Critical Theory: Other Perspectives Philosophical Hermeneutics

1. Critical Theory: Other PerspectivesPhilosophical Hermeneutics “The overcoming of all prejudices, this global demand of the enlightenment, will prove to be itself a prejudice, the removal of which opens the way to an appropriate understanding of our finitudes” Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, 244

2. What does Critical Theory overlook? • Theme of Gadamer’s paper: the rehabilitation of authority and tradition, which is not a return to “primeval wisdom” (243) • Gadamer’s aim is to examine the workings of reason as it is historically situated. It is a critique of the trajectory in philosophy, since Kant’s motto of Sapere Aude, of “not to accept any authority and to decide everything before the judgment seat of reason” (241).

3. Philosophical hermeneutics • Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002): leading exponent of philosophical hermeneutics. • ‘Hermeneutics’ related to the methodological principles of interpretation, especially biblical interpretation. • For Gadamer, philosophical hermeneutics is broader than a ‘method’ of interpretation, but rather it is a process of understanding with certain metaphysical commitments.

4. The importance of tradition • Enlightenment: “it is the general tendency of the enlightenment not to accept any authority and to decide everything before the judgement seat of reason. … It is not tradition, but reason that constitutes the ultimate source of all authority” (241). • Enlightenment thinking as the “overcoming of all prejudice” (244).

5. What is the problem with ‘tradition’? • What is the problem of ‘authority’ and ‘tradition’? • For Kant, it keeps individuals in tutelage. • In arguments, appeal to authority is sometimes problematic. • But is the appeal to authority and/or tradition always problematic?

6. One possible response: Romanticism • In Gadamer’s view, romanticism is the view that what is old is valid, “simply because it is old” (242). • He claims that romanticism is just the flip-side of enlightenment. Why? • For romanticism, the old is likened to “primeval wisdom” but from the perspective of enlightenment thinkers, the old is likened to “primeval stupidity” (243).

7. The irony of romanticism • Gadamer writes: The “romantic critique of the enlightenment ends itself in enlightenment, in that it evolves as historical science and draws everything into the orbit of historicism” (244). Why? • The glorification of the past only succeeded in the development of historical consciousness, that all our thinking and doing takes place against a historical context. • What reason works with—its content—is historically situated.

8. Gadamer’s critique of enlightenment • “The overcoming of all prejudices, this global demand of the enlightenment, will prove to be itself a prejudice, the removal of which opens the way to an appropriate understanding of our finitudes” (244) • ‘Prejudice’ is an unfortunate term to use. • It suggests ‘bias’; it is pejorative. • What Gadamer refers to as ‘prejudice’ is best understood as ‘tradition’, part of the conceptual background informing our experiences.

9. Possible criticism of Gadamer • If we are all subject to prejudices (=traditions), then isn’t our freedom limited? • Gadamer’s response: “Is not,rather, all human existence, even the freest, limited and qualified in various ways? If this is true, then the idea of an absolute reason is impossible for historical humanity. Reason exists for us only in concrete historical terms … In fact history does not belong to us, but we belong to it” (245).

10. Reason in the concrete always starts somewhere. The process of reasoning is not without preuppositions: “Long before we understand ourselves through the process of self-examination, we understand ourselves in a self-evident way in the family, society and state in which we live” (245). • The kind of subject and method posited by enlightenment thinkers, like Descartes, is a distortion (245).

11. Gadamer’s defence of hermeneutics • Gadamer needs to distinguish between legitimate from illegitimate positions in tradition. • From the enlightenment point of view, our error comes from two sources: a) not using our reason properly (overhasty, jumping to conclusions), and b) not using our reason at all (submit to authority)

12. Gadamer’s defence of hermeneutics • Against a) Gadamer argues that jumping to conclusions may mean that our point of view is narrow, that it lacks perspective. • How to overcome this difficulty? • Take in another perspective which may tell us that some elements of our original perspective is illegitimate, or unjustified. Those elements lead us to error. • Notice the process of (self) understanding is already critical.

13. Gadamer’s defence of hermeneutics • Against b) Gadamer argues that it does not follow that because authority/tradition is a source of error, that it cannot also be a source of truth (247). • He argues that the idea of authority has been deformed in enlightenment thought; it means blind obedience (248). • But is blind obedience the essence of authority? • The essence of authority rest on the recognition of one’s limitations (248). Why is recognition important?

14. Gadamer’s defence of hermeneutics • It is “an act of reason” (248). • But if reason is involved in self-understanding, then “there is no such unconditional antithesis between tradition and reason. … The fact is that tradition is constantly an element of freedom and of history itself. … [Tradition] needs to be affirmed, embraced, cultivated. … [But affirmation] is an act of reason … as much a freely chosen action as revolution” (250) • Affirmation is already a critical exercise.

15. Gadamer: summary and implication • Gadamer’s process of understanding: Through reason’s own reflection and admission of its limitations, one bestows authority on another perspective. • Authority need not be “irrational and arbitrary, but can be seen, in principle, to be true” (249) • If Gadamer’s description of the process of understanding is correct, can there be a “perfect knowledge of history” just as there is a perfect knowledge of say chemistry or mathematics?