Herme…what-ics?

Its topic was hermeneutics, a discipline that addresses the relationship between text and interpretation. In everyday life, a text's meaning appears rather clear and we don't really contemplate whether we understand it correctly. But the further we venture into unknown territory, the less certain we become—be it contextually (new fields), lyrically (poetry), or historically. Philosophy, of course, is a large area for hermeneutics to chart, then: Complex thoughts, particular writing styles, hundreds of years.

The thing is, there are many ways to approach a text. It depends on what we try to get out of it. Perhaps it's all about an author's conclusion, about us wanting to know their position. But we can also go deeper, look at their argument(s), and try to understand how they got there. We can analyse what assumptions underpin their case, or question their line of thought. Do they make sense? And if so, in what context? Are their concerns timeless, or do they need embedding in the historical fabric that wove them?

It's a rather lively discussion, and I'm afraid there are no clear answers. Some philosopher's think it best to view texts plainly. They think isolating it from everything else is our best shot at understanding its meaning. Others say we have to include much more information, or we can never know what was meant. Without additional knowledge, we can't know whether the used words carried different meanings or, say, whether a text was written under duress. We should consider an author's cultural (or personal) background, the challenges of their time, and—perhaps—much more. And we are at the surface, still.

The gavagai hole goes far, far deeper: Much of language is ambiguous. Sentences can be read in many ways, with many intonations. Can something be "larger than life"? Can you compare something with life? Is an event (a happening, an occurrence), a thing? Or are we talking about objects? And are we addressing my life or the general term (whatever that is)? What does larger mean in this context? Better yet: What could it mean? The list goes on…

It soon becomes clear that things are far less obvious than we would generally prefer, which raises a whole bunch of questions: Can any two minds think (or observe) the same thing? Is there even something independent of one's own perception? If so, could we ever know it? The topic, like much of philosophy, rapidly branches out, to other fields and questions.

I was hoping to learn how to best approach text and ensure confidence about its meaning. In that sense, the seminar didn't help. I'd argue my confusion grew as the course moved on. But then again, that seems to have been the point. There is no one right answer, no correct interpretation. There are viewpoints, opinions, possibilities, attempts; and we can freely choose. We might never know what an author actually meant, but maybe that's not the point. In questioning not only what we read, but our own interpretation, we learn to see from many perspectives. In addressing it with others, we will find even more, many of which may surprise us. Each considered view will add another arrow to the quiver of our understanding. And perhaps, that is a much finer point.