Hermeneutical Impasses

Luvell Anderson
{"title":"Hermeneutical Impasses","authors":"Luvell Anderson","doi":"10.5840/philtopics201745211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When people respond to chants of \"Black lives matter\" with \"All lives matter\" or excoriate Colin Kaepernick for being \"anti-military\" or \"anti-American\" when he sits or kneels during the playing of the national anthem, there appears to be a break in understanding. BLM protestors and Kaepernick understand their actions and messages in one way, detractors in quite a different way. This seems to present what we might refer to as an interpretive challenge.In this essay, I aim to explore the nature of this interpretive challenge by illuminating the various obstacles that leave us without understanding. I will refer to such breaks in understanding as hermeneutical impasses. First, I sketch a taxonomy of hermeneutical impasses. I then discuss various ways of describing the notion of 'understanding' that may be at issue in impasses. Next, I discuss the relation between power and hermeneutical impasses, showing some of the ways power relations constrain our discursive practices. I conclude by arguing the structures of our environment make hermeneutical impasses difficult to avoid, if not inevitable.","PeriodicalId":230797,"journal":{"name":"Philosophical Topics","volume":"72 6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophical Topics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/philtopics201745211","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

When people respond to chants of "Black lives matter" with "All lives matter" or excoriate Colin Kaepernick for being "anti-military" or "anti-American" when he sits or kneels during the playing of the national anthem, there appears to be a break in understanding. BLM protestors and Kaepernick understand their actions and messages in one way, detractors in quite a different way. This seems to present what we might refer to as an interpretive challenge.In this essay, I aim to explore the nature of this interpretive challenge by illuminating the various obstacles that leave us without understanding. I will refer to such breaks in understanding as hermeneutical impasses. First, I sketch a taxonomy of hermeneutical impasses. I then discuss various ways of describing the notion of 'understanding' that may be at issue in impasses. Next, I discuss the relation between power and hermeneutical impasses, showing some of the ways power relations constrain our discursive practices. I conclude by arguing the structures of our environment make hermeneutical impasses difficult to avoid, if not inevitable.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
解释学的僵局
当人们用“所有的生命都很重要”来回应“黑人的生命也很重要”的口号时,或者当科林·卡佩尼克(Colin Kaepernick)在奏国歌时坐下或跪下时,人们谴责他是“反军事”或“反美”时,人们的理解似乎出现了断裂。土地管理局的抗议者和Kaepernick对他们的行为和信息有一种理解,而批评者则有完全不同的理解。这似乎呈现出我们可以称之为解释性挑战的东西。在这篇文章中,我的目的是通过阐明使我们无法理解的各种障碍来探索这种解释挑战的本质。我将把这种理解上的断裂称为解释学的僵局。首先,我概述了解释学僵局的分类。然后,我讨论了描述“理解”概念的各种方法,这些方法可能在僵局中存在争议。接下来,我将讨论权力与解释学僵局之间的关系,展示权力关系约束我们话语实践的一些方式。我的结论是,我们的环境结构使解释学的僵局即使不是不可避免的,也是难以避免的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Political Polarization and Social Media Interactive Self-Deception in Digital Spaces Absurd Stories, Ideologies & Motivated Cognition Conspiracy Theories as Serious Play Testimonial Epistemic Rights in Online Spaces
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1