Hermeneutics: A Very Short Introduction | Jens Zimmermann

[@logangovinden1437]

hermeneutics 1 origin Greek term Latin interpretation 2 activity understanding written and verbal 3 perception seeing personal history profession 4 knowledge objective knowledge personal commitment 5 fusion of horizon 6 tradition enlightment 7 power of language 8 hermeneutics circle context dependent 9 relativism no! critical realism personal involvement 10 antidote to fundamentalism

[@robertgabuna355]

You are a biblical scholar too?

[@obadiahkilgore2964]

Oh real quick, I think we're all forgetting that Hermeneutics is dependent upon the context AND personal involvement of the event and viewers, respectively. That difference means that we interpret from the perspective of the writer, and not our own modern cultural perspective because they were the ones being exposed to the contextual vicissitudes of life by critical inquiry. Relativism isnt always critical, Hermeneutics must be, so there is the difference.

[@An123Observer]

I am reading his book at the moment. I am enjoying it quite a lot.

[@jshir17]

Many different people read the same book but interpret it differently; the variations in interpreting say at least as much about the interpreter himself or herself as they do about the book.

[@logangovinden1437]

1 hermenoing interpretare utter translate 2 branch of philosophy deeper 3 nature of perception act of seeing profession 4 knowledge pursuit of knowledge passion personal commitment 5 6 tradition is crucial initial tool of discovery 7 language words thought take shape 8 hermeneutic circle context independent 9 not relativism critical realism the world disclose itself to us 10 antidote to fundamentalism.

[@محمدالعوادي-س2ظ]

SO INTENSE!

[@JustThesis]

This is an excellent brief 👍

[@FunsongsCoUkaction_songs]

Thanks, concise and useful.

[@rosagaray872]

Good explanation.

[@johnrenthlei7911]

No. 9 is confusing. If we interpret the world from our individual angle and each of us suppose our findings to be true, does it not mean truth is relative base on our angle??? Or am I here confusing the two terms relativity and relativism?

[@Mailman316]

John Renthlei I’m no scholar but I like to think. Here’s my take. Hermeneutics is a way to interpret things. When we interpret things we are trying to discern truth from untruth. Many people make truth relative based upon how they see things or what angle they see it from. I think what he means here in saying that hermeneutics is not relative is that there is a concrete truth. One must use the system of hermeneutics to properly interpret or distinguish that truth from the untruth. Truth is not relative. It’s either true or it isn’t. Sure we can interpret things from our finite perspective but there is a broader truth to be found, that’s not based upon ones relative narrow viewpoint but on the concrete truth which is distinguished through the process of hermeneutics.

[@LosAnggraito]

@@Mailman316 My question is, can man ever distinguish between *absolute truth* and our respective truths according to relativism? We're not omniscient, after all, and since all "truths" established in society were dictated by other humans who also operate under finite knowledge, how will we ever know what the real truth is? 🤔 I suppose that's the appeal of religion; to create an external, all-knowing force that compensates for the understanding we lack.

[@judekas]

Excellent and clear summary

[@devikamisra275]

So useful !

[@cmcneill7]

Greek or ancient Egypt..?...?

[@truethinker221]

What about Hermes son of Zeus ?

[@theautisticpage]

It is absolutly relative as if it was not the field of Hermeneutics would not exist.

[@mikemcinally3311]

👍

[@richwheeler]

His statement that "Hermeneutics is an antidote to Fundamentalism" reveals his own agenda. Hermeneutics does involve relativism because we tend to interpret within the context of our understanding. A good set of hermeneutical rules minimizes our tendency to interpret within our context and maximizes interpretation within the author's context. Recognizing the difference is critical to proper interpretation. Mr. Zimmermann confuses Fundamentalism with fanaticism.. Contrary to popular misuse of the term, "Fundamentalist Christian" does not include the faith healers or most TV hucksters. Fanaticism exists everywhere, including -isms that reject theism, not just within Fundamentalism. If you want to find Fundamentalism within Christianity, look for those who explain why Charismatism and relativist Modernism are wrong. Further undercutting his pejorative, Fundamentalists emphasize hermeneutics. That is why Fundamentalist Muslims remain in the dark ages. Within Christianity, the Fundamentalist emphasis on improving hermeneutics led to the Reformation and other movements away from Dark Age Roman Catholic practices. Zimmermann''s belief that "Fundamentalism" needs an "antidote" reveals that he fails to replace his Modernist context with the context of the Bible's writers.

[@livefromplanetearth]

+1

[@nriab23]

When a collection of books like those in the Bible are making massive truth claims about the universe and the fate of humans, a merely interpretive face value take on the English version of the Bible is usless, you need to determine the truths and with internal contradictions and how such books correspond with scientific truths. saying it's a useful book socially etc is pointless when it was written by the ignorant and pushed forward by the blindly pious.

[@fiercedrift1097]

nriab23 a lot of science is actually an indoctrination, you have scientist who support the evidence of Jesus Christ then you have the scientist who tell us that he has never existed. Which scientific claim would get brought to light? Obviously the indoctrination of anything because they don’t want anyone believing in God.. the agenda has been to push us further & further away from Gods light. Only one has to be right & it makes you question .. if all this biblical scripture is nothing but a fairytale then why are all these locations that are for told in the Bible forbidden from us? Why are they covered up? One cannot say their isn’t AT LEAST some truth inside the Bible if so they obviously have never read it or they are just being ignorant. Also from my own experiences I’ve witnessed real demonic entities. I’ve had skeptical friends witness these things & I also have proof. One thing is that science cannot give an explanation for these things & for surely it couldn’t make sense that it was only an “hallucination” because more than one person seen & reacted to it also I’m sure their is some bullshit philosophy that will disapprove that of course 🤣since their is clearly demonic beings in this world that means the devil & God obviously exist. Why do prayers work then? Why does the name of Christ bother these spirits? Why is their thousands maybe millions of stories & sightings of these beings for hundreds of years? Doesn’t that tell us anything?... observable science cannot prove these things & if it were scientifically prove they obviously would hide it from the general public.

[@droidgeist]

His argument that hermeneutics is not relativism doesn't seem convincing. The notion that perception is context-dependent falls cleanly into the category of relativism. What he is actually contrasting hermeneutics with is constructionism. Constructionism falls into the category of relativism but is not identical to it. SEP on relativism: "Relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them. More precisely, “relativism” covers views which maintain that-at a high level of abstraction-at least some class of things have the properties they have (e.g., beautiful, morally good, epistemically justified) not simpliciter, but only relative to a given framework of assessment (e.g., local cultural norms, individual standards), and correspondingly, that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied."

[@obadiahkilgore2964]

Your point is my point, thanks for articulating it better than I did up top.

[@prakar]

IMO, this is a conceptual error akin to saying : "pounds and kg both deal with mass so they're the same thing" (they are not). Similarly, relativism and hermeneutics both reference the importance of context, and are related in that literal way, but are quite different as branches of philosophy. Relativism is a philosophical construct, which informs moral judgements that become possible after hermeneutical readings of source material. Hermeneutics is concerned with the mechanism of reading/interpretation itself, and tries to improve or update the readings. Relativism is downstream of hermeneutics; relativism cannot exist without hermeneutics but hermeneutics can exist without relativism.

[@cpcp221]

Any interpretation is limited and constrained by itself, why not to trascend them by having NO interpretations at all, and simply being in touch with what it IS?

[@douglipman5731]

How would "no interpretations at all" be possible? My nervous system is the "limiting and constrained" thing between me and "what is." On the simplest level, I don't see what "is"; I see what my brain interprets from the selected portions of light that my retina responds to. Every physical and mental layer adds further interpretation: sensation, perception, comprehension. On the more complex levels, my language constrains my concepts, my culture restricts what seems important, and my values restrict what seems right and moral vs. wrong and immoral. Even a computer has to be programmed to "know" what is signficant and what is not, thus inheriting the limits and constraints of the programmer.

[@readingswithjenna9714]

c p Very good point! But why not enjoy hidden mysteries NOT seen by others? Its fun.

[@mitjellk2186]

Way to miss the point

[@schoenbaard]

Unmediated consciousness is not natural to the human condition. By trying to not interpret at all, and 'simply being in touch with what is' you actually reduce yourself to subhuman capacity, instead of transcending it. Transcendence involves reason.

[@AMCmusicofficial]

sounds like a little bit of pomo bs yaddidimean

[@bentroyer1]

Am I the only one that found this to be completely unnecessary and extreme mental gymnastics. It is despite what he says very clearly relativism. It is generally bullshit things mean what they mean unless it is very clearly meant to be figurative everything should be taken literally.

[@obadiahkilgore2964]

Things mean what they mean. So, essentially, if I ask you "what does a dove symbol mean?" The answer would always be the same, because they cant mean anything other than "what they mean", right? Clearly you cant argue that all interpretation is objective and that there is a single meaning ascribed to anything. That would be crazy.............. I think your missing the point. There is meaning associated with everything, but that meaning is transformed by our perception. Obvious. Whats less obvious is that there are a specific set of critical inquiries we can use to determine context-specific, objectified meaning. So in a sense, we can agree--with a social contract--that there are specific connotations, inferences, and objective meanings to be assigned to a specific thing or set of things. But to argue the simplicity of Hermeneutics through objectification of meaning, unilaterally assigned to all things in a literal sense is preposterous.