Talk:Hermeneutic circle

[Untitled]
Is this article a joke? Maybe I am dumb but this article reads like some self-referencial joke, and I have no idea what it is talking about. At the very least, encyclopedia articles should attempt to be understandable, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.161.162 (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

"For other thinkers, the fact of demonstration as a method to define certain words, clearly is evidence of a degree of shared experience among all humans. For example, anyone can point to the sun, as it exists, and then name it any sound, symbol, or word that represents or literally points to that actual being, the sun. There might be some disagreement about what the sun is exactly, but there is agreement that it exists, and that to a human on Earth it looks like the drawings and pictures we see of it. Therefore, some concepts and ideas are universal."

In reference to the above quote, this is only valid if we agree that ostensive definition (by pointing, for example) is universally understood as a practice, and that methods of representation are equally universal (the sun has, for example, been represented in radically different ways in different cultures, and there is no reason to believe that all of these may be easily understood to represent the same thing as one another). I don't want to change this right now, because it would seem petty. But it certainly needs attention and/or qualification.81.98.191.3 (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Circular definition You cannot use the word hermeneutically to describe Hermeneutic circle....it has no meaning. The topic is not one in which I have expertise so I am not changing it. But I hope someone else will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apault (talk • contribs) 16:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Self-serving criticism? The 'critique' by Shklar seems far-fetched to me (and I wonder if mentioning it here is not 'academic self-advertising' rather than a serious contention). There is no 'center' to the hermeneutic circle, as far as I understand it. AFAIK 'the text' is interpreted by 'the reader', who develops a 'first understanding', then uses this 'first impression' to go back to the text, which then elicits a second, modified reading, further adding to or modifying the initial interpretation. The circle is essentially complete after only two readings ( text to reader, reader to text ), though it can also occur in a social/historical process (one reader elicits one interpretation, the next reader bases his/her interpretation on the understanding of the first reader and may also discover 'new' aspects of the text. I fail to understand the notion of a 'center' here, since the circle seems more like a spiral, developing a deepening/more comprehensive interpretation of the text based on the preceding readings of the text. The curve of text to reader and reader to text is the circle and any reference to a 'center' would seem superfluous, let alone a critique based on the 'implied center'. If anything, the text itself is the center in the readings that circle around it.

Problems I agree with both of the preceding critics. Further, the article contains much good information that is framed poorly - I will try to elaborate. The central idea should be framed as very simple and self-evident upon reflection - this article does not, and the opening couple paragraphs are problematic: 1. The importance of the hermeneutic circle *inside a single text* (as per "the whole text nor any individual part") is dwarfed by its importance inside a "discourse network" where understanding a single text requires taking into account *a large group or series of texts*, and, as a by-product, any textual comment given on one's understanding of that text simply adds itself to that group of texts. Therefore, the hermeneutic circle can and should be traced directly from its roots in mid-19th century Protestant theology to the agonistic postmodern and poststructural "meaning" debates of the last 60 years. 2. The significance of the hermeneutic circle is, at least for the vast majority of thinkers who seek truth, clarity, and bedrock, quite pessimistic. In other words, this article should be telegraphing "we have a problem here, folks..." instead of the very hopeful face-saver about how it "does not make it impossible to interpret a text." The better construction would be something like "given its circular nature, it militates against any finality or definite outcome to textual interpretation, making that activity an end in itself, rather than a path to any ultimate, take-to-the-bank answer" - which is pretty much where Heidegger leaves it. 3. In my opinion, the best way to frame the circle is as a form of self-reference or recursion leading to an infinite loop (since there is no trigger to step out of it). An apt way to phrase this might go "interpreting interpretations of interpretations", "writing about writing about writing...", etc. These stand in opposition to "interpreting facts" or "writing about an event": here one's goal is not to "understand the text" but rather to understand the objects described by the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KTyson (talk • contribs) 14:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Gadamer (1975)
I just read Gadamer's "Hermeneutics and Social Science" and it doesn't refer to any of the issues discussed in this article. I'm not sure if the original author of those sections of the text is still around, but they need to be removed. Perhaps the references are meant to refer to some other text? Wikikrax (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)