Reading Tartaglia’s study of Rorty’s Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, I had one of those ah-hah epiphanies that came as they usually do: after a long period of gestation in which the concept has always been there in the empathetic sense of being understood in the cognitive sense of knowing all the definitions, but not fully assimilated to the point of being sympathetic with it. It usually comes with one of those moments when you pick a random point in a book and are able to focus on it, as compared to just reading through to get to the end of a particular section. Sometimes it can even come with a couple of hits of really good weed –or a combination of both. But this one came from reading through to the end of a particular section of Tartaglia’s study and involved the concept of Hermeneutics. And what made the impact of this particular epiphany particularly strong was the realization that what was being described was pretty much the cornerstone of my process. As Tartaglia describes it: “The hermeneutic method, as it has been understood ever since Heidegger adopted it from Dilthey, is essentially the method of immersion: we immerse ourselves into the phenomenon to be understood (a text, an exotic culture, an historical epoch, etc.) in order to understand it from the inside out. This means not starting out with fixed preconceptions about what needs to be understood, but rather building up familiarity and then systematising the understanding we acquire later on.” -Tartaglia, James (2007-08-14). Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Rorty and the Mirror of Nature (Routledge Philosophy GuideBooks) (p. 180). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition. This basically puts some shine on my assertion that the process of the intellectually and creatively curious is basically one of a relationship: that of turning content into form via form. And it is the same process by which we form friendships. We start with the other as a composite whole: how they look, what they say, and what we know about them via our common social circles. And we stick with them as they reveal more about themselves through a process of unfolding in which they become more beautiful to us as we see what was hidden become more and more what we see at the surface that we interact with on a superficial level. In other words, they become more beautiful when we can interact with their complexity without having to put a lot of thought into it. And we do as much with a particular philosopher or book of philosophy. “A crucial feature of this approach is the so-called hermeneutic circle, which is the idea that you cannot understand the whole until you understand the parts, and you cannot understand the parts until you understand the whole. The only way to break into the circle, then, is to play back and forth between guesses (319), as Rorty puts it, the hope being that you will eventually pick up a new angle on things (321). What you do not do, if you are being hermeneutic, is start from some unquestionable starting point or foundation and build up from there. Rather, you just jump in and try to get into the swing of things, just as you might join a conversation before having any clear idea what the topic is.” -Tartaglia, James (2007-08-14). Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Rorty and the Mirror of Nature (Routledge Philosophy GuideBooks) (p. 180). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition. Hence: my process: and the connection with the concept of Hermeneutics in the admission that I have little interest in telling anyone what “the Truth” is and more interest in describing a process I have been blessed with being able to engage in. I am far more interested in stringing together a perfect sentence about reality then telling you what reality actually is, more resonance and seduction than a desire to tell anyone how they should think. As compared to scientific discourse, Hermeneutics is about engaging in the pleasure of discourse for the sake of discourse: just to see what happens. And excuse the cheap segway into my Deleuze board (which I would miss if I couldn’t find such cheap segways (but I can’t help but feel that the French approach to philosophy (the free indirect discourse (invites the hermeneutic approach. I can’t help but feel that French philosophy (w/ its deep ties to dissent (would rather be literature than ever make claims to “the Truth” which is an expression of state philosophy. I mean compare that to Dennett and Searle (American philosophers (who both celebrate the achievements of producer/consumer Capitalism through clear exposition.
Posted on: Sat, 16 Aug 2014 21:14:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015