Coursework: Hermeneutic method in the humanities . Hermeneutic method in humanitarian knowledge.
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Hermeneutic method in humanitarian knowledge
1. What is hermeneutics
2. The concept of truth in the sciences of the spirit
3. Problems of hermeneutics
4. Main features of hermeneutic experience
5. List of references.
What is hermeneutics
hermeneutics(Greek hermeneutike), in a broad sense - the art of interpretation and understanding. long time hermeneutics was limited to the interpretation of texts, but in the 20th century. acquired the features of a philosophical discipline.
Initially, hermeneutics referred to the interpretation of religious texts and meanings. Eminent historians of hermeneutics (including Dilthey) see the birth of hermeneutics as a discipline in early Protestantism. In Latin usage, the term hermeneutica first occurs only in the middle of the 17th century, by I.K. Dannhauer. And yet, the origins of hermeneutics can be seen in antiquity and are associated with the allegorical interpretation of myths, and in philosophy - with the treatise of Aristotle About interpretation (Peri hermeneas). The term hermeneutike is used by Plato. In some cases (particularly in Timaeus) the Platonic use of this word is close to the Greek mantike, the art of divination; here the prophet, as the interpreter of a specific supramental meaning, is called a hermeneutic. IN Ione a poet is called a hermeneutic - an interpreter of the messages of the gods.
The field of hermeneutics is thus delineated by exegesis in the broadest sense of the word. But what distinguishes hermeneutics from exegesis is that it is occupied not simply with the art of interpretation, but above all with the rules of such an art. As an auxiliary science, it comes to the fore where it is necessary to interpret the dark places of sacred texts. In a later period, other sciences related to the interpretation of texts will develop their own hermeneutics. Since the Renaissance, there has been its own hermeneutics in jurisprudence and philology, and since the 19th century. hermeneutics occupies a place among the historical disciplines. Dilthey believed that the hermeneutical methodology is able to give humanitarian knowledge the status of scientific. Hermeneutics turned towards philosophy in the 20th century. Although the first hints of such a turn can be found already in the “philosophy of life” of the late Dilthey and in Nietzsche, who declared that “there are no facts, there are only interpretations”, hermeneutics as a philosophical discipline is developed in this vein by M. Heidegger and his student H.G. Gadamer. If Heidegger's hermeneutics is aimed at self-understanding of an actually existing person, then Gadamer is interested in the sphere of humanitarian knowledge, he seeks to comprehend the "historicity" and "linguisticity" of human experience.
So the term "hermeneutics" has various interpretations. For example, hermeneutics is the art of interpreting (interpreting) texts. This meaning of the term is widespread. Texts here mean any literary works: artistic, historical, philosophical, religious, etc.
The term "hermeneutics" is also used in a theoretical sense: hermeneutics is a theory of understanding, comprehension of meaning. We find such an interpretation in some modern (in relation to long-standing hermeneutic traditions) philosophical contexts.
There is also an interpretation of this term as "the art of comprehending someone else's individuality." This specific understanding of the meaning of the term "hermeneutics" has a rather long history and is associated primarily with one of the types of hermeneutics, which can be called "psychological hermeneutics". This type of art of comprehending someone else's individuality was developed and recorded by one of the classics of hermeneutics, F. Schleiermacher. Later we will consider his teaching, because the figure of this thinker is not accidental in the history of hermeneutics.
Finally, one can find the definition of hermeneutics as the doctrine of the principles of the humanities. Here, hermeneutics reaches a somewhat different level, where it already acquires ontological and socio-philosophical functions, i.e., it claims to be a philosophical discipline.
The concept of truth in the sciences of the spirit
Awareness of the problems of truth and method, carried out equally in the field of both humanitarian and natural sciences, shows the need for hermeneutics as a special philosophical discipline, busy understanding the preconditions that lead to the formation of a modern discussion about the method. Understanding the historical nature of methodological thinking and the limitations of scientific methodology leads to the need to develop specific hermeneutic thinking, which both humanities and natural scientists should equally possess. Modern hermeneutics opposes unlimited expansion modern natural science and therefore resonates with those scientists who understand the limitations of natural science methodology and seek to clarify the foundations of their own activities. It can be said that in a certain sense, hermeneutics is not only able to defend the ideals of humanism, including the need for a liberal arts education, but also offers a certain set of strategies that helps natural scientists understand the things they do.
The hermeneutical methodological standard is characterized by features, among which, first of all, the adoption of the dichotomy natural sciences and sciences about the spirit (humanities). Since the subject matter of the humanities is the text, language is a powerful means of analyzing humanitarian phenomena. In many hermeneutical concepts, language is declared to be the focus of all humanitarian problems. Moreover, the word performs a culturological function, presenting itself as a backbone element of culture. The next feature of the hermeneutic methodological standard is its dialogue character. In the future, the dialogical nature of humanitarian knowledge becomes a criterion for distinguishing between the humanities (dialogue form of knowledge) and natural (monologic form of knowledge) sciences.
Another feature of the hermeneutic methodological standard is the separation of the areas of specifically sign content (the objective meaning of the text "truth") and psychological moments that justify the principle of better understanding, which we can rather do as target setting than as a realistically achievable ideal. The text has the properties of sensually perceived objects, but in order to understand it, one should take into account that it is associated with meaning and meaning. We perceive the real components of the text, we understand the ideal side of the text. Subjective intentions of the author, his psychological characteristics and his inner world, depending on education, hobbies, religiosity, upbringing, belonging to a certain class or class, the system of archetypes of collective unconscious ideas, the material conditions of his life, constitute the background that has a significant impact on the meaning of the text, on the truth. It is a non-linguistic context in which, in particular, these points stand out. The personality of the author is given to us not as a sign-symbolic structure, but as a phenomenon of the same order with the generic essence of man. Methodologically, the method of explanation is used here. Therefore, the use, for example, by Schleiermacher of the concept of “psychological interpretation” from the point of view of modern methodology means the use of explanatory methods (in this case psychological) in hermeneutical research.
Taking into account non-linguistic factors, motivational attitudes, unconscious moments, socio-cultural factors in the reconstruction of the subjective conditions in which the objective meaning of the text was formed is a necessary moment of humanitarian knowledge and specifies the structure of pre-understanding, awareness of the truth.
Problems of hermeneutics
The specificity of humanitarian knowledge is defined: firstly, as significantly dependent on socio-cultural factors; secondly, as a widely used interpretation methods of research; thirdly, as having a specific subject, which leaves an imprint on the study in the form of sign-symbolic material; fourthly, the dialogic nature of humanitarian knowledge; fifthly, as requiring an axiological moment, that is, an assessment of the results of cognition.
Humanitarian knowledge has its own special methods, which, together with special subject, which differs from the subject of the exact sciences, determine the specifics, qualitative difference humanitarian knowledge from natural science.
For the problem of understanding in hermeneutics, it is important that language has an independent, external being, it puts pressure on a person. Language is for development spiritual world person and carries a worldview principle. Thus, the problem of language merges with the problem of consciousness, and a fundamental concept for Shpet's hermeneutics and for his philosophy of culture arises. Since texts are products of human activity, on which the influence of linguistic consciousness, the understanding of texts must be based on a fundamental analysis of linguistic consciousness.
Further, in order to solve the problem of understanding, two conditions must be met: 1) to reveal the historical nature of the text and 2) to reveal the essence of the process of understanding and interpretation. Here, for a correct assessment of Shpet's concept, an important remark should be made. In pre-Shpetian hermeneutics, the disclosure of the historical nature of the text was the central core of the hermeneutic method, it was the main meaningful moment of understanding. Shpet takes all the problems associated with the psychological, historical and cultural contexts beyond the process of understanding itself, placing it in terms understanding activity. This was justified by the phenomenological structure of the word. Everything that was not related to the meaning of the word, to its idea, was taken out of the brackets. In humanitarian knowledge, a special logical conclusion is implicitly used, which at first glance, according to the direction of thought, could be attributed to induction. But since here we are dealing not with reasoning about the properties of the elements of sets, but with inferences in which individual integral objects or their parts are used as subjects of judgments, then such a logical conclusion is not induction. At the same time, many “individual circumstances” are omitted (abstraction) and extraordinary features are singled out (idealization). Naturally, in this case, what are the criteria for choosing an abstracted and idealized material, such is the objectivity and scientific value of the subject under study.
The introduced concept of type in a truly scientific methodology also fulfills its characteristic role. For example, history is a science insofar as it forms a relatively general concepts(typical concepts), brings an individual fact under typical generalizations, this is characteristic of another logical operation specific to the humanities, which, in the absence of a generally accepted name, can be conditionally called “summing up”. It involves a comparison (comparison) of a given individuality with the result of a meriological generalization (logical-epistemological meaning) and at the same time an explanation (methodological meaning). This implies a special philosophical attitude towards the ontological status of relatively general (typical) concepts: in being there is no relatively general, it is found in the individual during cognitive operations with the individual, i.e., it is characteristic only of our knowledge. Moreover, the individual is a logical and epistemological category, and the individual is ontological. When constructing and interpreting theoretical systems, this circumstance should be taken into account, separating these categories according to different levels language (syntax, semantics).
Main features of hermeneutic experience
Since comprehension, assimilation of the meaning of the text are procedures that are qualitatively different from the explanation of natural and social patterns and phenomena, a new category, the category of understanding, should take its appropriate place in the methodology of the humanities. But the relationship between explanation and understanding must be dialectical.
From a syntactical point of view, a text is a set of elements (sentences, utterances, musical phrases, compositional elements any sign-symbolic system) connected with each other by structural relations characteristic of the sign system of this type. It has a relatively easily defined syntactic structure. The most difficult, "enormous and little studied" was the problem of understanding natural language, linguistic expressions. Consider it from the following angle. We will consider it as an elementary carrier of the meaning of the sentence. The text will be the context for the sentences included in it, if the question is raised about their use. A sentence is a context for its constituent expressions related to other semantic categories. Therefore, the problem of understanding texts is reduced in this case to understanding sentences and knowing the meaning of the structural relationships between them.
The solution to the problem of the meaning of linguistic expressions will depend on their connection with reality and with the actual practice of use. This approach assumes that the language not only formalizes the ways mental activity people, but is also a kind of reflection of reality, therefore the meanings of linguistic expressions significantly depend on the objective and subjective reality mastered by man. Communication with practical activity is carried out by taking into account pragmatic moments, non-linguistic contexts, epistemic conditions, etc. In other words, the meaning of linguistic expressions depends on the dialectical correspondence between linguistic competence and language use. Knowledge of the use deepens the understanding of competence, language proficiency. But for knowing the meaning of the linguistic expression of the intuition of a native speaker, his linguistic competence is clearly not enough.
Note that the use of the terms "meaning" and "meaning" is ambiguous in the literature on philosophy and linguistics. There are various concepts that differ in a very revealing originality.
For example, there is a point of view according to which the meaning of a linguistic expression is a relatively stable value, it can only be changed by the influence of a certain context of use. Such a changed essence will be what is called the meaning of a linguistic expression. According to this concept, a particular language expression can have one meaning and many meanings of use. Such an opinion was given as a theoretical basis for some hermeneutic methods. But, as Shpet correctly noted in his time, it is very difficult to substantiate such a hypothesis both theoretically and practically. Attributing meaning to vocabulary, and meaning to use, separates the two intuitively. related characteristics words and makes it difficult to solve the problem of understanding texts. It is interesting to note that Shpet develops a thought that ideologically precedes modern influential semantic concepts. He distinguishes between the nominative function of the word and the semasiological function of nominative and semantic objectivity, respectively. The name is, on the one hand, a sensuously perceived thing, a sign. It is associated with the designated object in the act of perception and representation. The link between the sign and the signified is an “automatically sensible” link. In order to move from the sensory to the mental, you need to “go deep” into the structure of the word, consider another level of this structure, move from perceptions and ideas to thoughts, and here we will already be dealing with the semasiological function of the word.
The explication of sense and meaning in terms of “intension” and “extension”, ideologically connected with the concept of Shpet, turned out to be very fruitful, and a stable tradition of interpreting the intension as a linguistic (not mental!) content was outlined. An intension is that set of features that uniquely define an extension. The latter, in turn, is understood as a set of objects of the external (in relation to the linguistic expression) world. It is clear that with this approach, the relation to the world of possible designated entities is determined by the totality of linguistic semantic features. The concept of meaning here is, as it were, “split” into two concepts: intensional and extensional meaning. With this approach, language has a “peacemaking power”, it creates possible worlds, the objects of which exist as clearly and meaningfully as their intensional content allows them. The intensional content gravitates here to mental content, meaning, but representatives of this approach are not inclined to identify these concepts, but, on the contrary, set off the originality of the intension in order to deliberately emphasize that the entire content of linguistic expressions can be isolated only from internal resources language.
Many specialists, in particular in the field of computational linguistics, were not satisfied with this approach, since it did not explicitly express the way a person communicates (and if any theory tried to do this, then it turned out to be inadequate for constructing a satisfactory concept of language understanding) and completely ignored the conceptual (mental) content of a linguistic expression, which was given even before the beginning of the discourse and is associated with the ability of its participants to use the language, the ability in which the human language experience and the attitude towards possible perception and understanding in the given conditions of discourse are fixed. This approach ultimately absolutized the descriptive function of language. Therefore, concepts have arisen that introduce the concepts of conceptual representation, the conceptual level of the language with a peculiar logic, which serve to clarify the concepts of meaning and mental content of the language.
The analysis carried out convinces us that when solving the problem of understanding, it is necessary to go not from formalized languages by bringing them closer to the real processes of understanding, but from the real phenomenon of understanding, taking it as an ideal. As a first step towards the goal, we introduce the concept of “general semantic meaning of a linguistic expression”. It is a complex multi-aspect formation, depending on the development of the social “semantic horizon” of native speakers (conceptual aspect); from the relationship with reality, i.e., objects, facts, phenomena, events, about which in question in a given linguistic expression (truth-denatative aspect); from principles linguistic reflection reality (intensional-designative aspect); from the structure of the language (logical and grammatical aspect); from the context of use ( communicative aspect); from pragmatic conditions that make it necessary to raise the question of the meaning of a given linguistic expression (the presuppositional aspect).
Now we can formulate the main thesis: to understand a linguistic expression means to know its general semantic meaning. Since the text is a non-empty set of elements connected with each other by structural relations, then to understand the text means to know the general semantic meaning of each element included in it, to know the properties of structural relations and the dependence of the analyzed text on the context. The explication of this hypothesis of ideal, exemplary understanding can be carried out by identifying the logical-semantic conditions of understanding.
If we imagine the understanding of texts as a structurally organized whole, then it can include stages, each of which has relative independence, is not associated with other temporal relationships, therefore the numbering of stages adopted below is conditional.
First step the process of understanding the text is associated with the identification of its syntactic form. At this stage, there are two conditions of understanding. The first involves the ability to distinguish grammatically correct elements from the wrong ones. We recognize the formations of our language in represented sign structures. Here the text does not yet appear to us as a system of connected sentences. The second condition correlates with the identification of the meaning of logical constants and with the correlation of their use in this text with the generally accepted norms of logic.
Both conditions together constitute what is called the logical-grammatical possession of the text.
At the second stage there is an identification of semantically significant, semantic structural units and the solution of the question of their general semantic meaning. Knowledge of the meaning of structural units is what is third condition for understanding texts.
fourth a necessary condition for understanding is to take into account the context of use. Contexts can be linguistic and non-linguistic. The latter can be the real states of affairs in question, the possible (conceivable) states of affairs, historical facts and events, knowledge taken into account when interpreting the text (“background knowledge”). Language contexts serve, as a rule, to eliminate the ambiguity of expressions. Non-linguistic contexts can also eliminate ambiguity and, in addition, clarify the meaning of structural elements and the entire text as a whole.
Fifth condition understanding is to take into account the pragmatic criteria on which the use of this expression depends. Text comprehension can be considered a process limited by the communicative situation, when information is transferred (dialogue) from one individual to another. Under the pragmatic conditions necessary for the understanding of texts, circumstances are assumed that could be the reason for the production of this text, certain level knowledge of communication participants, their intentions, the nature of the communicative act (serious message, joke, disinformation, etc.). When interpreting, biographical information about the author of the text is often used, the historical situation is taken into account; sometimes even the manner of pronunciation or style of expression significantly affect understanding. If there is a historical distance between the author of the text and the interpreter, then one should take into account the differences in cultures, historical eras, languages, etc. All this complex of moments affecting the understanding of texts is combined common name- pragmatic conditions of understanding. Once again, I would like to emphasize that this system conditions of understanding introduces an abstract, theoretical situation of “pure” understanding, models ideal understanding and is a logical-semantic basis for the reconstruction of understanding activity.
One more important feature hermeneutical reasoning is their close connection with non-rational moments, necessarily present in humanitarian phenomena. Hermeneutic logic, along with taking into account explicitly realized logical principles, is characterized by the rationalization of unconscious moments that are implicitly present in the mental content of sign-symbolic systems, in the form of which the subject of humanitarian knowledge appears to the researcher. In hermeneutic logic, something is introduced into the logical spheres from which classical logic deliberately abstracted. In this case, moments of cognitive and ethnic psychology, pragmatics and communication theory; logical structures are filled with many meaningful representations that specify the processes of hermeneutic reasoning.
So let's draw some conclusions:
1. Hermeneutics is the science of comprehending the meaning (meaning) of signs;
2. Signs are not necessarily linguistic (textual), but any product of knowledge (mental activity) is expressed in sign form (a system of sign forms).
3. Hermeneutics is carried out through understanding, explanation, empathy.
4. Any sign-symbolic system is an independent entity, individuality: a) a product of mental activity, a means of explaining the creating subject; b) a product of understanding activity, a means of understanding, interpreting the perceiving subject.
5. The hermeneutical method is dialogical.
6. In hermeneutics, a person is the subject of cognition, and the symbolic-sign system is the subject of cognition.
7. The main task of hermeneutics is to comprehend, the so-called. "deep meaning".
8. Thus. One of the main tasks of the hermeneutic approach to the knowledge of any particular phenomenon is to comprehend its model.
9. The plurality of models (sign-symbolic systems) is a positive fact only on the condition that each of the models, which is recognized as adequate, relies in its development on a system of certain principles and rules. None of the elements of the system can be removed from it without changing the entire system as a whole.
10. The systemic effect (obtaining more complete knowledge than the total knowledge obtained with the help of each part of the system separately) works only with the simultaneous use of all the principles included in the system
Bibliography.
1. Abdullin A.R. Philosophical Hermeneutics: Initial Principles and Ontological Foundations: Preprint / Edition Bashkir University. - Ufa, 2000, 60 p.
2. Gafarov Kh. S. Hermeneutics as an attempt to reconcile natural science and humanitarian knowledge// http://charko.narod.ru/tekst/alm1/gafarov.html
3. Kuznetsov V. G. Hermeneutics and its path from a specific methodology to a philosophical direction http://www.ruthenia.ru/logos/number/1999_10/04.htm
4. Kuznetsov V.G. Russian hermeneutics, or an aborted flight (the experience of interpreting the philosophy of Gustav Shpet)//www.nature.ru
5. Slesinsky R. The search for understanding. Introduction to Philosophical Hermeneutics/ STsDB Publishing House// http://agnuz.info/library/pois.htm
...Similar Documents
The most important discoveries of hermeneutics: the hermeneutic circle, the need for pre-understanding, the infinity of interpretation. The direction in philosophy and the humanities, in which understanding is considered as a condition for understanding being, hermeneutic ideas.
abstract, added 10/12/2011
Fundamentals of hermeneutics as general theory interpretation and German philosophy F. Schleiermacher. Hermeneutics as a Methodological Basis for Humanitarian Knowledge V. Dilthey. Contribution to the development of philosophical hermeneutics of the German philosopher G. Gadamer: essence and methods.
abstract, added 04/16/2009
The essence and content of hermeneutics as a scientific direction, the subject and methods of its research. Hermeneutics in the works of F. Schleiermacher, W. Dilthey, G.G. Shpet, M. Heidegger, A. Whitehead, P. Ricoeur and E. Betty, H.-G. Gadamer, its distinctive features.
term paper, added 03/26/2011
The essence and content of hermeneutics as a scientific direction, the subject and methods of its study, fundamental provisions, theories and ideas. The main stages of the formation and development of hermeneutics, prominent representatives the era of the Reformation and their contribution to the development of science.
control work, added 10/11/2010
Formation and development of hermeneutics: exegesis and features of the interpretation of the sacred text; F. Schleiermacher's doctrine of universal hermeneutics; methodology of humanitarian knowledge V. Dilthey. Philosophical hermeneutics: the ontological status of "understanding".
term paper, added 03/14/2011
The concept, essence and features of hermeneutics, the prerequisites for its emergence and further development. short biography and analysis of the contribution of W. Dilthey (1833-1911) to philosophy in general and to the theory of knowledge, in particular, as well as a description of his hermeneutics.
abstract, added 07/24/2010
Basic concepts of hermeneutics and the evolution of hermeneutic methods as a method of humanitarian knowledge. Factors influencing the understanding of the treatise "The Word of Law and Grace", features of the use of the principles and techniques of hermeneutics in this process.
term paper, added 01/22/2012
The main provisions of the philosophical concept of human development by V. Dilthey, its essence and content. Stages in the development of hermeneutics as an art and theory of text interpretation, and the main problems of its interpretation in various historical concepts.
abstract, added 10/09/2014
The history of the emergence and development of hermeneutics as methodological basis humanitarian knowledge from ancient times to the Renaissance and modern times. Development of the ideas of transcendental philosophy in the works of Friedrich Schleiermacher, Dilthey and Hans Gadamer.
abstract, added 03.10.2011
Philosophical doctrine of being. Formation of hermeneutics as an independent discipline. Difficulties in solving the problem of consciousness. Information Technology Society: Problems and Prospects. Definition of the concepts of society, culture, intellectual intuition.
The theoretical substantiation of the application of the hermeneutic method in psychology is associated with the name of V. Dilthey.
But the origins of this method are in the methods of interpreting texts, the basis of which is the inclusion of textual information in a wider context of knowledge with interpretation, i.e. "translation", with the addition of additional meanings fixed in the text (search for the "second", hidden meaning). The text itself is presented as a problem, where there is something known and something unknown that requires its interpretation. Of course, this search is feasible only if the subject has a more or less conscious scheme, a model of reality (universal interpreter), which serves for translation.
True, the theorists of the hermeneutic method argue that semantic connections should be revealed in the object, and not introduced by the interpreter, but it remains unclear by what means these semantic connections should be revealed.
We should first dwell on the history of the formation of the method of hermeneutics and its connection with understanding as a mental process. The tradition of considering the method of understanding began with the works of F. Schleiermacher, who spoke of the "art of understanding" as the ability to move from one's own thoughts to the thoughts of understood writers. He also put forward the main goal of hermeneutics: to understand the author better than he understands himself. F. Schleiermacher considered the “principle of circular motion” of the process to be the basic principle of understanding: the whole is comprehended based on its parts, and the parts only in relation to the whole. In later works, he separated psychological interpretation from philosophical (interpretation of literary texts). But the concepts of "interpretation", "understanding", "hermeneutics" were interpreted by him as equivalent. Only W. Dilthey (who did not consider himself a follower of F. Schleiermacher) introduced a distinction between the “sciences of the spirit” (philosophy, ethics, aesthetics, linguistics, law, etc.) and the “sciences of the external world” (physics, chemistry, geology, biology ) and defined the concept of fundamental science, from which all the "sciences of the spirit" originate. The method of understanding grows out of this science and is used as the main method (as a method of interpretation) in other "spiritual sciences".
V. Dilthey distinguished two forms of experience: internal life experience (primary, mental) and external sensory experience. Life experience is inherent in a scientist from the very beginning; it is not explicated knowledge that precedes discursive thinking. It is the foundation of research in the "sciences of man" (equally - in the "sciences of the spirit").
At the same time, V. Dilthey believed that the sciences of man and the sciences of nature are empirical sciences, but the nature of empirical knowledge in these sciences is different. In the natural sciences, the description of experience from the very beginning is devoid of anthropomorphic qualities (values, goals, meanings), and therefore this knowledge is taken beyond the limits of life experience (exoteric knowledge). Humanitarian knowledge is close to life experience, its content is esoteric, and most of it is already known (there is no actual novelty in the natural science sense).
Later, V. Dilthey singled out different types understanding of the subject:
1) understanding as a theoretical method, its criteria: true-false;
2) understanding of actions, which requires the reconstruction of the goals to which the action is directed, its criteria: success-failure;
3) understanding the manifestations of "living experience": from the products of creativity to acts of life behavior (gestures, intonations, etc.), its criterion: authenticity.
... X. Yu. Habermas considered the psychoanalytic interaction of the doctor and the patient as the initial model of hermeneutic interpretation. From his point of view, psychoanalysis went beyond the hermeneutics of W. Dilthey, since in this case psychoanalysis operates with symbolic constants, and does not remain within the limits of conscious experiences. Therefore, X. Yu. Habermas introduces the concept of "deep hermeneutics" as a development of the method of understanding.
... The field of meanings of the term "understanding" is very wide. According to V. K. Nishanov, it includes: 1) decoding, 2) translation of the “external” language into the “internal” language of the researcher, 3) interpretation, 4) understanding as an assessment, 5) comprehension of the unique, 6) understanding as a result of explanation 7) understanding as a synthesis of integrity.
If we summarize (almost mechanically) these interpretations of understanding, then we can say that understanding is used when it is required to know a unique, integral, non-natural object (which bears the “imprint of rationality”) by translating its features into terms of the researcher’s “inner” language and getting into during this translation, its evaluation and "experience of understanding" as a result of the process.
It is to this reality that, in particular, works of art belong. ... In the same way, in principle, the zone of applicability of hermeneutics in psychological research is outlined: its adequate object is creativity (psychological analysis unique products creative activity), the unique mental individuality of a person and his unique and irreproducible life path.
... We ... will separate the concepts of "understanding" as a mental process and as a method and consider it an empirical method of the "sciences of the spirit" (according to V. Dilthey).
The speculative method is closely connected with the hermeneutic method. Such works as: "On the Soul" by Aristotle or "Anthropology" by I. Kant contain a description of models of a person - the bearer of the psyche or models of the psyche itself. Philosophical treatises present general models of reality created by different authors.
However, the speculative method is a method of cognition abstracted from reality (not to say theoretical) and does not imply source material (text, information about behavior, a set of inventions, etc.). At least, the consideration of this material is not the task of a psychologist who professes a speculative approach. His goal is to generate some generalized model of mental reality that meets his intuitive ideas and explains the available set of empirical phenomena.
For a researcher using the hermeneutic method, the most important thing is the material and the result of its interpretation (fact). It suffices to compare the typical works of 3. Freud "Leonardo" and "Psychology of the Unconscious". In the first case, we have a classic result of applying the hermeneutic method, namely, the interpretation of the facts of the biography of Leonardo da Vinci from the standpoint of a psychoanalytic concept. personal development. In the second case, we have a presentation of the concept itself as a result of thought processes (intuition, metaphorical and conceptual rational thinking), which explains a certain set of facts that does not claim to be universal, that is, to the status of a theory, but only to the status of a worldview (doctrine).
The classical variants of the hermeneutic method are graphological and physiognomic methods, psychoanalytic interpretation, a set of projective methods (at the interpretation phase, since at the stage of implementation it is a measuring procedure). Hermeneutic methods also include such a traditional method for psychology as the analysis of activity products. These include the biographical method, as well as psychological interpretation (psychological reduction), used in the humanities, sociology, economics, and even in mathematics.
M. S. Rogovin and G. V. Zalevsky ... interpret hermeneutics somewhat broadly, including the modeling method in it. Of course, if we understand hermeneutics as a judgment by analogy (from particular to particular), then this method is present in any research procedure. In particular, if we use the method of understanding according to V. Dilthey to know the psyche of another person through empathy, we construct a “model” of the psyche of another in our subjective reality.
But in a stricter sense, modeling as a method is intended to serve only as a source of hypotheses about the nature of the object of modeling for the purpose of their further empirical verification.
For example, one can theoretically consider the mind of a rat (if it is appropriate to talk about it at all) as a simplified model of the human mind and assume that its behavior in the experiment corresponds to the behavior of a person in similar life situations. But in order to refute or conditionally accept this model, it is required at least to conduct an experiment on rats and compare these data with the results of similar (“model”) experiments on humans.
Meanwhile, the result of applying the hermeneutic method is already a fact (for the supporters of this method), and, consequently, the “understanding psychologist” behaves towards the client in accordance with how he understood the client’s psyche by the method of empathy, empathy, etc. But the very action of the psychologist and the response of the client are realities from the field of application of the experimental method.
Let us dwell on the main features and limitations of the hermeneutic method. Firstly, there is a dependence of the results of interpretations on an explicit or implicit scheme, concept, theory of mental reality, which the interpreter follows. Secondly, the quality of interpretation is determined by the cultural level of the society of which the psychologist is a representative.
Thirdly, although the hermeneutic method is not absolutely subjective, since there is some initial subject, verbal or behavioral material and a support for interpretation in theoretical schemes and in natural language, its results are not intersubjective knowledge. Each new interpreter gives a slightly different interpretation of the material. Not only adherents of different concepts (for example, representatives of various areas of psychoanalysis) will write different studies life path dictators (be it Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, ...), but adherents of one concept can give inconsistent results. Here we enter the realm of the limitations of the individual psyche. In addition to the fact that “we have no power in ourselves” (each of us is the owner of an individual and, according to C. Jung, a collective unconscious), each of us, including a psychologist, is a partial and at the same time unique person. Since in the course of hermeneutic research one subject cognizes another subject, these partial individual subjective realities may not "overlap". Something in the psyche of another always remains inaccessible to hermeneutical knowledge. Of course, we go beyond the limits of individual experience thanks to the system of meanings of natural language, but besides the fact that it is individualized, natural language as a reflection of the subjective practice of people always remains an incomplete reflection of the psyche of another as an objective reality.
The situation becomes even more complicated if we accept the postulate of a greater diversity of the individual's mental reality in comparison with the multitude of behavioral manifestations of the psyche.
It can be assumed that the results obtained by the hermeneutic method, even when using the same interpretation scheme, depend on the personality type of the researcher, more precisely, on his individual mental characteristics. Moreover, certain interpretive schemes and techniques (as, indeed, in any activity) will be developed, accepted and applied by the researcher to the extent that they correspond to his personal characteristics, habits, motives, abilities, etc.
From this it follows that the "plurality of truth" in hermeneutical research is fundamentally unavoidable. At least, to establish the truth, it is necessary to agree on the points of view of several researchers. Reconciliation will be supported by ideas about the psyche, fixed in natural language and / or all the fundamental psychological knowledge received at a given historical moment. Since the coordination procedure is absolutely necessary for obtaining intersubjective knowledge, the hermeneutical method presupposes the presence of several researchers.
The main requirement for "objective" methods is the invariance of knowledge in relation to the subject of research.
But at the same time, objects, methods, external conditions vary, and all subjects of the study are assumed to be identical to each other: it is assumed that the result of the study does not depend on the characteristics of the subject.
We have already noted that in psychological measurement it is impossible to completely exclude the influence of the experimenter, but this influence, as a rule, is taken into account from "general psychological" positions.
When using the hermeneutic method, the individual differences of the subjects of the study become of fundamental importance. Therefore, research planning in "understanding psychology" must be different from research planning in natural science psychology. The plan is, as it were, “transformed”, and the main attention is paid not to control over the variables characterizing the subject, object of study, impact and measurement tool, but to taking into account the individual differences of the subjects of the study.
An analogue is the situation of the study of subjective judgments (subjective scaling), where judgments are made about a certain set of objects (in these cases, subjects). But with subjective scaling essential has tools (be it the technique of semantic differential, the technique of repertory grids, etc.), while the hermeneutic method is limited to a direct interpretation of psychic reality in terms of the researcher's own subjective experience. It is no coincidence that the psychologist gets the impression that certain results obtained by the hermeneutic method are personal knowledge. And, accordingly, each concept obtained on the basis of this method is psychologically specific, i.e., it is suitable for describing the mental reality and behavior of only a certain psychological type of people, and can also be understood and applied in practice only to certain psychological types of people: type recognizes the type.
Moreover, the decisive and absolutely necessary step in the application of the hermeneutic method is the discussion of researchers about a specific object of study.
However, the problem of combining the specific life experience of a researcher in hermeneutic knowledge with the requirements of scientific reliability (the problem of obtaining universally significant statements) has not been resolved within hermeneutics.
Main
Goodwin D. Research in psychology: methods and planning. SPb., Peter, 2004.
Druzhinin VN Experimental psychology. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2000.
Kornilova TV Experimental psychology: theory and methods. M., ASPECT PRESS, 2003.
Martin D. Psychological experiments. Secrets of the mechanisms of the psyche. SPb., Prime EUROZNAK. 2002.
Nikandrov VV Experimental psychology. SPb. Speech. 2003.
Solso R., Johnson H., Beale K. Experimental psychology. Practical course. SPb. M. 2001.
Additional
Agafonov A.Yu. Fundamentals of the semantic theory of consciousness. SPb., Speech. 2003
Adler Yu. P. Planning of the experiment. M. 1978.
Allahverdov V.M. A methodological journey through the ocean of the unconscious to the mysterious island of consciousness. SPb., 2003.
Allahverdov V.M. Consciousness as a paradox. SPb., 2000.
Ananiev BG On the problems of modern science. M. Nauka, 2001.
Anastasi A. Psychological testing. T.1. Moscow: Pedagogy, 1982.
Bunge M. Causality. M. 1962.
Bykov VV Methods of science. M. 1974.
Volkov B.S., Volkova N.V., Gubanov A.V. Methodology and methods of psychological research. M., Academic Project. 2005.
Galperin P. Ya. (ed.) Controlled formation of mental processes. M. 1977.
Galperin P. Ya. Psychology of thinking and the doctrine of the phased formation of mental actions // Researches of thinking in Soviet psychology. M.1966.
Ganzen V. A. System descriptions in psychology. LGU. 1984.
Glass J, Stanley J. Mathematical Methods in pedagogy and psychology.M. Progress. 976.
Gottsdanker R. Fundamentals of psychological experiment. M.: MGU, 1982, 2005.
Godfroy J. What is psychology. T.1. M.: Mir, 1992.
Grigorenko E. L., Paulz D. L. Genetic factors influencing the occurrence of deviant forms of development and children's mental disorders // Defectology. 1995. No. 3.
Egorova MS Behavior genetics: psychological aspect. M. 1995.
Egorova M.S. Fundamentals of the longitudinal method //Golubeva E.A., Ravich-Shcherbo I.V. (ed.) Problems of differential psychophysiology. M. 1981.
Zeigarnik B. V. K. Levin's theory of personality. M. 1981.
Ilyenkov E.V. Dialectics of abstract and concrete in "Capital" by K. Marx. M. 1960.
Campbell D. Models of experiment in social psychology and applied research. M. Progress, 1980.
Kline P. Reference guide to test design. Kyiv. 1994.
Kopnin P. V. Gnoseological and logical foundations of science. M., 1974.
Kornilova T.V. Introduction to the psychological experiment. Moscow State University, 1997.
Kornilova TV Experimental method in psychology // Vopr. psychol. 1998. No. 5.
Kornilova T. V., Grigorenko E. L. Comparison of personal characteristics of Russian and American students (according to the A. Edwards questionnaire) // Vopr. psychol. 1995. No. 5.
Cole M., Scribner S. Culture and thinking: a psychological essay. M. 1977.
Kulikov L.V. Psychological research: guidelines for conducting. SPb. 2001.
Kuhn T. Structure of scientific revolutions. Moscow: Progress, 1983.
Lakatos I. Evidence and rebuttals. Moscow: Progress, 1967.
Levin K. The conflict between the Aristotelian and Gallilean ways of thinking in modern psychology //Psychol. magazine 1990. No. 5.
Leaders AG, Frolov Yu. I. Formation of psychological processes as a research method in psychology. M. 1991.
Little T.D., Gordeeva T.O. Modeling method using linear structural equations: application in the context of cross-cultural data analysis //Psychol. magazine 1997. No. 4.
Logvinenko A.D. Measurements in psychology: mathematical foundations. M. 1993.
Lomov BF Methodological and theoretical problems of psychology. M. Nauka, 1984.
Meili R. Personality Structure // Experimental Psychology / Ed. P. Fressa, J. Piaget. Issue. 5. M. Progress. 1975.
Merton R. The Matthew effect in science, II: the accumulation of advantages and the symbolism of intellectual property //THESIS. Man's world. 1993, no. 5.
Methods of research in psychology: quasi-experiment / Ed. T. V. Kornilova. M. 1998.
Nikandrov V.V. Experimental psychology. 2004
From coursework to master's: written work on philosophical disciplines /Authors-compilers B. V. Emelyanov, A. V. Pertsev. Yekaterinburg, publishing house Ural University, 2001.
Nalimov VV Theory of experiment. M. 1971.
Nasledov A.D. Methods of mathematical processing in psychology. S-Pb. 2004.
Nikolaeva V. V., Sokolova E. T., Spivakovskaya A. S. Special practice in pathopsychology. M. 1979.
Noss I. N., Vasina N. V. Introduction to the practice of psychological research. M., publishing house of the Institute of Psychotherapy. 2004.
Papovyan S. S. Mathematical methods in social psychology. M. Science. 1983.
Petrov Yu.A., Zakharov A.A. General methodology of thinking. M., 2006
Popper K. The logic of scientific research. M.: Respublika, 2005.
Workshop on psychodiagnostics / Ed. V. V. Stolina, A. G. Shmelev. M. 1984.
Psychodiagnostic methods (in a comprehensive longitudinal study of students) Leningrad State University. 1976
Psychological diagnostics / Ed. K. M. Gurevich. M. 1981.
Rogovin M. S., Zalevsky G. V. Theoretical foundations of psychological and pathopsychological research.
The role of the environment and heredity in the formation of human individuality / Ed. I. V. Ravich-Shcherbo. M. 1988.
Rubinshtein S. L. Fundamentals general psychology. SPb. Peter, 1999.
Rubinshtein S. Ya. Specifics of pathopsychological experimental studies // Bulletin of Moscow State University. Ser. 14. Psychology. 1983. No. 3.
Sidorenko EV Methods of mathematical processing in psychology. S-Pb. 2000.
Stevens S. Mathematics, measurement, psychophysics // Experimental psychology / Ed. S. Stevens. T.1. M. 1960.
Suppes P., Zines J. Fundamentals of the theory of measurements / Psychological measurements. M. 1967.
Fayerabend P. Selected works on the methodology of science. Moscow: Progress, 1986.
Hekhauzen H. Motivation and activity. M. 1986. T.1.
Shchedrovitsky G.P. Psychology and methodology (1): the situation and conditions for the emergence of the concept of the phased formation of mental actions / From the archive of G.P. Shchedrovitsky. M. Way. 2004.
Shchedrovitsky G.P. Methodological remarks on the problem of the origin of the language //Philological Sciences. 1963. No. 2.
Experimental Psychology: Workshop / Ed. S. D. Smirnova, T. V. Kornilova. M., ASPECT PRESS, 2002.
Experimental psychology / Ed. P. Fresse and J. Piaget. Issue. 1-2. Moscow: Progress, 1966.
TOPICS AND PLANS OF SEMINAR LESSONS
Hermeneutics arose as the art of reading incomprehensible texts (in antiquity).
Second function: interpretation scripture(Christianity).
Hermes is the mediator.
Hermeneutics is not scientific method(not a procedure that leads to a certain result).
Explanation types:
1. Genetic.
2. Material explanation (reduction - we decompose it into parts).
3. Structural (the whole is explained from the interaction of parts, and each part in terms of its place in the whole).
Some of these explanations can be applied in humanitarian knowledge (linguistics (structural)).
The structural method is universal, it is used in all sciences.
Hermeneutics as a method of text interpretation:
Any text has two meanings (the meaning of the speaker and the listener).
The concept of hermeneutics.
Hermeneutics (Greek hermeneutike - the art of interpretation) - in a broad sense, the art of interpretation and understanding. The very word hermeneutics goes back to ancient Greek myths, according to which Hermes, the messenger of the Gods, was obliged to interpret and explain divine thoughts to people.
Today, hermeneutics is, on the one hand, a method of understanding, on the other hand, a philosophical doctrine.
Stages of development of hermeneutics
General hermeneutics is rooted in the culture of the peoples of primitive civilization. Thus, the initiation rites of young members of society among "primitive" tribes are accompanied by the interpretation of myths and ritual symbols. In antiquity and ancient cultures the priests explained the words of the soothsayers and recorded these explanations in writing. But the real beginning of the art of hermeneutics was laid by the Greek philosophers, who set out to find a deep meaning in the myths and in the works of Homer. At the same time, they often invested in ancient texts and legends a meaning that was very far from them. In essence, they only used myths to express their own views.
In the Middle Ages, hermeneutics was equated with an allegorical interpretation of the Bible. Certain Fragments Old Testament interpreted as allegorical indications of the future appearance of Christ. Origen in a treatise About the beginnings develops the doctrine of the three semantic layers of Holy Scripture: bodily, mental and spiritual. Corporal, or meaning - for ordinary people. soulful meaning- for those who are more diligent in faith. The spiritual meaning is revealed only to the elect.
Thus, we can say that hermeneutics before the Renaissance was of a religious nature, only from this era does scientific and literary hermeneutics begin to develop. In a later period, the sciences connected with the interpretation of texts will develop their own hermeneutics. Since the Renaissance, there has been its own hermeneutics in jurisprudence and philology, and since the 19th century. hermeneutics occupies a place among the historical disciplines. Since all sciences are ultimately concerned with interpretation, they are increasingly aware of the need for hermeneutic reflection.
The term hermeneutics began to be used in philosophical sense in early German romanticism. F. Schleiermacher (1768-1834), whose works were of fundamental importance for hermeneutics, turned it into a doctrine of the art of understanding as such. The task of such art is to develop rules of interpretation that guarantee correct understanding, i.e. allowing to protect the latter from errors. Schleiermacher makes a methodologically important distinction between loose and strict interpretive practice. Schleiermacher opposed the strict practice of interpretation to the non-strict practice of the former hermeneutic tradition, which was looking for ways to understand the "dark places" of the text and proceeded from the fact that "understanding arises by itself", Schleiermacher opposed the strict practice of interpretation, arguing that "just misunderstanding arises by itself" while understanding requires special effort. The work of hermeneutics therefore begins not with difficulties in discovering meaning, but with thinking through the methods by which meaning can be understood. The art of understanding lies in the ability to reconstruct someone else's speech. The hermeneutic must be able to recreate from separate parts the integrity of the speech recorded in a particular text. He must understand the author better than himself.
The final turn of hermeneutics towards philosophy takes place in the 20th century. Although the first hints of such a turn can be found already in the “philosophy of life” of the late Dilthey and in Nietzsche, who declared that “there are no facts, there are only interpretations”, hermeneutics as a philosophical discipline is developed in this vein by M. Heidegger and his student H.G. Gadamer. If Heidegger's hermeneutics is aimed at self-understanding of an actually existing person, then Gadamer is interested in the sphere of humanitarian knowledge, he seeks to comprehend the "historicity" and "linguisticity" of human experience.
As a method of proper historical interpretation, hermeneutics was developed by the great thinker Wilhelm Dilthey (1830-1911). He considered it his main task to develop the methodology of humanitarian knowledge, which he understood as "criticism of historical reason". His work served as a kind of blueprint for hermeneutic philosophy. As a result, "hermeneutics" became a fashionable term and, beginning in the 1920s, became part of the "philosophy of history."
Dilthey put forward the method of "understanding". Understanding is akin to intuitive insight into life. Understanding of one's inner world is achieved through self-observation, and understanding of another's world - through "empathy", "feeling". In relation to the culture of the past, understanding acts as a method of interpretation, called hermeneutics by Dilthey. He formulates the program of hermeneutics as a methodology. The function of a hermeneutic is to "clarify the possibility of knowing the interconnection of the historical world, as well as to find the means necessary for the implementation of such knowledge." Dilthey defines hermeneutics as "the art of understanding the written manifestations of life." It follows that hermeneutics is present in all the humanities.
Dilthey himself did not develop hermeneutics as an art of interpretation, but his numerous followers did. One of the last attempts of this kind was made by the Italian scientist E.Betty.
Heidegger relied on the legacy of Dilthey in his early works: his lectures on the “hermeneutics of facticity” are devoted to the self-interpretation of man. The original Heideggerian intuition is that the world is given to us in the mode of significance. The interpretation of things is not introduced into them, but belongs to them from the very beginning. Man always deals with the world as with his "life world".
In later works, Heidegger departs from the hermeneutic program .
Not without the influence of Heidegger's ideas, in 1936 H. Lipps made an attempt to create a "hermeneutic logic". Its subject is living speech, and not the inert morphology of judgment, as in classical logic. The latter, in particular, is completely abstracted from the fact that speech "allows us to know something." The true content of speech must be sought not in the utterance, but in the situation where some statement or remark arises and where it has a certain effect on the speaker. These thoughts of H. Lipps are rightly considered to be an anticipation of the theory of language acts, created later by J. Searle and J. Austin.
Further development of this topic was carried out by Hans Georg Gadamer (b. 1900), a student of M. Heidegger. He understood hermeneutics broadly - as a doctrine of being, as an ontology, perhaps rather as a theory of knowledge. In his book Truth and Method: Main Features of Philosophical Hermeneutics(1960) carried out a synthesis of the hermeneutic tradition. Arguing with Dilthey and his followers, Gadamer shows that the originality of the hermeneutic position is not located at all in the methodological plane.
Gadamer, he said, tried to reconcile philosophy with science.
Understanding for Gadamer is a way of existence for a person who knows, acts and evaluates. Understanding as a universal way of mastering the world by man is concretized by Gadamer as "experience".
Language is the medium of hermeneutical experience. "Language is a universal environment in which understanding itself is carried out. The method of this implementation is interpretation." Language was considered by the researcher as a special reality within which a person understands another person and also understands the world. Language is the main condition under which human existence is possible.
Gadamer considered "historicity" to be a fundamental characteristic of human existence and thinking: i.e. being is determined by place and time - the situation in which a person is born and lives.
principles of hermeneutics.
The principles of HERMENEUTICS, developed from the time of the Renaissance to the present day, can be reduced to several main provisions.
1) Texts must be studied not in isolation, but in the general context, the integral structure of the work.
2) When interpreting a text, it is important to get as complete an idea of the author's personality as possible, even if his name is unknown.
3) a huge role The interpretation of the document is played by the reconstruction of the historical and cultural environment in which the author was included.
4) A thorough grammatical and philological analysis of the monument is required in accordance with the laws of the original language.
5) Because each literary genre has its own characteristics and techniques, it is important to determine to which genre a given text belongs (taking into account the specifics of its artistic language: hyperbolas, metaphors, allegories, symbols, etc.).
6) Interpretation should be preceded by a critical study of the manuscripts, designed to establish the most accurate reading of the text.
7) Interpretation remains dead without intuitive participation in the spirit of the monument.
8) Understanding the meaning of the text can be facilitated by comparative method, i.e. comparison with other similar texts.
9) The interpreter is obliged to establish the meaning of what was written, first of all, for the author himself and his environment, and then to reveal the relation of the monument to modern consciousness.
Summarizing the above, the following conclusion can be drawn. Adequate understanding various texts and their interpretation is one of the most difficult tasks facing the reader-interpreter. But it is advisable to resort to hermeneutics when we are dealing with really complex, intricate philosophical or psychological texts.
UDC 159.9.018
DOI:10.23888/humJ201648-14 ©Karashchuk L.N., Kulikov A.D., 2016
DEVELOPMENT OF HERMENEUTICS AS A METHOD OF PSYCHOLOGY
Annotation. The article outlines the main directions in the development of hermeneutics and the hermeneutic method as a method of psychology. The contributions are analyzed: F. Schleiermacher and W. Dilthey. The problems of determining the first person who used the hermeneutic method in history are outlined.
Key words: hermeneutics, hermeneutic method, research, history of hermeneutics.
© Karaschuk L.N., Ku.lik.ov A.D., 2016
THE DEVELOPMENT OF HER-MENEUTICS AS METHOD OF PSYCHOLOGY
abstract. The article describes the history of hermeneutics and hermeneutic-IC method as a method of psychology. Analyzed contributions: F. Schleiermacher and W. Dlthey. These problems are the first person to use-lished her-meneutical method in history.
Key words: hermeneutics, her-meneutic method, study the history of hermeneutics.
Hermeneutics originates in civilizations ancient world where there was a tradition of interpretation and clarification sacred texts. From the very beginning, the meaning of many of these texts was quite complex and needed interpretation. This is due, for example, to the development spoken language, due to which the language of sacred texts turned into a dead language.
The term "hermeneutics" itself comes from the Greek word "explain, interpret". This term is based on the name ancient greek god Hermes - the god of eloquence and the messenger of the gods.
In the era of the Ancient World, each civilization had its own ways of interpreting sacred texts, which sometimes led to the emergence of several rival schools. For example, the Christian and Jewish traditions of interpreting the texts of the Old Testament differ significantly from each other. It was at this time that hermeneutics was born.
In the era of the Middle Ages, the possibility of five types of interpretation of the same texts is recognized, respectively, we can already talk about the emergence of a certain systematization of hermeneutics.
During the Renaissance, hermeneutics developed especially rapidly, while solving two main problems. The first is the need to find techniques and methods for the correct reading of ancient texts. The second is the task of a new reading and interpretation of biblical texts, which arose in connection with the development of Protestantism, which rejected the "Holy Tradition". The solution of the first task contributed to the formation of secular, and the second - theological Protestant hermeneutics.
In the 19th century the formation of general hermeneutics began as an independent scientific discipline that deals with the study of any texts - both religious and secular. A special merit in this belongs to Friedrich Schleiermacher and Wilhelm Dilthey. F. Schleiermacher also had a great influence on the development of the hermeneutic method in psychology.
Friedrich Ernst Daniel Schleiermacher (1768 - 1834) - German philosopher and Protestant theologian. Schleiermacher turned hermeneutics into a universal theory of understanding. The subject of this theory is texts of various kinds, without selecting "worthy" interpretations from a multitude of "unworthy" interpretations. The "rules of understanding" developed by Schleiermacher are not specified depending on the type of text (previously it was believed that different rules of interpretation should be applied to different works - "sacred", "classical" and "authoritative").
“The subject of hermeneutics Schleiermacher considers primarily texts that are monuments. Monuments are texts that are separated from the researcher by a large temporal, historical, cultural, linguistic distance. F. Schleiermacher created many principles and methods of hermeneutical analysis.
If we talk about the aspect of the hermeneutic method that interests us, then it must be said that Schleiermacher pays a lot of attention to psychological interpretation, since it is not given directly in the text of the work, it does not lie on the surface. Before starting a psychological interpretation, according to Schleiermacher, one should pay attention to how the subject and language were given to the author and what can be known about his personal life. There are two methods of psychological interpretation: divinatory and comparative. They should not depend on each other, when using one method one cannot refer to the other, but something else is essentially important: the results obtained after applying both methods should not contradict each other. On the contrary, their agreement is the criterion for successful psychological interpretation. The divinatory method is the method of a direct (intuitively comprehended) search for an understanding of the individual, while the comparative method deals with the universal.
It is difficult to overestimate the contribution of Friedrich Schleiermacher to the development of both general hermeneutics and the hermeneutic method as a method of psychology. After all, it was F. Schleiermacher who for the first time in history began to study psychological aspect interpreted texts.
Also important role Wilhelm Dilthey (1833 - 1911) played in the emergence of general hermeneutics. Within the framework of his concept, hermeneutics is attributed a special methodological function. The “understanding” with which hermeneutics deals is, according to Dilthey, not just some aspect of the theory of knowledge, but the foundation of humanitarian knowledge (“sciences of the spirit”) in general.
Hermeneutics in Dilthey's understanding is part of a broader methodological project, the purpose of which is to substantiate the special significance of historical and humanitarian knowledge, the irreducibility of the procedures of such knowledge to the procedures of the natural sciences. The peculiarity of the sphere with which the human sciences deal lies in the fact that the cognizing subject is himself a part of the sphere with which he is to cognize. Dilthey's famous formula arises from this statement, according to which "we explain nature, we understand spiritual life."
Hermeneutics was intended by Dilthey to remove the reproaches that inevitably followed when focusing on the psychological foundation of the sciences of the spirit, to build, as it seemed to him, an adequate methodology for the humanities. He regarded hermeneutics as a theory of the hermeneutic method in a broad sense and in a narrow sense as a technique of interpretation representing the means practical art interpretation."
Who in history was the first to apply the hermeneutical method? The answer to this question depends on whether we can consider the founder of something to be a person who himself does not fully understand his final result? On the one hand, man was the first to discover or create something, indeed he did it before all other people in history. This pioneer did something that people of his generation may not have suspected. On the other hand, if this person did not understand what the end result would be, can we really talk about, for example, a scientific discovery, or was it just luck? After all, the merits of such a discoverer will be understood only after a while, when other scientists come to the same conclusion, but with a full understanding of the result.
An example is the French philosopher Rene Descartes, who is conditionally considered the founder of the "Reflex Theory". He first described unconditioned reflex, although the term itself appeared much later. Or Christopher Columbus, who discovered America, but mistook it for the eastern
part of Asia, and America began to bear the name of Amerigo Vespucci, a man who realized that this was a new continent, and not part of India.
But, even having unequivocally answered this question, we are faced with another, no less important, namely: what is the hermeneutic method? After all, the science of hermeneutics has existed for many centuries.
If we start from the philosophical basis and see the goal of hermeneutics in “comprehension of the meaning of any signs”, then we can say that absolutely any person uses hermeneutics to one degree or another. After all, any person all the time in some way understands and interprets the signs of the world around him. And each person interprets them on the basis of his experience, current state, his knowledge and comes to different, often unique interpretations. Different people can see and interpret signs that exist only for them. And even if we consider the subject of hermeneutics from the position of F. Schleiermacher as “texts that are separated from the researcher by a large temporal, historical, cultural, linguistic distance”, then the essence of the problem will not change much, because any person interprets any read work in the same way, whether either a philosophical treatise or piece of art, many of which were written in past centuries.
If we start from the definition of a method as a way to achieve a goal, solve a specific problem, a set of techniques or operations for practical or theoretical mastering of reality, then it becomes clear that the application of the hermeneutic method requires a goal, the use of some techniques and, as a result, obtaining a result. In this case, the first person to use the hermeneutical method was Sigmund Freud (1856 - 1939).
IN short book titled "Leonardo da Vinci. Childhood Memories”, Freud outlined the “psychobiography” of the great artist, scientist and inventor.
body of the Renaissance. He began a study on the personality of Leonardo da Vinci in the autumn of 1909 and published it in May 1910.
Such research presupposes the ability to find "patterns" of behavior and then associate them with specific mental processes or "mental mechanisms".
A "pattern" of behavior is, in essence, something that repeats itself over time, or something that necessarily repeats itself at key moments or in some particular environment. Such patterns can be identified by what a person does or does not do, while comparing his behavior with the behavior of others.
Freud was looking for behavior that would be meaningful or appropriate, and in doing so, he paid attention to what did not fit into the typical picture. He pointed out that for Leonardo da Vinci, the characteristic pattern was the ability to take on many things at the same time, from a scientific and artistic point of view, but he brought only a few of them to the end, and many of his scientific discoveries remained unpublished and unused for several centuries. In fact, the scientist was often so much carried away by his scientific research that it distracted him from artistic creativity, thanks to which his fame was mainly born.
Summing up, we can say that the hermeneutic method as a method of psychology can and should be used, but like other psychological methods it has certain advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, it cannot be equally good and effective in different situations. The hermeneutic method requires, if possible, combination with other psychological methods. As for the answer to the question about "the first ever use of the hermeneutic method", the interpretation of the hermeneutic method is of paramount importance here. If we understand the hermeneutic method as the principle of a universal understanding of the true meaning, then for the first time a person used the hermeneutic
meneutic method, as soon as he created any product of his activity, which his fellow tribesmen could understand and interpret in different ways. If we understand the hermeneutical method as a set of certain methodological techniques having a goal and an end result, then the first person in history to apply the hermeneutic method in practice is Z. Freud.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
1. Goodwin D. Research in psychology: methods and planning / J. Goodwin. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2004. - 558s.
2. Druzhinin VN Experimental psychology / VN Druzhinin. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2000. - 320 p.
3. Kuznetsov VG Hermeneutics and humanitarian knowledge// Philosophy and society. - 2009. - No. 4. - S. 22-63.
4. Kuznetsov VG Hermeneutics and its way from a specific methodology to a philosophical direction// Logos. - 1999. - No. 10. - S. 43-88.
5. Shustov D.I. Psychological study of biographies and life path [Electronic resource] / D.I. Shustov // Personality in a changing world: health, adaptation, development: network journal. 2014. No. 2 (5). Access mode: http://humjoumaLrzgmu.ra/art&id=76 (date of access: 10/25/2016).