Similar to the birth of logic from poetry
So, at the top of the sciences, the science of interpretation itself, we have Prots. Personally, that gives me some pause. Who’s going to help you interpret hermeneutics? I’m setting out on my own Mayflower away from these Prots. “You’re not them you’re not them, don’t worry.” Yes I am. Most of us today are Prots.
“Those are brain chemicals that are doing the interpreting.” Is that your interpretation of a neuroscience textbook?
Straussianism is a Prot sect, don’t @ me.
Anyway, when we talk about “opinion-management” we’re talking about the control of interpretation, so this seems like a particularly relevant discipline for our totalitarian times.
I previously mentioned the importance of scholars. This is another layer to that- how does one even interpret those scholars themselves?
Knowing how to interpret is the key to escaping the matrix. One interprets geniuses and scholars of those geniuses in order to help interpret modern day life. “I’m Virgil, I don’t need to do that!” Okay, Buddha.
A more down to earth thinking about the technical field of “hermeneutics” is simply as reading. How much you’ve read in your life–and how much have you actually read on reading itself? That’s what this is. It’s not what to read or why to read, it’s how to read.
Since the difficulties of interpreting that Chinese novel are fresh in mind I’ll look at that particular direction of hermeneutics – interesting statement from the authority
This is why someone like Faurisson is so controversial. He was a professional literary critic who applied his rigorous methods to historiography. “Faurisson, who’s that?” Oh nobody, don’t worry about it. (The destroyer of worlds.)
I just want to love the world more and for others to love the world more, and art is one of the most lovable things in the world, and when you learn how to better interpret it your experience of it is enhanced. Unless it’s bad art of course, in which case you’ll drop it and pick up better art, because you are a master interpreter. That’s the ideal anyway. Same goes not only for art- ideology is just bad philosophy that can be interpreted away into obsolescence.
what this text is “really about” as we say.
Those “political emotions”… that’s for another post, something important there. I don’t think everyone would be proud to admit what truly drives their political beliefs. Interpreting texts helps us interpret people. That’s the point of reading, at least in my view- to help me read people. To know what they’re “really about”. Laughing like a demon after I type that.
This is also something I “read” when I look at scholars. They’re nerds, they only live in books, they don’t read people of the present day. That’s why their writings are so apolitical. Nerds. They read books only to read books, not to read life, people, the world. And then the ones who are often political, the libs, are just bad at reading. I prescribe them the discipline of hermeneutics as a form of glasses. If you think the world is okay the way it is and that there’s nothing wrong with the people who are running it, then you are blind. Returning to my post about public education- blindness is baked into cake at an early age, so we can’t really blame them. Some people might be surprised to hear that there is a science of interpretation. Yeah, that’s a thing, you can learn how to do that. Is it a science like botany is a science? No, it’s helpful though. You think neuroscience has everything figured out? No. The humanities are unjustly denigrated in our scientistic time. Hermeneutics is a type of existentialism or phenomenology because it brings you back to your experience of the world. Usually you only interpret. You don’t think about interpretation. You presuppose that you know how to interpret. A lot of this stuff I talk about might blur together to you- there are very specific disciplines, though many of them overlap.
This might make the meaning of it clearer
This seems a situation – a quarrel about how to determine the meaning of a text – that calls for hermeneutic theory.
That’s a normal thing most people do- argue, playfully or not, over the meaning of one type of media manifestation or another. That DOES call for such a theory does it not? People think that they don’t need any theory, they just state their opinion without much thought. That’s why they’re imprisoned in their low taste, they never learned how to interpret. Fools arguing with fools about something so lowbrow they shouldn’t even care about it in the first place, more often than not.
This makes me wince, when I see them state all the really tired and overdone hermeneutics
Marxist, psychoanalytic, feminist, deconstructive, ecological readings
None of them really reflect that they are one hermeneutic among others, and never reflect on whether there are hermeneutics that tell us more about reality than any of the above.
all espouse different views of what sort of meanings should be teased out of works, what they are fundamentally about.
There used to be something called the “four-fold interpretation” of the Bible in Medieval times too. That’s how they’re taught to see the world. They never take a step back and “interpret” themselves that way.