What is hermeneutics and what is it for?

Hermeneutics is one of those complex concepts that you need to stop and examine carefully, not just because their meaning has varied over the centuries, but also because they represent the basis of our experience vital.

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, we interpret and acquire a series of ideas that, in turn, will configure the base of our personality and our relationship with the world, we are applying this method so studied and dissected by philosophers of all ages. time.

But... What, exactly, is hermeneutics? Can we reduce this bombastic and, a priori, so strange concept to an understandable definition applicable to our daily lives? Let's see it next.

• Related article: "The 8 branches of the Humanities (and what each of them studies)"

What is hermeneutics?

Etymologically, the word hermeneutics comes from the Greek hermeneia, which literally means translation, interpretation.

Originally, hermeneutics was understood as the interpretation of sacred texts., like the myths and oracles of ancient Greece and, especially, it 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 character. But it is the 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 not a few philosophers and thinkers who have considered hermeneutics as a method that is almost impossible. Let's see why.

Hermeneutics and prejudices

For the hermeneutic process to be correct, the interpretation of the source in question must be limited to the historical and social context in which it was produced. The philosophers who, throughout the centuries, have been faced with this type of process, have not concealed the difficulty involved in this task, since the meaning of a source is multiple and heterogeneous. In other words; the interpreter is not blank slate and, being imbued with his own ideas, values ​​and prejudices, its interpretation cannot contain the necessary objectivity to be able to extract the true meaning of the source, the one with which it was originally made.

But let's dwell on 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 come to determine a preconceived idea that, above all, is dogmatic, harmful. But the origin of the word is very different. "Prejudice" simply means "before judgment", without judging whether this bias is positive or negative. A prejudice is, then, an idea that a 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 prejudices" for his defense of them as something inseparable from human nature, which did not have to be, moreover, something pejorative. That's how it is; As we have already commented, a prejudice is simply a previous idea resulting from past experiences.

And, in reality, we all have prejudices. It is something inherent to the human being; As we grow, we are acquiring a series of experiences, which form the basis with which we interpret the world. It is impossible to totally dissociate oneself from these experiences, because they are precisely the ones that form as we are, so that, effectively, we are all molded with the clay of the 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 whose objective is a greater adaptation to the environment, since automatic responses to certain stimuli are created that, ultimately, save time and energy. All this process is part of our nature and it is absolutely impossible to disassociate ourselves from it. However, this natural process can represent a pothole 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 no. 3, it will not be necessary to take the bus guide of our city every day to confirm that, indeed, the bus stops at stop 3. Our experience already tells us which is the place in question, and that is where we will go every morning. This, although we do not believe it, is a prejudice. Our mind has not had any need to think and reflect; assumes a reality based on experience.

Now, if one morning we arrive at stop 3 and see a sign that says: "Today the X line bus it will stop at stop 5”, our brain will have to make an extra effort and adapt to this new reality. And, probably, the next day we will no longer go to stop 3 by inertia, but we will take the guide and we will see if the bus continues to stop at 5 or if, on the contrary, it returns to its stop origin.

In this simple way we understand what the "hermeneutic circle" is or, in other words, how we respond to a stimulus, be it textual, visual or auditory. We will see it in more detail in the next section.

• You may be interested in: "How are Psychology and Philosophy alike?"

The “hermeneutical circle”

This is the name given to this comprehension process, which we all do unconsciously in our day to day. 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 verified, 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 limitless, infinite; there will always be a new interpretation, depending on the interpreter and/or the moment in which he is confronted with 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 of the previous section, we can say that, when we go to stop 3, we are considering that, indeed, the bus is going to stop at that stop and not at another.

Let us now take another example. 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 probable, 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 went to wash up and spend leisure time. And b) that the Middle Ages meant, among other things, the birth of universities and scholasticism, important current of thought that tried, among other things, to access the divine message through reason human. And here we come to 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 base, with which we will face, the next day, reading a new book. And this is the final point and, at the same time, the initial point of the circle. When we open this second book, the hypothesis with which we begin the comprehension process will be the second of the first process. And so on, over and over again.

That is why the hermeneutic circle has no end. We are constantly experimenting; that is, setting and breaking hypotheses, so it is impossible to reach the end of the process. Therefore, the experience is not a culmination, but 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.

• Related article: "What is Cultural Psychology?"

Is hermeneutics then viable?

At this point, we can ask ourselves if hermeneutics really involves real knowledge of the sources of information. As we have already commented previously, philosophers have raised this question throughout the centuries; Martin Heidegger, for example, held that the correct interpretation of the source must be freed from the limitations of previous mental habits (ie, prejudices). But is this possible, since we are beings shaped by a multitude of prejudices, acquired by life experience?

These "mental habits" of which Heidegger speaks have enjoyed different considerations depending on the historical moment. For example, during the Enlightenment, the "tradition" (that is, the prejudices inherited from our parents and from the society in which we developed) came to be considered as an element that "got in the way" when it comes to understanding a source of information. information. The illustrated ones tried to conquer an individual thought, free of prejudices, the result of individual reasoning and away from any external influence. But, we repeat, is that possible, considering that the human being builds his personality and his being based on a series of preconceived ideas? Is absolutely autonomous reasoning really viable?

In Romanticism, the philosophical and artistic current that arose, in part, as a response to that Previous illustration, the "tradition" again acquires a relevant status when it comes to issuing conclusions. If that tradition, if those prejudices have been maintained for centuries, and have been transmitted from father to son, it is because they keep a truth within them. But, either way, the question remains the same. Regardless of whether or not the tradition is valid, is it feasible to disassociate yourself 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 The interpreter, as a subject, is linked to a series of preconceived ideas from which he cannot free himself, since if he did, he would cease to be that person. subject. 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 more objectively.

In matters of philosophy and thought, there are no blacks or whites. Let everyone draw their own conclusions. And remember: the conclusions you draw today will probably be your prejudices tomorrow. And so on, in an endless circle.