A New Defense of Gadamer's Hermeneutics
Abstract
This paper re-examines the central thesis of Gadamer's hermeneutics that objectivity is not a suitable ideal for understanding a text, historical event, or cultural phenomenon because there exists no one correct interpretation of such phenomena. Because Gadamer fails to make clear the grounds for this claim, this paper considers three possible arguments. The first, predominant in the literature on Gadamer, is built on the premise that we cannot surpass our historically situated prejudgments. The paper rejects this argument as insufficient. Similarly, the paper rejects a second argument concerning the heuristics of understanding. The paper then articulates a third argument that the object of understanding changes according to the conditions in which it is grasped. The paper appeals to the notion of relational properties to make sense of this claim and to defend the position against two objections: i) that it conflates meaning and significance, and ii) that it is saddled with an indefensible relativism.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The object of understanding is underdetermined in the sense that at least some of its meaning is determined by the specific historical context (i.e. horizon) in which it is situated.
“The object of understanding is underdetermined in the sense that at least some its meaning is determined by the specific historical context (i.e.horizon) in which it is situated.”
From Do We Need Real-Time Hermeneutics? Structures of Meaning in Games (2011) · cites this paper as Weberman 2000
Understanding games as interactive procedural systems is made easier with the distinction made by Weberman (2000) between relational and intrinsic properties.
“Understanding games as interactive procedural systems is made easier with the distinction made by Weberman (2000).”
From Do We Need Real-Time Hermeneutics? Structures of Meaning in Games (2011) · cites this paper as Weberman 2000
Weberman discusses the examples of artworks, texts and historical events, but the same applies to games.
“Weberman (2000, 53) discusses the examples of artworks, texts and historical events, but the same applies to games:”
From Do We Need Real-Time Hermeneutics? Structures of Meaning in Games (2011) · cites this paper as Weberman 2000
Changes in the cultural vantage point of the interpreter change the possible meaning of the object.
“Gadamer emphasizes the temporal aspect, but the changes in the cultural vantage point of the interpreter also change the possible meaning of the object (Weberman, 2000, pp. 55-56).”
From Real-time hermeneutics: meaning-making in ludonarrative digital games (2018) · cites this paper as Weberman, 2000, pp. 55-56
Because Gadamer's own account of the matter leaves room for interpretation, David Weberman (2000) has sought to clarify it with the aid of two new concepts: intrinsic and relational properties.
“Because Gadamer's own account of the matter leaves room for interpretation, David Weberman (2000) has sought to clarify it with the aid of two new concepts: intrinsic and relational properties (see also Paper 1).”
From Real-time hermeneutics: meaning-making in ludonarrative digital games (2018) · cites this paper as Weberman, 2000
A more apt description of Gadamer's account is 'interpretive pluralism,' as it shows meaning is firmly dependent on the context of interpretation.
“A more apt description might be to call it 'interpretive pluralism,' as it shows how meaning is firmly dependent on the context of interpretation (Weberman, 2000, p. 51).”
From Real-time hermeneutics: meaning-making in ludonarrative digital games (2018) · cites this paper as Weberman, 2000, p. 51
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 20
- Authors
- Weberman, D.
- Corresponding author
- Weberman, David
- Venue
- Philosophy and Phenomenological Research
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 2000-01
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 45
- ISSN
- 0031-8205 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2323702575
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Philosophy and Phenomenological Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Hermeneutics and Narrative Identity
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Keywords
- Hans-Georg Gadamer, hermeneutics, objectivity, interpretation, historical understanding, prejudgment, relational properties, meaning and significance, relativism
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
