Ne Hans-Georg Gadamer TRUTH METHOD Second, Revised Edition Translation revised by Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall aay ‘CONTINUUM * NEW YORK1904 ‘The Contam Publishing Co 370 Lexington Area, NewYork RY 10017 ss alco copyih 1975 by Seed and Ward La tr eo See tg apa ly published Wari wad Method, HEC R ob Plt Teg 198) ed Eapllanguge ction Sse onthe vied nd expanded sd Gemaneds Co fete ot EGHMohr Pa Shed Tabgen 8, ‘Mga rsened Nope bony tee, soto cil stat at cg owas Sia ney Seinen rntedin be United States of Ameria ‘rary of Congress Cataloging in-Pblcation Data (Gade, Hans Gen, 1900- [Wiehe ond Mebode Hag “Trach an bod ars Georg Gadamer Rey ed. /rvsone ‘sami Joel Wenner abd Donal Maral ‘ssltin of Wabbit und Method, Biography Inder BDESiGSIE 1998 iiss 89666 ‘ar ea i ow ni Eerie ners tomas yur cs a ach Se ne ea fon ee tees tee ae eee ree ee iis264 Overcoming the Epistemological Problem the ac ising eanscended all eileen and bene ased on conten [Whether fllled rien all ideals rekindle the question of “being” is another mater. Hence we too are begianing cance of Heidegpets problematic the transcendental sgnif- ‘The problem of heemenei- tics becomes universal in scope, even ataning a new dimension, through his transcendental interpretation of understanding. The interpre’ Belonging t his objec, wich the historical School tran nahle co offer any convincing account of, now” acquis = feance, and iris the tack of herme: at the stractreof Dasein i throw eing Desin fs understand: fc of understanding inthe human 'Econcreized in itstrial understanding, in that the concrete bonds of custom 4nd mation and the corresponding poses of ones own free ln ander al. Das has pr Speen This isthe meaning ofthe existential of “thrownness” ‘The main point ofthe hermeneits of factiiy and is contest withthe eranssendental conseaion research of Huss’ pe romenology was that no fly chose ration toward one's om iin cam get behind the factcy of this being Everything that takes possible and limi Dasch’s projeetioninelutably pre ds it This exsendal srucure of Dasein must be expressed the understanding of historical teadtion a3 wal, snd 30 we wil overt demonsrbl projection, that in realizing is own Ing, must also be true of sciences. The general structure of understanding start by following Heidegger." [Se thetic of Elo Bei in “Hemenatic and Historic” ‘been RCE Append below. Elements of a Theory of Hermeneutic Experience 1 THE ELEVATION OF THE HISTORICITY OF UNDERSTANDING TO THE STATUS ‘OF A HERMENEUTIC PRINCIPLE (U0 THE HERMENEUTIC CIRCLE AND THE PROBLEM OF FREJUDICES (Heidegger's Disclosure ofthe Fore Structure of Understanding Heidegger entered into the problems of historical hermeneutics and critique only in order 0 explicate the fore-sructure of une "derstanding for the purposes of ontology. Our question, by. ‘ontrast is how hermeneutics, once freed from the ontological " obstactions of the scientific concepe of objectivity, can do justice “to the historiiy of understanding, Hermeneutics has tradition: ally understood itself as an art or technique." This is true even, 3fDilthey’s expansion of hermeneutics into an organon of the Sieg Se pd Zs p31 “SHicichers Heats, Heng Kimmel in Abendingen Hasler Nkadeni (359, 208 Abbonung, wach ey co See a ee ea Teyond nature and cee Sit IP Bee above pe 174)266 The Elevation of the Historcity of Understanding human sciences. One might wonder whither ther js sich an at Or technique of understanding—we shal come back to the point Bor ar any rate we can mgute into the consequences forthe bet: rmeneutes of the human scence ofthe fact Bhat Heidegae de ‘ives the circular structure of understanding from the temporal of Dasein, These consequences do not need to be such that 2 theory is aplied to practice o that dhe Later performed difer Enth-ier na way that technically comet. They could also ome in correcting (and refining) the way in which constantly ‘SKercbed unertanding understands fella proces shat would ‘Senet the art of understanding at most only indirect Tlence we will once more examine Hieepaer' description of the herein cay new fanaa sieifcance full for our purposes, Heidegger wie, “Tes ot tebe ced tothe level ofa vicious el; or even ofa cice Sthch ie mere colerae the sles hrdden pose pos Sblity ofthe mos primordial kind of knowing, and swe geu- italy raup thi posty only when we have sinderstood tha turfs asp and constant task in interpreting i never to allow fur forchaving foresight, ad foreconespion to be presented {o us by fancies and popular conceptions, but rather to make te Scion theme secure by working out these forestretures ia teim ofthe shingethemseves” (Being nd Time, p. 183) "What Heidegger is working out here is noc prvaily a pre scription forthe practice of understanding, but description of the way inerpretve understanding achieved. The pont of Fe tkggers hermoncaical rections not s0 mach to prove thst thee isa ce as to show chat this cele possesses an ontoog? tilly postive significance. The description as such will be obviows to every interpreter who knows what be is about.” Al correct, ineerpreration must be on guard against arbitrary fancies and he limitations imposed by imperceptible habits of thought, and it ©, Bail Sages devotion which asd with that of Heider ie Sau ar Interpretation p. I1. 1 So noe, however, saree that he woe FS Iter crite bape ony hen we rea he sac of contemporary feade" Ths i vometing we novr ot andy we ate espa of een lee aihough we can nets score a def Spenooa or eporl seat” = trek the autor: Ck also Appendix TV blow: [Se alee my" Zikel Venwches ‘jecton asc tom & Tope poi ew api a of the “herent ‘SRD sto engnoe tar the concept male no esi tosses pool {Ec presen» lek meager, kaon Yo tocar eer set Sclsemacer Fight oproed to tr mumsceandne Kae Ovo Ape Transformation {Er Phibsaphe 2 vols Eek 1973) 85, 89,216 and pen) line Series S461 (GW, Ie 57-48) tod te cm of W. Steger, Der sogenente Zr des Vorehons (Deets 197) Te | The Elevation of the Historicity of Understanding 267 smust direct ts gaze “on the things themselves” (which, in the Case ofthe literary exit, are meaning texts which themselves $e again concemed with objees). For the interpreter to let hi Set be guided bythe thing hencles obviously not 4 mater Of Sle, omen” deco, bt “he Biya tonstant ask" For is necessary to keep one’s ze Ried oh the thing throughout all the constant intracuons that onginate ra the tnerpreter hinsell A person who is tying to undead tex always projecting le projects 2 meaning for the text as whole as soon a some il tesning emerges ine text Asi the initial meaning emerges only because he i reading the tne {eth parler expecatons i regard 10 a certain meaning, Wovking out he re progcin, whch const rere terms of what emerges ashe penetrates Into the meaning suit Erseanding what isthere. * F "This desepoion of coun, a rough abbreviation ofthe whole The proces that Heidegger describes i that every revision ofthe foreprojection is capable of projecting before toca new pojee | ton of meaning; sval projec can ernerge sie by side teh Becomes clearer what the unity of meaning interpretation be fis with fore concpions that ae replace by more stable on Fis “onsape pogo sem oon coe he move ment of understanding and interpretation, A person who fey to undestand is exposed to disteacton font fore meanings that ate not borne out by the dings themselves. Working out appeo™ [ate projections, anepatory in nature, to be confirmed "hy the | things? hemselves nthe costae task of andersanding The nly “objective” here isthe confirmation of a forementing in | its being worked out. Indeed, what characterizes the arbitrariness srccary rai ote ome ma re aa any alee lle Set Ca teers se sr SRR ne Sgn go eo268 The Elevation ofthe Historicity of Understanding ‘ment can be fulled. Especially inthe field of semantics we are Confronted with the problem that our own use of language is Snconcous How d0 we dicover dat thee ference be ‘pvoen ou own customary usage and that of the text T think we must say that generally we do so in the experience ‘of being pulled up short by the text. Either it does nes yield any meaning at all or ity meaning is not compatible with what we hnad expected, This is what brings us up short and alerts us co a possible difference in usage. Someone Who speaks the same lan- [guage as Ido uses the words inthe sense familiar to me—this is general presupposition that can be questioned only in particular ses, The same ding is truc in che case ofa forcign language: ‘we all think we have a standard knowledge of ie and assume this Standad usage when we are reading a text ‘What is trite of fore meanings that stem from usage, however, is equally rue of the fore meanings concerning content with which wwe fead texts, and which make up our fore-understanding. Here too we may ask how awe can break the spell of our own fore ‘meanings. There can, of course, be @ general expectation that ‘what the text says wil ft perfectly with my own meanings and ‘expectations. But what another person tlls me, whether in con Yetsation, lewer, book, or whatever, is generally supposed to be his own and not my opinions and chis is what I am to take note (of without necessarily having to share it. Yet this presupposition fs not something, thar makes understanding easier, but harder, since the fore-meaaings that determine my own understanding ‘can go entirely unnoticed. If chey give rise to misunderstandings, fow can our misunderstandingy of text be perceived at all i {Ben mig oer ce? How can a ext be poet ans misunderstanding fom the sta? if we examine de situation more closely, however, we find that seaming cannot e understood in an arbitrary way. fst 38 we Siero miundeand te me a word on ttfectng the meaning ofthe whole, so we cannot auc blindly to oui ow foremenning about the thing if we want to understand the meaning of another, Ofcourse ths doesnot mean that wha wwe lien to someone or read a book we must forget ll our fore Iheanings sonoerning the concent snd ll os own ideas. Al that ‘Bssked is that we remain open t the meaning ofthe eter et son or text. But this openness always includes our situating the ‘ther meaning in relation to the whole of our own meanings or furselves in elation to it. Now, the fact is that meanings repre fent 2 uid muldplicty of possibilities (in comparison tothe ‘agreement presented by a language and a vocabulary), but within ‘The Elevation of the Historicty of Understanding 269 this multiplicity of what can be thought—ie of what a reader can find meaningful and hence expect to find—not everything is possible; and if a person fails to hear what the other person is realy saying, he wll not beable to fit what he has misunderstood into the range of his own various expectations of meaning, Thus there is a exterion here also. The hermeneutical task becomes of itself a questioning of things and is always in part so defined. This places hermeneutical work on a firm basis. A person tying to understand something will not resign himself from the sear © relying on his own accidental fore-mesnings, ignoring a consis tently and stubbomly as possible the actual meaning of the text antl the latter becomes 50 petsistently audible that it breaks through what the interpreter imagines it co be. Rather, a person teying to understand 2'text is prepared for it to tll him some thing. That is why a hermeneuticaly trined consciousness must be, from the start, sensitive o the texts alterity, But this kind of sensitivity involves neither “neutrality” with respect to content nor the extinction of one's self, but the foregrounding and appro iation of one’s own fore-meanings and prejudices, The impor- thing is to be aware of one’s own bias, so that the text can present itself in all its otherness and thus assert ils own truth Seainst one's own fore-meanings. ‘When Heidegger disclosed the fore-structure of understanding in what i considered merely “reading what is there,” this was ‘completely correct phenomenological description. He also exer plified the ask cht follows from ths. In Betng and Time he gave the general hermeneutical problem a concrete form in the ques= tion of being." In order to explain the hermeneutical situation ‘of che question of being in terms of fore-having, foresight, and fore-conception, he critically tested his question, directed at me- ‘aphysics, on important turning points in the history of meta physics. Here he was only doing what historil-hermeneutical ‘consciousness requires in every ease. Methodologically conscious inderstanding will be concerned not merely to form anticipatory ‘des, but to make them conscious, s0 as to check themn and thus ‘acquire right understanding from the things themselves, This is what Heidegger means when he talks about making our scientific = theme “secure” by deriving our fore-having, foresight and fore conception from the things themselves, Tis nor at all a matter of securing ourselves agains the tradi | sion that speaks out of the text then, but, on the contrary, of | excluding everything that could hinder us from understanding it "Son und Zapp. 312270 The Flevation of the Historicity of Understanding in terms ofthe subject mater. Ti the tyranny of hidden prea cS ht as de hae speak own aon He degge's demonstration that the coneept of eonsciousnes in Des Estes and of spin Hepel il influenced by Greek substance tology which ses beng inter of what presen, undone aly supanes the seleunderstanding of modera metaphysics, yet, fot in an arbitrary, wilful way, but on the basis ofa “Tore-hav Ing that infact makes this tration fvligible by reveling che flog premises of the concep of sabjecivity, On the hee fad, Haaser discovers in Kans entigue of "dogmatic me- tapiyscs theta of metaphysics of iaiide which i 9 cha Icha ts hs own ontological scheme. Thus he “secures” the sc Cnt theme by framing i within she understanding of adition Sd so puting ina sense, a rk, All ofthis a coneretiation afi tional anon ted dean ‘The recognition that al undestanding incisal voles some prejudice gies the heriencutialprblecy steal thst. Tn ht BF tus ge ie appens that Pistorcom, despite critique of ‘utinalon and of raturl lw philosophy, 1s based on the mod- fon Enlightenment amd sorting shares ts prejaies. And thee one prejudice ofthe Enlightenment that defines it essence: the Faron pce ofthe Enligenmen the psadce agaist Desudier Wel, Which denies tration is power. ‘The history of ides shows tha not ntl the Eelightenment does the concept of preudice acquite the negative connotation famfiar today, Actually “prejudice” means judgment tats fede fre th ont ta mie tain are en finaly examined, n German legal terminology "preh: ES ie prontioa gal edt belore he Boal vera reached For someone invelved ins legal pst, ths Lind of judgment Zins hin affects his chances adversely. Accordingly, the French Peoucce, 24 well ag the Lan pracjodiiom, means simply “ad ie ec” “aadeantge” “harm.” Ba ths negative sense is nly deestive, The negative consequence depends precisely on {He postive validity, the value of te provisional decison as Driedancn, ike ar of any precedene “This “prejudice” cetaly does not neossaily mean a fale jndgment bt part ofthe desi tha ican have ether a positive eis negadve fluc, This is ceaty due tothe influence of the acin'pesjudiium, There are such tings as préjueslepines. ‘Ths sem a long way ffom our eurent use ofthe word. The German Vorurely ike the English “prcjdice™ and even more than the French preg, seems to have Bee limited in is mean ihe by the Enlghenmenecoique of religion simply tthe ens ‘The Elevation of the Histoicity of Understanding 271 of an “unfounded judgment” The only thing tha gives @ Judgment dignity ists having a basi a methodological js $n land notte lat that may acl he cove). For the Enlightenment the absence of such a bass dass et mes hat there might be other kinds of cersoty, but rates tat the ode ten has no foundation inthe tins thamsclves nes tha fos infounded” This contusion follows only i the apt et tase nals, I the reason for discrediting pojies ad the reson ‘Set knowledge cans to exclude them complete In adopting thi prince, modern scence folowing the rule of Caresan doubt accepsng nosing ascertain tat can ty vray be doubted, and adopatg the fle of method that fellows itor this ale In or intadactory observations we have red) pointed out how dtical sto harmonive the hacia know Ege that helpr co shape our Ristori conciousness wi sas lel and how difiute i mor thar reason, to comprehend fe tise nature on the bass of the modern concepson Of method This isthe place torr those negative statement nto Poste ones, The concept of "prejudice" where We can sat. (i The Diserediting of Prejudice by the Enlightenment If we conser the Eolightenment doctrine of prejudice, we find that it makes the following division: we mast make a base dis: tinction between the prejudice due to human authority and shat die o overhasines™ Thi distinction is based on the origin of Boudica the peaons who have them. Ee the respect we efor others and thir authority leads us into error, oF ee an ovethastiness in ourselves. That authority s 4 source of prc dices accords withthe wellenown principle ofthe Enlightenment that Kant formulated: Have the courage to make use of yout oun understanding.”" Although this distinction is certainly not limited tothe role that prejudices play in understanding texts 3 chief application i sil in the sphere of hermeneuts, for En "Ct, Leo Sra, Di Relioni pioan p 163: “The wd re dee he mon oie expen forte pats ft Eager oe tae or ee, uname verity he Vout the eneege po {tka cole of he ney astiguoe werd eden. "Syston acta ot preepiaaze whith fd at xy 2¢ Chi ten Thomas Letom de rates 168900) alk Boag Vor fee che 35 Sa Cl th aren Waly Poop atom (fhe p. 29a AL begining is ey, What alignment” (1784),272 The Elevation ofthe Historcity of Understanding lighreament eitgue is primarily directed agains he reins r= dk of Chrstansy-ie, the Bible By treating the BM as fnstorial document, biblical erick endangers i own Jog: ‘atc claims: This the real cadicality of the moder Ealihten- mene compared to all ober movements of enlightenment mus Sovertfac against the Bible and dogmatie inwepretation of it's therefore pardculacy concerned with the hermeneutical Problem. Te wants to understand tradition eonecly—i sation Uy and witout prejudice, But thre special ify about Hers eee doy ‘quality of something that can be demonstrated and slike a proof FRreguies a special ccl effort to free oneself fom the reje on favor 9 ‘enen down and to distinguish hee abo Bo aan nh ce ofl aero ert on nd 'cuth." In general, the Enlightenment tends to accept no Suthority and to decide everything belore the judgment seat of feason, Thus the waiten teadtion of Scripare, like any other Fistorical docament, cam claim no absolute validity; the possible dice favor of what truth of the tradition depends on the credibility that reason ac Cord it Its not cradiion but reason that constitutes the ulimate Source of all authority. What is written down is nor necesanly frue, We can know better: hiss the maxi with which the mod fn Enlghenment approaches madiion and which ual eds ‘Feo underake sonal esearch takes radon san oe ies of entigue ost as the naar sciences do withthe evidence Fest senses is dows not necessary mean thatthe “pret Stuns prejodces” was everywhere taken to the extemes of et thinking and atheism, asin England and France. On the contr the German Enlightenment recognized the “true prejudices othe elghemen: ofthe casi wodld the fut of which was Ge | phon atl clinton sn spl, wae gute dierent sn sue tol @ Rove atte inter ike Po fos pocpbial mye to eomey As Recto ant the deca eed plowing. CE Esch el ‘ebsophisce Etewnas nd gue Walther land ay eve rei Tologucbe Rapchan{19S0) pp. 380-5, Kod see ees Cae haga Reopen Ei ued Ledoschaf ed dy 1951), "SA poo example oh te Teng of se has eaken fr she aati Saint clastic sacra Sain e chastise earns Sanh Cosentino sel wha we aid sboutSpnot’s Theological Pola Tete, pp SE a Srcve andthe reseed ne sores hae eal on Tae anaacd ane Er’s “Chitantuche Sons ‘The Blevation of the Historicity of Understanding 273 ‘deste wish te prec, te obey da he crc of te Eager Sia | fact. True prejudices must still finally be justified by rational knowledge, eventhough the task can never be ly corploc Thus the ceria of the modern Falighenment sf deerae the self understanding of hstricum. They do so not ec bee | through a curious refraction caused by romanticism. This can be scot pareaar ary nthe inlet eee ae isohy of ory sat rmantsn dae wate Sa Bet and that peel cough ec romance Itheamen blame a oboe pense en Saga mythos by logon, What gc th soe eves [isthe presupposition of the progr 4 p essive retreat of magic im the [world eis supposed to represent progress inthe history ofthe Bind, and precselybecane romantics diparages es dese paca, takes ove te schema yell ss $e etc shares the presupposition ofthe Enlightenment al only rveraee fs values, Seeking to entabsh the validy of what sad Spy anh fac ha ii oll ee ot” Mie Ren, th Chota ut also the simply of peasant le and closeness to nang ta contrast co the Enlightenment faith in perecion, which thinks in terms of complete reson from “aupetton anit | fesadices of the past, we now Rnd that olden times—the world of myth, unreflective life, not yet analyzed away by conscious- Sal thse acquire a romante maps even peer ate “ants ™ Reversing the Enlightenment procppostien ales AS paradosiel tendency toward restrnon eye hey [rome the od Bese oye sonics © the snconcouscalminatiog in he eopison of te sopey sfslom ofthe primera ageof myth Bat the roman eee ibe alightetments ceria of value actually perenne tg Aeract comet hereon myth and reson, A Sao he Ae Sind for example a GF Melero dr Lb von dor «es monschlchon Gesciects 1766). - eof ths pro in like sy tee "Kleine Schifion IL 136047 (Owe tan274 The Elevation ofthe Historiciy of Understanding wae espe uo eli i reo ne et epee ceed a Pe rte ee wc he ie she anal alive Cnet oped a rnciacer teeta se’ a Sen eh tt [ifthe to be regarded as the primeval state), but also beyond Wie ee cede Me te ra ce relat een arts Tere isthe related point thar even the contrast between gen sine syeial thinking aod poendomytical poe thinking & oman ilason based on 2 prejaice of the Elightenment the binding quality ‘namely that the poetic act no longer shares the binding. quality ‘Of myth because fis a creation of the free imagination. Tt i the lured beeneen the posts and the philosophers in the med 2 Bh propriate tothe age of beet in scence. ei now sad tion and vitality oftheir hearers or readers. re of oman retraction r probably tobe found in satan orgie sccye which Ladendort (217) ss tnodiced by HeLzo.© tn Ral Marx tapers 382 in UP aeoP ced law chat Lis the validity of is sca ose ebcory of the dass stugle=™ Docs the ies go back 4 Rousseau's description of society before the division of labor ee my “Mythos und Verna” Klaine Scien, TV, ad “ys und Wiens” OW, Vi tor teed a coninon of Homer with Johann Hetoich Voss [aetna of Bs of te Enc (a ee ioe Geman wanna who had aieady ben re Secne ; "BI La, Salon nd ticzn meer Nats des States (1833). rhs econo ths rporane gucton by ©. non aks awry se] Ch Conconmest Rey Lvagsone (938; Cane Mas? Mit tee 97h “the Enlightenment considers it an established fac th ‘The Elevation of the Histoicty of Understanding 275 the introduction of property?" Ac any rate, ato had alread demonstrated the isory nature of this poled theory hi ironical account of a state of nature in te third Rook of te Republi pli oman revahtons give sev hts sein nineteenth century. Tt'no longer measures the post by the standards ofthe press, ai they were an absolue, but ee Gis to past ages a vale of thett own and a even sein ge thir superioriey in. one respect or another, The great Achievements of romanicam=the etal ofthe pa, dhe dior, ay ofthe voices of the peoples in their songs te slecting of {ery tales and legend, the clvation of neem customise discovery of the worldviews implicit in languages, the study of the “religion and wadom of Inia"all contributed tothe doe af historical research, which was slowly sep by ep, tres formed from intuitive revival nto detached heres keeles, The fact that it was romantic that gave birth to the hasta | chool confirms that the romantic retrieval of origins i cll based n the Enlightenment, Nineeenircenury histonogtaphy fe it fins feat and sees ielf precisely an the falfllment of the Em ghenment, asthe lse sep in the liberation of the mind or the trammels of dogma, the step to objective knowiedge of the Aisorieal word, which stands on 9 par With the Enotledge of ‘itr achieved by modem science +The fact that che restora tendency of romanticism could _sombine with the fundamental concems of the Enlightenment to ‘trate the historical sciences simply indicates that the samme break ‘with the continuity of meaning in tradition lcs behind both, Ik all eadi- on that reason shows to be impossible (ie nonsense) cam only © be understood histricall—i.e, by going back tothe pasts way | sf looking st things-~then the historical conscousnes the exes ‘nvromanticism involves a radicalization of the Enlightenmene Hor nonsensical tradition, which had been the exception, has Be: “ome the general rule for historical consciousness. Meaning that {generally accessible through reason is so litle believed that the hole ofthe past—cven, ultimately, all the thinking of one's con | mporaries—is understood only “historically.” Thus the rome ecritique ofthe Enlightenment ieelf ends in Enlightenment, for | ocsseny, Discourse om the Orin of Inqul CL my "ao and te Poets" n Dialogue and let: Fgh Hermon Sats om Pato, P. Chestophee Sait (New Havens ae Unncety 198), pp. 54BC POE The Elevation of the Histovicity of Understanding 277 276 The Elevation ofthe Historcity of Understanding r edizer esting beosit re he ui, eno andiewe cong ng Beh [poe tha Bs ents, contin te itr ay of sian fe ia hin ns weigh base rnc vr Sete swe iene oS elghcemet ERIM eich a net ue Hor TRE om awh te ee wa Bee I sunt Ahoy ot rane septs Eaten wi aime bes BP stl oman of he Enh formate Her isthe point of dearare forthe hermes Behar Seat elder nrrnae RE hy Don e ah Sn oa oneal cm ‘oct’ of peice Wrage eae oo aes cd onc Edom? fenot rade ale son in fact belongs fo hstoal rake ak hee cope 2nd mtd oS ae Fe baton ay fll we wae to do mace ofr deat Set eee PEt athrgeent oem ama age Eh many Reason ex for os nl nc" dg he Tact that tere ae gestae pees ee rete, historical terms. Constantly dependent on the (@ PREJUDICES AS CONDITIONS OF UNDERSTANDING ‘Yasar ts own master but renaits He formulate the fundamental’ rere ‘ifcumaeances in which ie op M historcal Slower oe en Siraion for a arly ‘rn rmencutcs as follows what iste ground of ti Se ge of Home ited the aims of Re fo the countess others which ete sake ae ee fationalism tothe a prior clement in che knowledge of nate ala al reason to octeome? Bek of ere {BSG wucr of historical consciousness and the Megan approach this question by taking the Eu tna a Fe a 20 agar ee pei, Tad WE ea une and ho So Ral Knowle. Man aie 0 hts Ry" and ose of “onesie” hobo seh on een i hie Hara face away ge iret fom the way mental reppsiion of she Enlghtnment, ny tae be asked bere in a fds MM aero, This was Deane ies oh eked wom ture, which knows nothing of him, ‘but he was not able to escape his entanglement! Bhuthority, however, is rsponsible for one’s, "s Spec he snaed rm he ares IM fe alk Thu he dsons eee coven ow ably saw this traditional epistemol "eperenca (Erlebniste), he was unable to build a bridget thesis Pereen authoniy and eon. The fale preponeation expres (hie as a sof ce Mr ae ae, Te a er re poate fees on 29 se Ti the Ephesus che ae eS am Thou and atoe9hy— ih theo of mayen aly ar ae Diilosophical he means Aristotle] and the Roman. — Baty weaken" ne Relormatns ten pee smade private once more. hing hermeneutics which teaches the taht tee of eas in inde py eee anergy ning tadionary ext Nether be tocnial ce te pore oe iby wos, and sate nd er Pe are adie can obi ewok ‘The focus of subjectivity fe @ distorting mirror, The sel {against al imposition. ning of a re a oe sony a icles ag Hee by ie promdees of the nde £98, 1726.10278 The Elevation ofthe Hstoriity of Understanding “This kind of hermeneutics need not ead to the radical critique of relgon the we own for ean Spor Rate he ibliey of supernatural truth can remain entirely open. Thus Special inthe ld of German poplar psopy, he ale feiment limited the caims of reason and acknowledged the 2 thority of Bible and church, We readin Walch for example tht hy distinguishes between the two clases of prejudiee—auchonty and ovethastinesr~but considers them two extremes, between ‘which itis necesary to find the nght middle path, namely a me diation between reason and biblical authority. Accordingly, he fegards prejudices deriving from ovechastness as. prejudices ia {ehor ofthe new, a predisposition to the ovethasy rejeion of {Tuts simply because they are old and attested by authorities: {Thus he dspures the Brith fre thinkers (such a6 Colin and ‘thers and defends the historical faith against the norm of tea Sona Here the meaning ol prejudice deriving from averhastiness i given a conservative seinterpretaton. FFhere can be no doubl, however, thatthe ral consequence of che Enlightenment i diferent barely the subjecion ofall thority to reason. Accordingly, prejudice from overhastnes is 2 be understood as Descartes understood ite, s the source of Berto inthe ase of reason. This fis in with the face that afer theory of he Ene when Remenetn ws ed from all dogmatic ties the old division reums in new” gue ‘Thus Schletrmacher distinguishes beewcen pagialiy and over hastiness ag the causes of misunderstanding To the lasting wecicesdue fo partality he conta te momeneryones dae Tovethasines, but ony the former are of interest to those come Seed hse metodo. loge ten oa Scetetmacherthae among the prjudioes in favor of autor there might be some that are true—yer this was plied int foncept of authority inthe fit lace. His alteration of the wa ‘ional division of prejudices documents the victory of the Es lighteament.Paraty now means only an individual imitation of undersandinge “The one-lded preference for what is closet tne’ own sphere of eas” in fac, however, the decisive question is concealed behind he ol prejudices determining what I thik concept of partiality. That {re duc to my own pattility f a judgment based on the stand point of thei having been dissolved and enlightened, and it holds ‘eae, opt pp. 1006 under the entry “rei denen" Se wh above PScicemache, Werke, 1 ptt 7,3. ‘The Elevation of the Historicty of Understanding 279 only for usjosiied prejuices. fon the other hand, there ar Iusiied proces productive of knowledge, then we are back to the problem of asthony. Hence the racial conseqecncr ofthe Enlightenment, which are sil to be found in Sehcesmacher’s {ath in method ae no enable The Fightenments diinton beowee thn authority and sing one’s own reason i in sel, egtinate If she prestige of Anthoriey dsplaes ones ew udgenty then autho act | sour of prejudices. But his dct not preide s beng once Ofte, and hats what she Enightenment aed to oe when denigrated all audocry. To be convince of ths, we nesd only consider onc ofthe grees foreranner of tne Furopear Engh. coment, namely Descartes, Despite the radkalacse of his meth ‘coogi thinking, we know that Deserts excluded meray itom the total reconstruction of al athe by tason, This we ‘hac he meant by his provisional morality: Ie seems to me synps tomatic that he did nor in ft elaborate hs defigne meaty nd that is principles, afar as we can judge from hi lees | Habe, conan arly anyhing ew. obviowly unin | able w dbter morality until mover scence has progresed com tb provide a new bai fore In fact the denigrtion of authorty | not the only prude exablished by the Eaghtenment, esse drone he vy one of ator. Based on he Elighe. ‘uent conception of reason ad freedom, the concep of ahr Gould be viewed s iametraly opposed to eas and Weedon, =o be, infact, Blind obedience, Tht i the meaning that we fd inthe language eral of modern dictatorships Ba this i not the essence of authors. Admitedly, i spec sary persons that have authori; bu the authonty of persons | Shi bse not on he ston sd an tr fon but on an act of acknowledgnent and. knowledge the Knowledge, namely, tha the other i superior to oneself ude sent and insight and tht for ths resto his hudgment takes oe " Sience—c, has pronty over ones oom, Ths is conneteed UFih the face cha authority cannot actually be bestowed bat The Tas? Dialoge cn the Oratory sched special atenson in| de ‘The Elevation of the Historicity of Understanding 289 classical are 3 we know, aways the representatives of partcalar ty pec They we ced i calmnton fhe nr of that erry gente, an ideal tatters crim makes pain in rewospect. If we now exsmine thse fenere norms hilton Callyrtey i We consider hes hstory—ehen the seal seen 4 4 syle phase,» climax that avclates the harry of the env in terms of before and fer: Insofar asthe lima points {tthe history of genres Slong largely within the sme beet pes fod of time, within the foray ofthe hisorial development of lial anigiy, the clea refers to sucha period an ths tho becomes concept denosings pend and fee with con ca of syle "Assoc shisgorial syle concept, the concept ofthe clas cals capable of bring extended ro any “deslopmest” to which Sm immanent clo ives uty. And tn fac al cultures have high Periods, when parScalar ciation is marked by speci Echievemont in all elds, Thos vate parca historical a men, the clascal aya general concep of ate gain becomes 2 gener strc spine concep Although this san understandable developmen, the histori © zation of the concept also involves its uprooting, and that is why when historical consciousness started to engage in self-ritiism, itreinstated the normative element in the concept ofthe classical _ aswel as the historical uniqueness of ies fulfillaent. Every "new. fhumaniss” shares with the fist and oldest the consciousness of belonging in an immediate way and being bound to its model— which, as something pase, is unattainable and yet present. Thus the classical epitomizes a general characteristic of historical beings preservation amid the mains of time. The general nara of teadi- ton is such that only the pare of the past that is not past offers © the possibilty of historical knowledge, The classical, however, a6 Hegel says, y “tha whic is slfsgican (else beeen) and hence’ lso self.interpretve (elber Deurende).”2" But that ‘ulimately means that the classical preserves itself precisely be ‘nus iti significant in itself and interprets ill; i. it speaks jin such a way that itis noe a statement about what documentary evidence that still neds to be interpret the Neuburg dtcsions om the asc. The reasons forthe den of thet fc inde th eopnton fs fore eta norma swarcesy ano Snel coet when he ptr oa the he baronet Sona _ el "bragus" “arate” ral rerapove a rnton tthe nose concept he casa and have oly sradaally ort dr pejorative ese €"Wesch wed glee de Mencnen” Fes fr 1: Peanan pp. 3), Se Ast290 The Elevation ofthe Historicity of Understanding it eye someting tothe presenta if were said specially © TE Wht we elcssica” does aot fet rere the overcoming Sf histoccal distance fori it own eonstane mediation oF ome this distance by tel “The claseal, then ceranly “Since,” but ths imlesnese 3 mode of historical Bens. ‘Of cours this not to deny that works regarded as csi ree asks of historical understanding vo a developed histor [opetousesy one that i awace of htrial diane. The am St hntoricalconsciowmes is notte the classical model nthe Sires ry, ike Pllado or Corel, bo 0 know iat ior fel phenomenon that cam be understood solely in terms of Sum". But underscanding it wil sway sralve more than steray historically reconstructing the past “world” to which the Stork belongs. Our understanding wil abwaye retain the con {ousnes tat we too belong to that world and correlative, thatthe work to belongs to for word “iis ut wha the word “clase” nes: that the draion of a orks power to speak dicey + fandamentally li {ted However uch she concept of the cane express ance and unatatnality ands part of cual corsiouses, the phrase “canseal calure sl implies someting of the con {Tula validity of the cascal. Call consiodsess manifests Sh ulipate community and sharing with the world fom which 2 Uasscal work spe Tins dco he cons ofthe ccm no inde pendent sigicane, bu serves ony fo cvoke a eneal question, Ramey: Docs the Lind of historical mediation between Be pst Sd the present that character the cassia elimatly unde stork actity as flee sabres! Wheres roman ac hermeneutics had taken bomogencous human natare arth Snhtorkal substan of fs theory of understanding and bene iad freed the congenial serpetr fom al hstorieal conditions, the slfendcism of historia consowsnes leads Bnalyt0 es {nang historia! movement nor ony ip events bo also on dEttandingttsclt Undertanding to be thought of less ah @ Sabjectve ct than at partipating ina event of raion, « roses of transmission in wich pas aid preset are convey Tested, This ie what most be valgated by hemencote theory, Ivhich far foo dominated by these of procedure, a meta Neh Schlegel, Fragments, ed Mint, 0, 2, draw the Demanenial consaqecng “A cla work oferta one hat an never be come “leone, Bor must aao be one rom which tore who ae eset a ‘dicung themsver mt vay xem lara are The Elevation of the Historicity of Understanding 291 (i) The Hermeneutic Significance of Temporal Distance? Lex nex conser how henmeneics goes boo in work, What CSnsguens fr tnfostanding follow fon thet helo torts waditon conten of hemenias We rel oe Sonneueal ae tiac we mst undesand tbe whole tees OF deal andthe ea in ems of the le Tes pce tna fom ann arts anl modern berpeec bes oe fired vo the ar of undeaendng Is scree eda I" Tott cnet The anbepnon of manga which he wk & tivated becomes asta unfesaning aes he pars tate {Etratned by evoke hemes a Sexe ts whole MWe ing dig lating angler tucps We ee at set “conc” 1 ma bee we Seep e enced ‘olin ensing of tind! ps of fe semen Bet the pres of amt ssydyoovered by a epee, recent lows touhe eee what pane ‘ae, Ie of couse soseary br sr epeaton vote a faerie eas edin rie The means dee ath ees Ae clang and ha tex une ts teeog wrod eer pecan Thus te movenent of wedetamdg » connaray fein te whole othe par and back tte leuko ‘Xpand the iy of he undeood easing tgs. The {Slnony of alts nis withthe whole te cota sco tet undcandng The flr tev ho Ruesony cas ecandestandng ba aed Scllcmache daboatd this bemeneuc cl of part and sia Bese cre ses Ace fir elong ine vot cones fo writes work and theater ithe wine of she lncay gore oof ena Ar he ae the hotores the sae oy mulation os ee Inet bop ote whl of i autor ine Fl sas eee Maco nthe chante sad abe te th along hs pry, ite pss aca derstand the whole In this (a we have slzeady sid above) be iSSpryng te intone worl hac hs abeys ben’ pe Sao! eto erprencon:tomely hora vee ma be -nderstood in its own terms 29 (He especialy, ee my “Zinchen Phiomenologe und Dislike Ver sigh einer Sli” GW, 3) ‘Spi, 40.292. The Elevation of the Historicity of Understanding The Elevation ofthe Histority of Undersanding 293 The question is, however, whether this isan adequate account ofthe Grelar movement of underssnding Hese we mus eur fo what we concladed from our snaysis of Schlsirmache’ he {nenetics: We can st aide Scleermacher's ides on subjective imexprestion, When we ty to understand txt we do not ty to tanspoe curenes tothe suthors mind but fone want 1 eh roo wy ane oie io the Despectve within which pe ha formed hs views. Bu tis simi Thangs shat we ty fo understand how what hei sying could be ‘gb i we want to understand, we wil ry to make his an Ings even sfonger, This happens even in conversation, and ti ‘Tonton true of understanding whats writen down that we ae ‘roving na dimension of meaning that ineligible in island Such of no reason for going back fo the abjety ofthe fuhor The task of hemeneis i to clarify cis maracle of uw emanding, which is ot 8 mysteroae communion of sal, bat ‘hiring in common meaning ut even Setleiemachers description ofthe objective side of sh leds nor th Beat fhe mute: He have en thar the gol of all tempts vo reach at understanding is agree trent conerning the subjcr ater Hence the tsk of ermener- Teshas always been to esablsh agreement whete there was nove De where it had been dstrbed i some way. The tory of her teneutes confirs this for example, we thik of Aogusiae, ‘tho sought to mediate he Compl with he Old Texsament®' ot fay Resend, wh cad he ane pb oa {he Enlightenment, when (almost as f renouncing the posi SF aeeten) tna pnd chat text could be "ly and Sout only by means of histone interpretation Tei someting Squaltavely new when romansiim and Seletemacher univer: Stine historical Consciousness by denying thatthe Binding form Of the tration from which they come and in which they ae Situated provides a old bass fr all hermenettc endeavor Onc of te immediate peedecenor of Seeermacher, the pi logit Feedich Ast stil had s view of hermeneutical work that {eas markedly concerned with conte, since fr him is purpose teas to establish harmony between the works of asia an iy and Christaniy, between newly discovered genuine ant TP and the Chest tadigon, This is something new. [a com teat to the Enlightenment this hermeneutics no longer evaluates | and eects tradition according to he criterion of natral reason. iit ins aemp to bring about a meaning agreement be- fren the evo radios toh it sees el se Banging, this ind ofemencutin isl porsing the ask of all pressing emenceicy namely bring about Sgrement concen, in gong beyond te “parualany” ofthis econtzation ofthe ancient casieal word and Chitty, Sehlecrmacher and, fl iowing him, nnceenth-centuy scence conceive the ask of ee | ence ina way tha formally overs. They ore sble to E formone i wih he natural sconce ideal of ebjcaviy, but nly by ignoring the concretion of rial consciousness r= imental thers edepger’s cecripion and existential rounding of the her mente tcl, by contrast, const a Geivetning poi. Nineeentcentary hermencun theory ofen dsc the ce ‘Ml sucrre of andetanding bur always within the fame ‘work of formal relation benreen pare and whole—or i subj thee the inte anigpation 6 the whole ad x sbseqeent sricolanion in the parts. According to this theory, the cea fovement of unetanding rns backward and Forward slong Seren, and ceases when the ext a pect nderod. This tio of tindertanding came to logical clminaion im Schlier- Inher theory of the dvinatory at, by means of which one dlaces oneself Entely within the writer mind an from there oie ll hati srange ad lien abou the tx. contast © ER opus Hose dcr he cre nich away thr uncrcandng of te ve semmains permanerly determined by Eth anvcipatory movement of foreanertanding. The cre of | whole and paris not doled in pence undertnding ot, on ~ thecoutary, 8 mos fal rene. “the cl then snot formal in naar. Kis neither subjective sor objective, bu desrbes understanding as the interplay of he ovement of tradition snd the movement ofthe interpreter. The napaton of meaning that governs our understanding of text iota ae of subjective procsds fom te cortmonality thar binds us othe radio, Bu his commonality i constantly | ein formed in oor relation so traditon. Train snot simply 1 peimanent precondition; rather, we produce i outesives nae ‘uich as we andentand, papa inthe evlotion of tition, {nd hence fortherdetertne i ourselves. Ths the ce of fercanding is nora “methodological” cle but describes a9 stanent ofthe ontological srwcrae of understanding “fhe cre, which Rindamental to all understanding, has 2 fates hermeneutic inplicaon which call the “foreconcepion ee G, Rip, Agostin tererco dlmtrpretaion (Bein, 1980}) ste i osu, Cue Sopa sara de Sermon sro rm, book Hi 16765)