. Is relativism the end product of the endeavor? The hermeneutist in the Gadamerian tradition would simply note that there is no way out.

This is one of the most historically important works available on interpretation. It is difficult and challenging as a work; however, the effort to learn from Gadamer is well worth it.

I read this book for a graduate seminar on philosophy of art. Hans-Georg Gadamer's "magnum opus" "Truth and Method" is a seminal work not just for the field of the philosophy of art, but also for epistemology, ontology, teleology, history, and the social sciences. This book has caused me to "see" everything in a new philosophical light. When reading Gadamer, one instantly finds that he was influenced by Martin Heidegger, who he studied under, Hegel, and Aristotle. Hermeneutics is an interpretive methodology of a historically situated, linguistically mediated, contextualist and antifoundationalist theory of understanding. I know that is a mouthful, so the following will unpack this definition. The God Hermes is the source of the word "hermeneutics" Hermes the "messenger" was the go between the Gods and humans thus the word hermeneutics.

For Gadamer, interpretation is always connected with the "as," interpretation assumes that there are multiple ways or "lenses" with how we engage works. A different lens will produce a different way of seeing things. So, if our "as" is "cognitive knowledge" then we would approach a thing accordingly. If our "as" is "practical usefulness" then we approach it accordingly. For example, a botanist wants to understand what makes a tree a tree, a carpenter sees a tree as a source of lumber. Thus, hermeneutics is about the idea that there are many ways to interpret, which is why history is so important. It can also be present the world. Does historical inheritance allow for a blank slate? No, no divorce from what we are to be able approach a work in pure disinterestedness as Kant would have us do. No separate space in time. No pure present separated from the future. History doesn't tell us about the past, but about ourselves. Every present has sense of future, not just the past.

Gadamer's idea of interpretation, is to turn away from the idea of truth as a simple matter of fact, or certainty or a single principle. The idea of interpretation is that it is something that is "open." We use the word "interpret" that way when we say, "well how do you interpret that work"? This question means that there is not one way of reading the work. Unfortunately, though the difference between interpretation and fact is that a fact is not something open to interpretation, and therefore interpretation is seen as some kind of deficiency. It is seen as a lesser matter because it is open, and can't be secured by some kind of decisive result. A wide array of possibilities is what hermeneutics looks for; it is not just making it up. Hermeneutics does not mean one can't believe in objective truths; for example, there was a Civil War, it is a fact, what isn't a fact and has multiple truths and interpretations is what where the "causes" of the Civil War. Thus, hermeneutics for Gadamer doesn't mean that anything goes, it just means that there are multiple interpretations and possibilities when coming to terms with a text or artworks. The history of art is filled with different interpretations. There are multiple interpretations to many truths like in art.

An important feature of hermeneutic interpretation is that it emphasizes the historical circumstances of art and by historical, means not only what we said before about the piece. We would have to know what historical circumstances were, and what it was like for the work to be performed at that time, that is one thing. However, as a deeper sense of historicallity and that is to say, any approach to art always carries the art history with it. When we approach a work of art, before we even engage it we are already equipped with inheritances from our tradition and our culture that come to us by way of education and other kinds of influences. No engagement with a work of art is a blank slate we are not a tabula rasa. The word "Hermeneutics" equals "an interpretation." Hermeneutics talks about how we interpret a work of art. Hermeneutics is an interpretive circle. Hermeneutics believes that when we are making a statement we are trying to be either objective or subjective about art. Whether we are inside the work itself and what it might mean, or if we overemphasize the subject, the perception of it, and what's going on in the subject, that if we emphasize either side of that then we would be missing something more important. Thus, hermeneutics is circular. The separation between the work and the perception is broken there. There is an interconnection. One of the things about the hermeneutical approach is its meant to be an alternative to the subject-object division, which in modern thought sets the stage for how we talk about modern art in terms of art as being an object or art as referring to objects and then the subject and the subjects relation to the object. However, one of the things about Heidegger and Gadamer, is that they discounted this whole idea. In art theory, you would have this idea that the work that is standing before the subject and the subject comes across the work and the subject gets impressions from work. One of the things we have seen in the historical art world theory is which is sort of along the lines of hermeneutics that in a way Descartes wanted to put off the history of influences and get a start from scratch. That is sort of his position. Therefore, what the hermeneutics theory says is that can't be done. There is no start from scratch position. Historical influences are always shaping how we begin to see anything.

With respect to art theory now, it would be impossible to talk about coming across a work in some pure uninterpreted space, and that we start from the work and us and go from there. There are already operating influences in how we regard anything and art would be included in that. One of the ways to understand this is in child development. Every adult has been a child, and every child has been shaped by cultural influences through all sorts of ways, education, rearing, etc. So we sometimes forget about this because we are adults and no longer children, so we are on our own way so to speak. Every rearing of a child in terms of a certain set of historical influences or assumptions that the parents bring with them which they inherited from their parents and so on. In other words, any human self, will always be equipped with ways of seeing, and therefore there is no such thing as coming to see something as all by itself. However, as we'll also see, hermeneutic theory doesn't want to fall into the trap of saying "mere interpretation," because if it is mere interpretation it means there is something inadequate about it. If interpretation goes all the way down, then interpretation can't be deficient. It is simply a matter of getting clear what interpretations there are that shape us and being clearer about those. This doesn't mean that things can't change, it just means that whatever happens in human experience there is an already shaped factor to it. And because there is this already shaped factor that we did not produce ourselves, (since human child development has already been set), then it could be called mere interpretation in the sense that it is just an invention, an allusion, an appearance a relativism, that won't work either. Because, there is something about us being shaped by our culture that opens up our world for us, it is not just a matter of personal opinion.

Gadamer mentions history, thus the use of the historical artworld model is used by Gadamer, and brings in the notion of temporality, which means time. There obviously is a temporality in play, the game, the execution the time, the outcome. However, temporality for Gadamer is richer, a Heideggerian notion temporality is not just past present, and future, it is of fluid kind of circulation for people for selves who exist in time by experiencing these dimensions. It is impossible to live in the now. Because every sense of the present is formed by the past, if we didn't have a past there would be no shaping us to the point to the now, and every now is informed by the future. We have to live in the past and the future, everything we do is geared to the future. Past and future have a kind of openness to them. Heidegger's point is that idea of the abstractions of the past and the future as not now, and not yet now, or no longer now that very abstraction is created by an intellectual reflection that is not real. Therefore, any recollection is the present for the past. Thus, any anticipation is the present for the future, because you anticipate the future now, and you remember the past now. Thus, in a sense the past and the future are not abstractions that do not exist. There is a reality of the future and the past with anticipation and recollection. We all have various ways that the future is alive through anticipation and hope for example. The past is alive with things like nostalgia and regret. Temporality (time), is a circulation of these dimensions rather then three separate zones. Once that is done, the idea of history becomes a concrete temporality, history means what is the temporality of culture of people with actual means that occupy their lives, it is not just past, present, and future, its remembering the injustices of the past, to fix them in the future for example. Thus, history becomes an important temporality. It is filled with significance and meaningfulness rather than just the bare notions of the past. Because of Heidegger's open character of temporality in one sense the past is gone, but not totally gone, as we all know the past is something that can be revisited. The past is open to re-estimation; thus, structure of history is the same as temporality, it is open; thus, because of the open character it leads philosophers like Heidegger and Gadamer to say, that is why the idea of hermeneutics is interpretation and its model is open as well just like temporality. For instance, when we are trying to interpret and find meaning in something that is going on it is because we are presently trying to figure out what the hell happened in the past because of the future worries and consequences of what has happened. So we are inhabiting this circulation, and because the past is not like a objects that just stand there its open we can't really go back in time so we can only try to revision it, and the future is unknown and there is no way to be certain about what was said. It doesn't mean certain things can't be established, they can, but that doesn't end anything. No certainty however, the history of culture is therefore the history of temporal movement.

So, interpretation is not just simply opinion, interpretation refers to ways of seeing. Those ways of seeing are embedded in the world; they are not just subjective opinions. So, on the one hand we have the subject-object divide. The subjective is our opinions of the art, our impressions of it, neither one can hold in the hermeneutic theory, there can't be anything purely objective free of interpretation on the one hand, nothing can stand by itself, on the other hand it can't be merely subjective either, because we don't just make it up. This is the important point, we don't make it up. It shapes us. This hermeneutical way of "seeing" is analogous to a lens. A lens is something that lets us see in a certain way. A lens is only an analogy it isn't something that you could take off. A lens is a way of seeing that influences the way the thing appears, just as a lens does. However, a lens is nothing apart from what is being seen, so even though a lens is some kind of mere subjective concoction the lens is a way of seeing things. A lens is not a body of beliefs that is just simply in our heads, it is a way of seeing. However, according to the theory of interpretation, using the analogy, there is no "lens less seeing." Different cultures might have different lenses of a kind, or different periods in history might have different lenses. And here is one of the important ideas which needs to be stressed, art is something that has to do with ways of seeing. Therefore, art can affect our lenses. Art can be a lens that opens up something that we otherwise might not have seen.

What I like about Gadamer's notion is that in the modern period, the idea of the objective world was just scientific fact and so on, and the subjective world was ethics, art, and values, and so art is just how the human mind can see a thing. Gadamer talks allot about the phrase "Medial Structure," which is one way of trying to get over the subject/object divide, which is talked about in modern thought like the mind on one side of the fence and everything else on the other side. The idea of a medial structure is whatever is going on in experience or in the act of reading or responding is medially structured, that is to say that you can't pinpoint the source or the core of the truth on one side of the fence or the other of the work no object/subject divide.

Well one of the things about hermeneutics is it doesn't want to play that game of in the mind or in reality. So art, especially when we talk about Greek tragedy and myth, we might think of art as one facet of culture among others. Alternatively, we might think of art as having a limited set of possibilities that it is meant to bring out. Heidegger wants to talk about art as world disclosive, not just merely subjective but is world disclosive. One of the problems is that because of the modern conception of art, it can sound too big and we don't know what we even mean by the word art in so many ways. There are so many complications about it to be understood. And the more we go back in time and listen to the vantage of the ancient material the more we are going to see that our concepts about art are maybe way too limited to express well, what was going on in Homer for example, what was going on in Greek tragedy. I think it is fair to say that those forms of art were world disclosive because they were "a way of seeing the world." They were not just entertaining stories. Not just stimulating stories, they were ways of seeing. Another way to put this is well it seems like a lens or something that would deny objectivity because it is always colored by us. The history of objectivity, what we mean by objectivity was a historical discovery, so, objectivity is a lens as well. Another words, the call to see the world objectively is another way of seeing or thinking and as you well know, objectivity is not usually the first thing that comes to mind, it has to be drilled in, coaxed, educated, disciplined. So, another words, to become objective is to discover another kind of lens.

You have to have responsiveness to the artwork, but for Gadamer, the question of, "what is art"? Art is a complex not an object, not a location. It is an interactive complex. What I find most intellectually satisfying about the hermeneutic circle is that whenever someone tries to pick a point, the artist, the work, the audience, and the art institutions you can point to each as interconnected not one anymore important than the other. Doesn't mean it is rigid, the very activity that is going on in this field is fluid. One of the aspects of hermeneutics is that things that are perceived as going out of bounds may in fact be creating new bounds.

I recommend this work for every thinking human; especially anyone interested in philosophy, epistemology, ontology, philosophy of art, art history, history, and the humanities. Get off the couch and read his book!!!

I hate to admit it...especially because all the other reviewers have raved about it...but I find Truth and Method to be a real slog. Yes -- there is some good stuff here. But be warned - you will really, really have to work to get through this book!

Now at this point you may be thinking "well, you are probably lazy or were unprepared." But the thing is - I was neither. I have read Being and Time (which I think is an easier - yes easier - book) and have done much prepatory work for T & M including Introduction to Philosophical Hermeneutics by Jean Grondin -- which I highly recommend).

This book is brilliant. But I think it is very interesting that all the reviewers have such high praise for a text that is so very difficult. Great ideas do not need to be inaccessible. Don't believe me? Look at Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche.....

I read this book for a graduate seminar on philosophy of art. Hans-Georg Gadamer's "magnum opus" "Truth and Method" is a seminal work not just for the field of the philosophy of art, but also for epistemology, ontology, teleology, history, and the social sciences. This book has caused me to "see" everything in a new philosophical light. When reading Gadamer, one instantly finds that he was influenced by Martin Heidegger, who he studied under, Hegel, and Aristotle. Hermeneutics is an interpretive methodology of a historically situated, linguistically mediated, contextualist and antifoundationalist theory of understanding. I know that is a mouthful, so the following will unpack this definition. The God Hermes is the source of the word "hermeneutics" Hermes the "messenger" was the go between the Gods and humans thus the word hermeneutics.

For Gadamer, interpretation is always connected with the "as," interpretation assumes that there are multiple ways or "lenses" with how we engage works. A different lens will produce a different way of seeing things. So, if our "as" is "cognitive knowledge" then we would approach a thing accordingly. If our "as" is "practical usefulness" then we approach it accordingly. For example, a botanist wants to understand what makes a tree a tree, a carpenter sees a tree as a source of lumber. Thus, hermeneutics is about the idea that there are many ways to interpret, which is why history is so important. It can also be present the world. Does historical inheritance allow for a blank slate? No, no divorce from what we are to be able approach a work in pure disinterestedness as Kant would have us do. No separate space in time. No pure present separated from the future. History doesn't tell us about the past, but about ourselves. Every present has sense of future, not just the past.

Gadamer's idea of interpretation, is to turn away from the idea of truth as a simple matter of fact, or certainty or a single principle. The idea of interpretation is that it is something that is "open." We use the word "interpret" that way when we say, "well how do you interpret that work"? This question means that there is not one way of reading the work. Unfortunately, though the difference between interpretation and fact is that a fact is not something open to interpretation, and therefore interpretation is seen as some kind of deficiency. It is seen as a lesser matter because it is open, and can't be secured by some kind of decisive result. A wide array of possibilities is what hermeneutics looks for; it is not just making it up. Hermeneutics does not mean one can't believe in objective truths; for example, there was a Civil War, it is a fact, what isn't a fact and has multiple truths and interpretations is what where the "causes" of the Civil War. Thus, hermeneutics for Gadamer doesn't mean that anything goes, it just means that there are multiple interpretations and possibilities when coming to terms with a text or artworks. The history of art is filled with different interpretations. There are multiple interpretations to many truths like in art.

An important feature of hermeneutic interpretation is that it emphasizes the historical circumstances of art and by historical, means not only what we said before about the piece. We would have to know what historical circumstances were, and what it was like for the work to be performed at that time, that is one thing. However, as a deeper sense of historicallity and that is to say, any approach to art always carries the art history with it. When we approach a work of art, before we even engage it we are already equipped with inheritances from our tradition and our culture that come to us by way of education and other kinds of influences. No engagement with a work of art is a blank slate we are not a tabula rasa. The word "Hermeneutics" equals "an interpretation." Hermeneutics talks about how we interpret a work of art. Hermeneutics is an interpretive circle. Hermeneutics believes that when we are making a statement we are trying to be either objective or subjective about art. Whether we are inside the work itself and what it might mean, or if we overemphasize the subject, the perception of it, and what's going on in the subject, that if we emphasize either side of that then we would be missing something more important. Thus, hermeneutics is circular. The separation between the work and the perception is broken there. There is an interconnection. One of the things about the hermeneutical approach is its meant to be an alternative to the subject-object division, which in modern thought sets the stage for how we talk about modern art in terms of art as being an object or art as referring to objects and then the subject and the subjects relation to the object. However, one of the things about Heidegger and Gadamer, is that they discounted this whole idea. In art theory, you would have this idea that the work that is standing before the subject and the subject comes across the work and the subject gets impressions from work. One of the things we have seen in the historical art world theory is which is sort of along the lines of hermeneutics that in a way Descartes wanted to put off the history of influences and get a start from scratch. That is sort of his position. Therefore, what the hermeneutics theory says is that can't be done. There is no start from scratch position. Historical influences are always shaping how we begin to see anything.

With respect to art theory now, it would be impossible to talk about coming across a work in some pure uninterpreted space, and that we start from the work and us and go from there. There are already operating influences in how we regard anything and art would be included in that. One of the ways to understand this is in child development. Every adult has been a child, and every child has been shaped by cultural influences through all sorts of ways, education, rearing, etc. So we sometimes forget about this because we are adults and no longer children, so we are on our own way so to speak. Every rearing of a child in terms of a certain set of historical influences or assumptions that the parents bring with them which they inherited from their parents and so on. In other words, any human self, will always be equipped with ways of seeing, and therefore there is no such thing as coming to see something as all by itself. However, as we'll also see, hermeneutic theory doesn't want to fall into the trap of saying "mere interpretation," because if it is mere interpretation it means there is something inadequate about it. If interpretation goes all the way down, then interpretation can't be deficient. It is simply a matter of getting clear what interpretations there are that shape us and being clearer about those. This doesn't mean that things can't change, it just means that whatever happens in human experience there is an already shaped factor to it. And because there is this already shaped factor that we did not produce ourselves, (since human child development has already been set), then it could be called mere interpretation in the sense that it is just an invention, an allusion, an appearance a relativism, that won't work either. Because, there is something about us being shaped by our culture that opens up our world for us, it is not just a matter of personal opinion.

Gadamer mentions history, thus the use of the historical artworld model is used by Gadamer, and brings in the notion of temporality, which means time. There obviously is a temporality in play, the game, the execution the time, the outcome. However, temporality for Gadamer is richer, a Heideggerian notion temporality is not just past present, and future, it is of fluid kind of circulation for people for selves who exist in time by experiencing these dimensions. It is impossible to live in the now. Because every sense of the present is formed by the past, if we didn't have a past there would be no shaping us to the point to the now, and every now is informed by the future. We have to live in the past and the future, everything we do is geared to the future. Past and future have a kind of openness to them. Heidegger's point is that idea of the abstractions of the past and the future as not now, and not yet now, or no longer now that very abstraction is created by an intellectual reflection that is not real. Therefore, any recollection is the present for the past. Thus, any anticipation is the present for the future, because you anticipate the future now, and you remember the past now. Thus, in a sense the past and the future are not abstractions that do not exist. There is a reality of the future and the past with anticipation and recollection. We all have various ways that the future is alive through anticipation and hope for example. The past is alive with things like nostalgia and regret. Temporality (time), is a circulation of these dimensions rather then three separate zones. Once that is done, the idea of history becomes a concrete temporality, history means what is the temporality of culture of people with actual means that occupy their lives, it is not just past, present, and future, its remembering the injustices of the past, to fix them in the future for example. Thus, history becomes an important temporality. It is filled with significance and meaningfulness rather than just the bare notions of the past. Because of Heidegger's open character of temporality in one sense the past is gone, but not totally gone, as we all know the past is something that can be revisited. The past is open to re-estimation; thus, structure of history is the same as temporality, it is open; thus, because of the open character it leads philosophers like Heidegger and Gadamer to say, that is why the idea of hermeneutics is interpretation and its model is open as well just like temporality. For instance, when we are trying to interpret and find meaning in something that is going on it is because we are presently trying to figure out what the hell happened in the past because of the future worries and consequences of what has happened. So we are inhabiting this circulation, and because the past is not like a objects that just stand there its open we can't really go back in time so we can only try to revision it, and the future is unknown and there is no way to be certain about what was said. It doesn't mean certain things can't be established, they can, but that doesn't end anything. No certainty however, the history of culture is therefore the history of temporal movement.

So, interpretation is not just simply opinion, interpretation refers to ways of seeing. Those ways of seeing are embedded in the world; they are not just subjective opinions. So, on the one hand we have the subject-object divide. The subjective is our opinions of the art, our impressions of it, neither one can hold in the hermeneutic theory, there can't be anything purely objective free of interpretation on the one hand, nothing can stand by itself, on the other hand it can't be merely subjective either, because we don't just make it up. This is the important point, we don't make it up. It shapes us. This hermeneutical way of "seeing" is analogous to a lens. A lens is something that lets us see in a certain way. A lens is only an analogy it isn't something that you could take off. A lens is a way of seeing that influences the way the thing appears, just as a lens does. However, a lens is nothing apart from what is being seen, so even though a lens is some kind of mere subjective concoction the lens is a way of seeing things. A lens is not a body of beliefs that is just simply in our heads, it is a way of seeing. However, according to the theory of interpretation, using the analogy, there is no "lens less seeing." Different cultures might have different lenses of a kind, or different periods in history might have different lenses. And here is one of the important ideas which needs to be stressed, art is something that has to do with ways of seeing. Therefore, art can affect our lenses. Art can be a lens that opens up something that we otherwise might not have seen.

What I like about Gadamer's notion is that in the modern period, the idea of the objective world was just scientific fact and so on, and the subjective world was ethics, art, and values, and so art is just how the human mind can see a thing. Gadamer talks allot about the phrase "Medial Structure," which is one way of trying to get over the subject/object divide, which is talked about in modern thought like the mind on one side of the fence and everything else on the other side. The idea of a medial structure is whatever is going on in experience or in the act of reading or responding is medially structured, that is to say that you can't pinpoint the source or the core of the truth on one side of the fence or the other of the work no object/subject divide.

Well one of the things about hermeneutics is it doesn't want to play that game of in the mind or in reality. So art, especially when we talk about Greek tragedy and myth, we might think of art as one facet of culture among others. Alternatively, we might think of art as having a limited set of possibilities that it is meant to bring out. Heidegger wants to talk about art as world disclosive, not just merely subjective but is world disclosive. One of the problems is that because of the modern conception of art, it can sound too big and we don't know what we even mean by the word art in so many ways. There are so many complications about it to be understood. And the more we go back in time and listen to the vantage of the ancient material the more we are going to see that our concepts about art are maybe way too limited to express well, what was going on in Homer for example, what was going on in Greek tragedy. I think it is fair to say that those forms of art were world disclosive because they were "a way of seeing the world." They were not just entertaining stories. Not just stimulating stories, they were ways of seeing. Another way to put this is well it seems like a lens or something that would deny objectivity because it is always colored by us. The history of objectivity, what we mean by objectivity was a historical discovery, so, objectivity is a lens as well. Another words, the call to see the world objectively is another way of seeing or thinking and as you well know, objectivity is not usually the first thing that comes to mind, it has to be drilled in, coaxed, educated, disciplined. So, another words, to become objective is to discover another kind of lens.

You have to have responsiveness to the artwork, but for Gadamer, the question of, "what is art"? Art is a complex not an object, not a location. It is an interactive complex. What I find most intellectually satisfying about the hermeneutic circle is that whenever someone tries to pick a point, the artist, the work, the audience, and the art institutions you can point to each as interconnected not one anymore important than the other. Doesn't mean it is rigid, the very activity that is going on in this field is fluid. One of the aspects of hermeneutics is that things that are perceived as going out of bounds may in fact be creating new bounds.

I recommend this work for every thinking human; especially anyone interested in philosophy, epistemology, ontology, philosophy of art, art history, history, and the humanities. Get off the couch and read his book!!!

Truth and method is a magnificent project about social sciences and it affected the social sciences deeply. After you read this Gadamer work it makes you feel that all beliefs about methodology of social sciences have to be reviewed again and we must repeat and repeat think about what really science is.And also we learn from this text that living is interpreting (hermeneutic).

I read this book for a graduate seminar on philosophy of art. Hans-Georg Gadamer's "magnum opus" "Truth and Method" is a seminal work not just for the field of the philosophy of art, but also for epistemology, ontology, teleology, history, and the social sciences. This book has caused me to "see" everything in a new philosophical light. When reading Gadamer, one instantly finds that he was influenced by Martin Heidegger, who he studied under, Hegel, and Aristotle. Hermeneutics is an interpretive methodology of a historically situated, linguistically mediated, contextualist and antifoundationalist theory of understanding. I know that is a mouthful, so the following will unpack this definition. The God Hermes is the source of the word "hermeneutics" Hermes the "messenger" was the go between the Gods and humans thus the word hermeneutics.

For Gadamer, interpretation is always connected with the "as," interpretation assumes that there are multiple ways or "lenses" with how we engage works. A different lens will produce a different way of seeing things. So, if our "as" is "cognitive knowledge" then we would approach a thing accordingly. If our "as" is "practical usefulness" then we approach it accordingly. For example, a botanist wants to understand what makes a tree a tree, a carpenter sees a tree as a source of lumber. Thus, hermeneutics is about the idea that there are many ways to interpret, which is why history is so important. It can also be present the world. Does historical inheritance allow for a blank slate? No, no divorce from what we are to be able approach a work in pure disinterestedness as Kant would have us do. No separate space in time. No pure present separated from the future. History doesn't tell us about the past, but about ourselves. Every present has sense of future, not just the past.

Gadamer's idea of interpretation, is to turn away from the idea of truth as a simple matter of fact, or certainty or a single principle. The idea of interpretation is that it is something that is "open." We use the word "interpret" that way when we say, "well how do you interpret that work"? This question means that there is not one way of reading the work. Unfortunately, though the difference between interpretation and fact is that a fact is not something open to interpretation, and therefore interpretation is seen as some kind of deficiency. It is seen as a lesser matter because it is open, and can't be secured by some kind of decisive result. A wide array of possibilities is what hermeneutics looks for; it is not just making it up. Hermeneutics does not mean one can't believe in objective truths; for example, there was a Civil War, it is a fact, what isn't a fact and has multiple truths and interpretations is what where the "causes" of the Civil War. Thus, hermeneutics for Gadamer doesn't mean that anything goes, it just means that there are multiple interpretations and possibilities when coming to terms with a text or artworks. The history of art is filled with different interpretations. There are multiple interpretations to many truths like in art.

An important feature of hermeneutic interpretation is that it emphasizes the historical circumstances of art and by historical, means not only what we said before about the piece. We would have to know what historical circumstances were, and what it was like for the work to be performed at that time, that is one thing. However, as a deeper sense of historicallity and that is to say, any approach to art always carries the art history with it. When we approach a work of art, before we even engage it we are already equipped with inheritances from our tradition and our culture that come to us by way of education and other kinds of influences. No engagement with a work of art is a blank slate we are not a tabula rasa. The word "Hermeneutics" equals "an interpretation." Hermeneutics talks about how we interpret a work of art. Hermeneutics is an interpretive circle. Hermeneutics believes that when we are making a statement we are trying to be either objective or subjective about art. Whether we are inside the work itself and what it might mean, or if we overemphasize the subject, the perception of it, and what's going on in the subject, that if we emphasize either side of that then we would be missing something more important. Thus, hermeneutics is circular. The separation between the work and the perception is broken there. There is an interconnection. One of the things about the hermeneutical approach is its meant to be an alternative to the subject-object division, which in modern thought sets the stage for how we talk about modern art in terms of art as being an object or art as referring to objects and then the subject and the subjects relation to the object. However, one of the things about Heidegger and Gadamer, is that they discounted this whole idea. In art theory, you would have this idea that the work that is standing before the subject and the subject comes across the work and the subject gets impressions from work. One of the things we have seen in the historical art world theory is which is sort of along the lines of hermeneutics that in a way Descartes wanted to put off the history of influences and get a start from scratch. That is sort of his position. Therefore, what the hermeneutics theory says is that can't be done. There is no start from scratch position. Historical influences are always shaping how we begin to see anything.

With respect to art theory now, it would be impossible to talk about coming across a work in some pure uninterpreted space, and that we start from the work and us and go from there. There are already operating influences in how we regard anything and art would be included in that. One of the ways to understand this is in child development. Every adult has been a child, and every child has been shaped by cultural influences through all sorts of ways, education, rearing, etc. So we sometimes forget about this because we are adults and no longer children, so we are on our own way so to speak. Every rearing of a child in terms of a certain set of historical influences or assumptions that the parents bring with them which they inherited from their parents and so on. In other words, any human self, will always be equipped with ways of seeing, and therefore there is no such thing as coming to see something as all by itself. However, as we'll also see, hermeneutic theory doesn't want to fall into the trap of saying "mere interpretation," because if it is mere interpretation it means there is something inadequate about it. If interpretation goes all the way down, then interpretation can't be deficient. It is simply a matter of getting clear what interpretations there are that shape us and being clearer about those. This doesn't mean that things can't change, it just means that whatever happens in human experience there is an already shaped factor to it. And because there is this already shaped factor that we did not produce ourselves, (since human child development has already been set), then it could be called mere interpretation in the sense that it is just an invention, an allusion, an appearance a relativism, that won't work either. Because, there is something about us being shaped by our culture that opens up our world for us, it is not just a matter of personal opinion.

Gadamer mentions history, thus the use of the historical artworld model is used by Gadamer, and brings in the notion of temporality, which means time. There obviously is a temporality in play, the game, the execution the time, the outcome. However, temporality for Gadamer is richer, a Heideggerian notion temporality is not just past present, and future, it is of fluid kind of circulation for people for selves who exist in time by experiencing these dimensions. It is impossible to live in the now. Because every sense of the present is formed by the past, if we didn't have a past there would be no shaping us to the point to the now, and every now is informed by the future. We have to live in the past and the future, everything we do is geared to the future. Past and future have a kind of openness to them. Heidegger's point is that idea of the abstractions of the past and the future as not now, and not yet now, or no longer now that very abstraction is created by an intellectual reflection that is not real. Therefore, any recollection is the present for the past. Thus, any anticipation is the present for the future, because you anticipate the future now, and you remember the past now. Thus, in a sense the past and the future are not abstractions that do not exist. There is a reality of the future and the past with anticipation and recollection. We all have various ways that the future is alive through anticipation and hope for example. The past is alive with things like nostalgia and regret. Temporality (time), is a circulation of these dimensions rather then three separate zones. Once that is done, the idea of history becomes a concrete temporality, history means what is the temporality of culture of people with actual means that occupy their lives, it is not just past, present, and future, its remembering the injustices of the past, to fix them in the future for example. Thus, history becomes an important temporality. It is filled with significance and meaningfulness rather than just the bare notions of the past. Because of Heidegger's open character of temporality in one sense the past is gone, but not totally gone, as we all know the past is something that can be revisited. The past is open to re-estimation; thus, structure of history is the same as temporality, it is open; thus, because of the open character it leads philosophers like Heidegger and Gadamer to say, that is why the idea of hermeneutics is interpretation and its model is open as well just like temporality. For instance, when we are trying to interpret and find meaning in something that is going on it is because we are presently trying to figure out what the hell happened in the past because of the future worries and consequences of what has happened. So we are inhabiting this circulation, and because the past is not like a objects that just stand there its open we can't really go back in time so we can only try to revision it, and the future is unknown and there is no way to be certain about what was said. It doesn't mean certain things can't be established, they can, but that doesn't end anything. No certainty however, the history of culture is therefore the history of temporal movement.

So, interpretation is not just simply opinion, interpretation refers to ways of seeing. Those ways of seeing are embedded in the world; they are not just subjective opinions. So, on the one hand we have the subject-object divide. The subjective is our opinions of the art, our impressions of it, neither one can hold in the hermeneutic theory, there can't be anything purely objective free of interpretation on the one hand, nothing can stand by itself, on the other hand it can't be merely subjective either, because we don't just make it up. This is the important point, we don't make it up. It shapes us. This hermeneutical way of "seeing" is analogous to a lens. A lens is something that lets us see in a certain way. A lens is only an analogy it isn't something that you could take off. A lens is a way of seeing that influences the way the thing appears, just as a lens does. However, a lens is nothing apart from what is being seen, so even though a lens is some kind of mere subjective concoction the lens is a way of seeing things. A lens is not a body of beliefs that is just simply in our heads, it is a way of seeing. However, according to the theory of interpretation, using the analogy, there is no "lens less seeing." Different cultures might have different lenses of a kind, or different periods in history might have different lenses. And here is one of the important ideas which needs to be stressed, art is something that has to do with ways of seeing. Therefore, art can affect our lenses. Art can be a lens that opens up something that we otherwise might not have seen.

What I like about Gadamer's notion is that in the modern period, the idea of the objective world was just scientific fact and so on, and the subjective world was ethics, art, and values, and so art is just how the human mind can see a thing. Gadamer talks allot about the phrase "Medial Structure," which is one way of trying to get over the subject/object divide, which is talked about in modern thought like the mind on one side of the fence and everything else on the other side. The idea of a medial structure is whatever is going on in experience or in the act of reading or responding is medially structured, that is to say that you can't pinpoint the source or the core of the truth on one side of the fence or the other of the work no object/subject divide.

Well one of the things about hermeneutics is it doesn't want to play that game of in the mind or in reality. So art, especially when we talk about Greek tragedy and myth, we might think of art as one facet of culture among others. Alternatively, we might think of art as having a limited set of possibilities that it is meant to bring out. Heidegger wants to talk about art as world disclosive, not just merely subjective but is world disclosive. One of the problems is that because of the modern conception of art, it can sound too big and we don't know what we even mean by the word art in so many ways. There are so many complications about it to be understood. And the more we go back in time and listen to the vantage of the ancient material the more we are going to see that our concepts about art are maybe way too limited to express well, what was going on in Homer for example, what was going on in Greek tragedy. I think it is fair to say that those forms of art were world disclosive because they were "a way of seeing the world." They were not just entertaining stories. Not just stimulating stories, they were ways of seeing. Another way to put this is well it seems like a lens or something that would deny objectivity because it is always colored by us. The history of objectivity, what we mean by objectivity was a historical discovery, so, objectivity is a lens as well. Another words, the call to see the world objectively is another way of seeing or thinking and as you well know, objectivity is not usually the first thing that comes to mind, it has to be drilled in, coaxed, educated, disciplined. So, another words, to become objective is to discover another kind of lens.

You have to have responsiveness to the artwork, but for Gadamer, the question of, "what is art"? Art is a complex not an object, not a location. It is an interactive complex. What I find most intellectually satisfying about the hermeneutic circle is that whenever someone tries to pick a point, the artist, the work, the audience, and the art institutions you can point to each as interconnected not one anymore important than the other. Doesn't mean it is rigid, the very activity that is going on in this field is fluid. One of the aspects of hermeneutics is that things that are perceived as going out of bounds may in fact be creating new bounds.

I recommend this work for every thinking human; especially anyone interested in philosophy, epistemology, ontology, philosophy of art, art history, history, and the humanities. Get off the couch and read his book!!!

This book is good for those who study philosophy and theory, but it is a difficult read. The theory of interpretation is a difficult topic and this book does shed some light on it. I recommend this book highly for someone researching interpretation.