Hermeneutics 101

I can see why the text were assigned for this week in relation to this course. However, I believe this is a concept that everyone should be taught from a much younger age. One could argue that word problems or analytic types of reading would suffice in developing this practice of text interpretation. As a child we are taught to dissect readings and piece the parts together in order to understand the whole picture. But, what happens when the whole picture is ultimately incomprehensible? Unless you are 'reading' the IKEA manual (which only has pictures), I don't believe texts are ever so to the point -- not just the sacred texts that we have been learning about thus far. 

To me, texts are like a murder scene, unless you were physically there, you can only infer enough to come to a conclusion that makes sense in the grand scheme of things. If people were taught this practice, I feel we would have a lot of more open minded people who genuinely understand that the world is indecipherable.

I basically attend school to understand Hermeneutics. Specifically, I would like to understand people’s expressions and interpretations. I find it interesting that it does not solely focus on the whole (the whole seems like it can be anything, such as a text or a person). Hermeneutics instead, focuses on both the whole and its parts. Also, thinking in a way that “highlights the diversity of possible interpretations” (mentioned in the Hermeneutics ppt) appears to be the best way to reason. This way encompasses not only the situation, but also the context in which the situation is made out of and what the situation is transforming into. On another note, I like how “The Death of the Author” shows that the interpretation of a text is not presented by the author, but by the reader. This also shows that the greatness of a text is measured by how well it can transcend across different cultures as well as keep the same general meaning. 

Is the Reader Always Write?

         One of the major themes of Barthes essay is that the reader is always correct. He states that a text does not just have “the ‘message’ of the Author God” (4). Rather Barthes imagines readers interpreting and crafting messages out of a text based on personal context. To a large extent, this idea is comforting because it gives a great deal of power to the reader. I find few things more frustrating then sitting down and not comprehending a passage. However, this essay and hermeneutics dictates that a lack of understanding is impossible. We will always have our own understandings, which are growing and developing. I find Gadamer’s version of the hermeneutic circle particularly compelling. It addresses the different backgrounds, or prejudices, of readers that influence how they interpret texts. It shows we are always refining our readings and the ways in which we view the work of authors. Readings of the text may be different based on these prejudices, but they are always right.
         While this authority of the reader is often reassuring, the personal hermeneutic circle can also be a bit intimidating. It leaves the easy possibility for something to be lost in translation. There are generally popularized readings of texts such as the Qur’an and famous novels such as Huckleberry Finn, but these too have numerous interpretations from readers.  People might think that the Qur’an is telling them to bomb a city or that Huck is a racist, when this was far from the original intention. These conclusions can be worrisome. Furthermore, Virtual “text’, such as text messages and e-mails, is one area where I find faith in the reader tricky. This scenario is different than picking up a novel or scripture because the reader is most likely having direct contact with the author. Tone is particularly hard to picture. Consequently, room is left for confusion and misunderstanding. This communication can lead to immediate and direct rather than a slower and longer conflict. In this form of text I think it is crucial to listen for the author’s intent and comprehend their context.
         Sometimes, looking at a text from someone else’s point of view can broaden understanding. While our ideas our important, we should never stop redefining and changing our ideas of a text to help expand our knowledge of the world around us. Looking to the author for help can be a useful tool.

Some thoughts about Hermeneutics

I found this week's readings regarding Hermeneutics particularly interesting.

Once again, the depth of philosophy and importance of reason in ancient Indian religion astonishes and fascinates me. Through our previous readings, I learned that the goal of Buddhism, for example, is the release from suffering and the eternal cycle of rebirth. In this week's readings, we learn how thinkers could justify and rationalize such a goal.

According to the basic rules of reason and logic, as described in Ganeri's text, rational thought leads to a rational and just goal. In fact, logical thought can only be justified as such - to strive for limited goals and ends or to engage in debate merely to disprove another's thesis or to attain destructive ends is wrong and unjust. 

Consider, however, the Buddhist's goal of ridding one's self of dissatisfaction (and ultimately achieving nirvana). One can only do so by achieving freedom from desires and from the eternal cycle of rebirth. Searching for such liberation is rational if one wishes to rid one's self of such dissatisfaction. Thus, the search for such liberation is the most rational thing one can do, as freedom from dissatisfaction is the ultimate goal.

Also interesting was the highly structured formula for making connections and providing proof as described in Ganeri's text. For example, on page 14, Ganeri discusses how in order to provide proof one's belief or inference, one must go through a series of steps. In order to prove that there is fire on a mountain, one must provide a reason, an example, an application to the present, and a final assertive conclusion. Such a formula is structured, concise, and highly logical.

- Anne Reynolds

I'm going to use my free post this week, thanks! :)

The Hermeneutic Process as Not Applied to the Chris Stevens Murder

We spoke yesterday about hermeneutics – the study of interpretation; the very core of what it means to be observant, to be able to count oneself among a certain population while still allowing oneself to think about, grapple with, be critical of, and marvel in the intricacies of religious text.

We spoke, also, of the notion that anything can be a “text.” Anything can be read or analyzed, shared or scrutinized, worshipped or decried. 

It strikes me as appropriate to have engaged in such a conversation just hours after President Obama’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly. In his remarks, the president memorialized the life and death of Ambassador Chris Stevens, a man who “joined the Peace Corps and taught English in Morocco, and he came to love and respect the people of North Africa and the Middle East.”

Chris Stevens, of course, was killed two weeks ago in the midst of violence in Benghazi, Libya. That violence was the result of radical anger over a film that had poorly and disrespectfully depicted the Prophet Muhammad. The film was produced by bigoted people whose agenda consisted of propagating intolerance. It indirectly caused a man with an markedly antithetical goal to lose his life.

I suppose I’m just very disturbed by these discrepancies between motives, causes, and actions here: the film was a misinterpretation of Islamic religious norms. The murder or Chris Stevens was a misinterpretation of the causes of the film. According to Ingvild Sælid Gilhus, “The first guideline in using a hermeneutic method is to read the text slowly and thoroughly,” the goal, according to Gilhus, being to modify one’s initial prejudices regarding the text, and to digest it in all its meanings before ruling on it or judging it. (Gilhus  276)

Shouldn’t observant, virtually orthodox practioners of a faith be the ones to understand the hermeneutic process? Shouldn’t those who adhere strictly the Muslim tradition have digested, studied, and researched the video before deciding that they were going to protest? It seems like hypocrisy of the highest order that individuals (and groups) – “students of faith” –  were the first to impulsively and injudiciously respond. Thoughts?

To Each Is to Own

Hermeneutics is the study of interpretation of various texts. It is a very important concept in religious studies. The sects of various faiths are greatly affected by the holy texts of the faith. Some faiths even have heated debates about the correct way to interpret the text. However, what people do not realize is that these texts often contain many allegories, metaphors, and symbols that can lead to multiple interpretations of the text. Another point worth mentioning is the people have their own biases prior to reading and understanding the text. These maybe one's personal values, beliefs, and morals that affect the way in which the reader approaches the text. For example, in reading Amina Wadud's book on her interpretation of the Qur'an, she approaches the holy text through a female lens and points out significant information. There are many scholars of religion that dig and look for specific phrases in order to get their point across. It was interesting to learn that the Buddhist emphasize in reading texts as a parts of a whole in order to understand the bigger picture. In learning about various faiths and cultures, it is important to understand that texts have evolved over many years and are influenced by various cultures. Thus, as scholars of religion, we must have an open-mind and take these accounts into consideration. 

power of the reader

Today I went to a pre-lecture conversational dinner; we talked about the endless schism between evolution and creationism. This religion faculty was there talking about different interpretations of Bible, about how one Bible can produce many different response to science. With one text, some take the text literally and embody the creationism, while others take the text metaphorically and believe in evolution while reserving their faith. I thought this was interesting how Bible has many interpretations. The concept of hermeneutics helps us read and contextualize religious texts, especially, because religious texts are vague. We cannot take every single text in the Bible literally or all metaphorically. As the “readers,” what we think the author is trying to project may not be the true intention but simply our projection of our self opinions and values. That’s why I think that the “reader” holds a greater power than the “author.” The “author” may have written the text with certain idea and intentions, but the “readers” have the power to interpret the text and change the context based on their views. Hermeneutics allow people to read the same text and gain multiple answers.

Free post

I've unfortunately been sick all week and I am swamped with work (midterms the next two days...) so I am also going to go ahead and use my one free post this week. See you all tomorrow.

This week is very overwhelming. So I will use this as my "free" post.

What's up people...

Approaching a text, Hermeneutics teaches us that there are an endless amount of interpretations we can take away from it.  That in order for us to take the most out of a given text, we must first understand the context of which it was written.  This matter of context plays a huge role in how the author portrays their ideas, as well as how we comprehend these ideas.  Meaning is everything when attempting to interpret a piece of literature.  I found it very interesting that the 9/11 terrorist attack instructions could be read in many different contexts such as in relation to politics, global society, and religion.  This example just goes to show how the interpretation of some words written down on a piece of paper can be the difference between terrorism and awareness.

I was taught in my high school AP English Language course to be skeptical of everything, and that language cannot be interpreted correctly until the underlying manipulations of the author were first uncovered.  Friedrich Schleiermacher’s take on the hermeneutics circle suggests that the reader must constantly be reminded of the context of the piece.  Who wrote this?  Why did the author write it?  What is the author trying to get me to do?  After reading a part of a text, the reader should step back, look at the entirety of the text, and consider questions such as these.  A text always has multiple contexts and, “the reader should move back and forth between the text and its context” (Gilhus 267).  Context is key, and only by understanding the contexts of a piece, can we truly grasp the essential meaning between the words.

Feel free to comment!

     One thing that I found really interesting this week was our discussion on the duplicity of words and interpretations.  The idea that each word has more then one meaning coupled with the fact that everyone interprets things in different ways (and that different things make sense to different people) leads to the question of if true knowledge, especially of intangibles, is even possible.  Since intangibles can only be measured by words, how could there be a true understanding/interpretation accepted by everyone (a.k.a. knowledge)? 
     I felt this really extended to religion.  With all the different sects and interpretations of texts a true knowledge of the unknown seems impossible.  In addition, knowledge in the sense of a reader who sees all perspectives, as talked about in Death of the Author, seems unrealistic.  There are just too many different ways people see things for an individual to know them all and then, on top of that, to not favorite one would never happen.  With that in mind I now am wondering if knowledge itself is also just an unachievable intangible. 

"Parlez-vous français?"

For this week’s post, I will discuss the comparisons between the essay “Death of the Author” in French and in English.

When I first read the article in English, I was initially taken aback. This essay was unlike any other we had read in class. Instead of explaining or providing supplementary information to an already existing (sacred) text, this essay introduced a new idea entirely. To be honest, the sprawling sentences, technical language, and esoteric references to French literature were daunting at first. Yet, even as I delved into the essay, I felt a tug at my subconscious - something was missing. For some reason, I couldn’t connect entirely with the text. When I reached the final sentence, I understood. The text was a translation, albeit a beautiful one. 

To me, reading a translated text is like listening to a song one octave higher than it was initially composed. Although the notes are right, the overall tone and message are a bit off. In this class, all of the primary source readings are translated from their original language. To make things even more complicated, these texts are supposed to be “heard” rather than “read.” To make an analogy, reading the Vedas in English is like reading Shakespeare’s scripts in Chinese. Not only is the native language (with all its idiosyncrasies) diluted, the raw power and emotion from recitation is ultimately lost. 

However, “The Death of the Author,” presented me with a unique opportunity. Unlike the other primary source texts, written in Sanskrit or Arabic, “The Death of the Author” is written in French. Fortunately, I can read French. Unfortunately, I have the vocabulary of  a dyslexic ten-year-old. Regardless, I set about re-reading the essay. 

Not surprisingly, there are a few mistranslated words. A “nevertheless” instead of “however,” a “we” instead of “one,” but no glaring errors. The biggest difference, however, came from the “feel” or the text. Ironically, in the original essay I could hear Barthes “voice.” I could read his original words, rather than rely on the murky lens of translation. 

For the first time, I could make my own interpretations, my own hermeneutics. I, not a translator, determined the meaning of each syllable, word and phrase in the text. Barthes' essay was the sheet music, and I the conductor. Together, we made a beautiful melody exactly on key. 

I thought it was interesting how a debate between the Buddhist and Nyāya traditions very much reflects something I learned last year in AP Psychology.  A fundamental point of disagreement for Buddhists and Naiyāyikas is whether or not we, as humans, perceive the whole of an object, or simply the parts of an inferred whole.  Early Western psychologists had a similar debate; Gestalt theorists argued that the human brain interprets sight as perceiving whole objects, while structuralists believed that our vision only perceives parts that our brain composes into one whole.  I'm not entirely sure how these two schisms are related, but it seems to me that an identical conflict of ideas arose independently of each other to explain vastly different questions within different disciplines in different societies.

Throughout this class so far, it has been fascinating to see what kinds of connections we can draw between seemingly different things. Observing the abundant similarities between Eastern and Western religions has been helpful for overcoming my preconceptions of both varieties   Now, comparing these certain "religious universals" (ie. the desire to make sense of human perception) to other fields of study is deeply compelling and can even give us insight into the nature of human thought.

Lesson Learned

Happy Hump Day!

For this week, I want to further delve into this “author” and “reader” discussion from the pervious class.  It was mentioned that an author’s word is not always trustworthy.  Why?  Well, the author’s intention is not properly executed in his or her writing.  Texts do not necessarily just say what the author means – it may say too much, it may say too little.  Also, the ideas of the author are never original, just a string of recycled words imitated from previous sources. 

In the defense of the authors, I do not think the reader is all that trusting either.  Both sides share the blame. Barthes describes the ideal reader on page 6 of The Death of the Author, as “a man without history, without biography, without psychology.”  If we were to follow these distinctions, it would be impossible to be the reader.  We all possess our own beliefs, traditions, and prejudices that involuntarily and unknowingly develop as we grow up and are exposed to the world.  And this bias automatically transmits into our reading of the texts as we inherently interpret the writing.  Today, I realized firsthand the faults of a reader.

My marketing class had a guest lecturer that displayed a black and white picture of a person sitting on the sidewalk, bundled up in clothing, with a trash bag next to him.  He asked the class a series of questions: Who is this person? What is the level of his or her skills?  Does he or she have any potential?  Many people characterized the person to be a homeless man with a low-medium skill level and who does possess potential but is wasting it due to laziness, drug addiction, or alcoholism.  Then the guest lecturer enlightened us.  The mysterious man in the picture was a war veteran that had to sacrifice his career as a lawyer to pay for medical care and financially support his ill mother.  This ultimately led him to losing all his money, his family, and his house – leaving him on the streets.

To say I was shocked would be an understatement.  Not only that, but I felt rather ashamed of my automatic negative impression of the man.  I learned my lesson.  Instead of being an author, creating my own story based on my opinions, I should be a reader, having an open mind, clear of judgment, and automatic conclusions.  This will better my act in hermeneutics.

You stay classy Emory.

The Importance of Interpretation

The concept of hermeneutics while studying religious texts is vitally important in helping the reader  contextualize the piece. Prior to the reading and class, my knowledge of hermeneutics was limited at best. The concept of studying the process of interpretation was completely foreign to me. However, as I began to greater understand hermeneutics, I began to fully appreciate its value. Religious texts, in many ways, are purposefully ambiguous. We as readers must try and attempt to take the words of ancient authors, and must interpret their messages millennias apart from the time that they were written. What struck me the most about the concept was the belief that the reader's interpretation carries more value that the purpose of the author. I thought that Barthes best explains the belief when he goes on to describe the reader as, "a man without history," and that soon as the reader begins, the author begins to die. Religiously, this concept that that the the author dies when the reader begins to interpret it is incredibly important. Religious followers attempt to derive spiritual and philosophical answers from text that was written way before their time. It is the duty of the believer to use hermeneutics, or his or her ability to interpret, to take away what they look for in the text, whether that be spiritual guidance or simple social etiquette. Hermeneutics allows religious followers to gain multiple conclusion from one piece of text, which I personally think is vitally important for the longevity of religion in today's world.


Andrew

Hermeneutics

When I first saw the title of this week's topic, Hermeneutics, I was so puzzled because not only have I never heard of the term, but I had no idea how it would relate to our topic of sacred texts. However, as I began to read the readings and listened during the class lecture, I was intrigued by the way it all came together. Hermeneutics is basically when you interpret using a method with rules and steps. According to the reading, some of the steps in Hermeneutics is to apply the knowledge that you have about the topic to interpret it and compare in culturally as well. Everyone interprets everything in their own way because of the preconceptions that you had about the certain topic. Hermeneutics includes this fact that there are multiple ways that one text could be interpreted. Therefore, Hermeneutics is strongly related to religious texts because it deals with meaning. Each person could interpret a sacred text according to what they know and think. This is why when someone reads a religious text they feel like it applies and relates to them no matter what.

The second part I found interesting in the reading and the lecture was the whole idea of "the death of the author." The idea that when you read you begin to interpret the words in your own way that the actual author of the text "dies" and you become the author. This concept made so much sense to me but was also shocking because I've never thought about it as well.

Hermeneutics

"Bears leave trails when they move through a forest. They scratch themselves on trees, break branches, and urinate on the ground - signs that other bears find meaningful."Gilhus introduces the concept of hermeneutics with the idea of bears urinating on the ground... not so meaningful to us, but used by bears to show territory discrepancies. The study of interpretation applies to everything we do; the way we look at the world, the way we see other people, the way we study and learn, they way we look at anything.

We are all different from the way we were raised, our culture, life events, and whatever else would change the way we interpret. In this way, we are all individual. For instance, when I look around right now, I see a TV, gum, and my sunglasses. I interpret it as - 1) Can't wait to play video games on that TV tonight. 2) I'm going to grab a piece of gum before practice because it helps me concentrate. 3) This weekend, I'll be wearing those sunglasses when I go to the pool. I bet you weren't thinking the same thing when you thought of those 3 objects.

In context of reading text, each person will gain whatever they take from reading based on ingrained prejudice and bias... they become the author of what they read. So when you throw religion in the mix and you look at the Qur'an, Pali Nikayas, and Vedas, every individual will interpret these in their own way. That is why you have the spectrum of radicals who interpret what they want from their religion. They take what they want from the text, interpret it they want, and apply it to their grand realm of knowledge.

If only there was some way to break free of bias and read the text for what its actually worth....

Keep reading...

Hello!

I was really interested in the idea of hermeneutics, the study of interpretation. As I was reading, I began to think about how I go about reading and rereading a book. Each time I read and reread that certain book any amount of times, I always end up having a different interpretation of the text and discover something I hadn’t noticed in the previous readings. It shows that all texts are functions of interpretations and that a text does not only say what the author meant for it to say. A text has many different interpretations, some intentional by the author and some not. I liked the idea of the Hermeneutic circle, how Schleiermacher says that interpretation moves between the parts and the whole, which means there is no defined absolute ending. I also liked how Gadamer says that the reader is part of the circle, how one’s interpretation of a text is dependent on one’s prejudices which is then able to be influenced by another interpretation. There is this constant relationship between the text and the reader. I then thought about what I gain from the readings for this class, and then what I discover when I go back and reread certain parts. My interpretations of the different texts change after each reading because I notice something new or understand something better in terms of the religion. This idea of Hermeneutics allows one to have multiple interpretations of any sort of text.

As a side-note, I really like Tj’s idea that education is like a bucket of sand. I can relate this to my post in the sense that one needs to “sift through the sand” or through a text multiple times in order to understand more and see what is not as obvious.

According to Me The Reader: Education

Ok so….

            In our reading and especially in the discussion today I noticed an important concept that Barthes seems to bring up in Death of an Author. It is when Barthes is talking about how “the reader is a man without history, without biography, without psychology; he is only that someone that who holds gathered into a single field all of the paths in which the text is constituted” Barthes talks of the reader as being more important in the interpretation of a text than the author and that ultimately the author does not matter so much as the reader himself. Since books are one of the most key devices utilized in education this idea seems very unusual. Usually when we are explained the concept of education we are told are intelligence is like an empty glass of water and that with each book or article we read that glass fills up just a tiny bit more. Obviously things like comic strips are more like drops, while textbooks are a full-on slosh from the faucet. However the end product is always the same, we become more educated and less empty. Barthes argument for the importance of the reader seems to emphatically reject this notion.

            In order for a human being to fully grasp the complexity of something that is written the reader must be empty. This emptiness is the absence of all prejudices that might inhibit the reader’s ability to fully grasp the subtleties of a written piece. What does a greater understanding of concepts like psychology, biology, literature, or even religion do but deliver to us even more prejudices in which we can then turn on a selected piece and then use these prejudices to analyze the given selection.

“Sally’s insecurities on page 20 came from her insecure attachment issues”

“No, No they came from low serotonin levels”

“You guys don’t know anything they clearly came from her exclusion in society due to social predetermination”

            All the discussions and debates we have pertaining to facts and certainties are just regurgitation. It is I metaphorically sticking my finger down your throat while you do the same to me. Unless the argument was about whose finger tastes worse in which case the physical act would become much more likely. Education is not like an empty glass, but more like bucket of sand.  It is only until we sift through the sand that we can truly see the contents of the bucket. This sifting and removing of unnecessary and irrelevant materials is our education, the tragedy is that many of us will never bother to do so. (A very Buddhist idea, no?)

            This is what, to me, Barthes was touching on in his article. Lucky for me according to him you can never definitively say I’m wrong. I think I like this guy….