The aim of Philosophy2u is to apply philosophical ideas and theories to a wide range of practices and fields. Dissemination occurs through blogs, stories, and business consultation relating to meaningful work and virtue ethics.
You make a distinction of poetry of Plato's time and poetry of our time and other ages. What is called poetry in Plato's time is generally oral history of a people.
That's a good question. Whereas phenomenology examines our experience as it relates to consciousness/perception (Husserl) or bodily presence (Merleau-Ponty), a hermeneutical phenomenology would prioritize how human experience is mediated through language. Paul Ricoeur is probably the most prominent philosopher on this front. His essay "Hermeneutics and Phenomenology" (_Essays in Hermeneutics and Human Sciences, Cambridge University Press) examines the mutual and inevitable relation between the two.
@@philosophy2u Fascinating. I will give it a read. Do you think looking at the original language along with the cultural context of the ancient Israelites is part of the analysis/method of “hermeneutical phenomenology” when it comes to Biblical exegesis? The reason why I ask is because I believe the ancient Hebraic authors believed that the world was flat and had a firmament (raqia) and this can be seen in the Hebrew Bible. The other cultures surrounding it, such as the ancient Egyptians and ancient Mesopotamians, also believed the same thing. I, therefore, believe that the *experiences* of the ancient Hebraic authors can be seen in this cultural setting as expressed in parts of the Hebrew Bible. Essentially, I believe no person (and the texts they write) is created in a vacuum. Does any of this have anything in common with the “hermeneutical phenomenology” approach or am I just seeing things that aren’t there? Thanks
@@jimmyfaulkner1855 , thanks. You put a very complex and interesting question. If I understand you correctly (assuming that the experience of the world as flat is really decisive in your approach), then it would technically be more like a phenomenological hermeneutics. I know this might seem knit-picky. But I think the idea of which I am thinking is looking closely at ancient texts and history (a la typical hermeneutics and Biblical hermeneutics), and then looking at how the experience of the world as flat might in fact change the way we read these texts and histories. Are you planning on doing this as a PhD thesis?
Good video. I have one suggestion and one question: First the suggestion. Why not look straight into the camera? It would be less distracting. Now to the question- why isn't St Augustine's methods considered in biblical hermeneutic in your video? He combines Antiochene and Alexandrian methods I would rgue he's one of the first to systematize hermeneutics.. ( And this is ignoring the hermeneutics fo Aristotle and the Platonists)
Thanks for the constructive criticism. I made a few of my videos a few years ago, when at the time there were a lot of "floating head" formats that seemed pretty tired. Also at the time, I had noticed videos where the host looked off-screen. That seemed refreshing (at that time). Suffice it to say, more current videos on this channel are made in a different format. I limited the scope of this video to the 3 main figures of 20th-century philosophical hermeneutics. I mentioned a bit of Biblical hermeneutics in the "What Is Hermeneutics?" video, but even there I am focused on the roots of philosophical hermeneutics. My research background is in phenomenology and hermeneutics, with a focus on work and economics.
I did think about redoing older videos, but RU-vid does not let you replace videos while keeping the same URL and SEO history. I'd have to delete old videos to replace them. So that is not an option at this time.
I left a job where highly capable and conscientious employees, who worked hard and kept the business running, were ultimately deem valueless or simply a means to an end. When my workplace faced financial insolvency, many of the hard working employees opted for voluntary severance. When I chose do do this, the head of my department asked me, "[w]hy are all the good people leaving?" They knew it was because the good people were never promoted, expected to clean up the messes and cover for those who were incapable of doing their job, and were regularly bullied. I wish my place of employment had knowledge of your course! So many people feel the way I do about their work situations, even if they went into their jobs because they loved the work they trained to do, but were left disillusioned by reprehensible leadership.
Thank you! It's soul destroying to be taken advantage of whether it's from co-workers or from the organization itself. A health, virtuous organization can go a long way to creating a safe and beneficial workplace. But it is always worth remembering that the institutional memory is very short when it comes to individuals. So if someone is "killing themselves" for the sake of the business or organization, it's not worth it.
This is fantastic! I have been studying Philosophical hermeneutics for several years and am here to strengthen my "holistic" understanding of the field/relevant works. I am currently working on a thesis right now regarding Gadamer's notion of truth as a "happening" or "event" and would love your advice. I am sure you also know that Gadamer basically argued that socratic dialogue is the only way to "guarantee" truth (final sentence of "Truth and Method") and that scientific method does not. Now, if you're also familiar with Bayesian epistemology, do you think I could describe Gadamer's truth as an emergent phenomenon in terms of probability instead of always assuming it's a sort of "fixed" state? Gadamer was anti-objectivist and of course that's why he's been called a "moral relativist" (I think you already know all the details about that argument). Is it logical to describe the event of truth in terms of probability meaning that, like entropy, if the laws of language and communication (like the laws of Physics) follow a set of rules then the likelihood you get a certain outcome (a certain truth) is extremely high/predictable and thus achieves some degree of "objectivity"? It's loose "objectivity" I know since it is not really objective if it's a probability. Is there any other better way to think about it then?
Thanks, Jay. There is a lot in your comment and reply! If you want to email me for a more detailed follow, you can do so at tsmei@philosophy2u.com. But for now: I am slightly familiar with Bayesianism, and I should say it is relatively easy to mistake philosophical hermeneutics (PH) as being relativist about things generally. This usually involves misunderstanding how PH applies context to the determination of meaning and how, as your comment notes, the relation to truth relies more on a process of coming to it; though I do not the idea of truth as a happening and event is distinct from a process of the inquirer coming to truth. I also detect a bit of Heidegger's notion of truth in the Gadamerian approach. My own understanding of how PH conceives of truth draws more on Ricoeur and virtue ethics. In short, Ricoeur distinguishes between scientific verification and the hermeneutic process of validation. Following Gadamer, Ricoeur sees the way the law is interpreted and applied in the juridical setting as the exemplar of this process. Ricoeur makes these comments pace the positivist approach to history. The idea of validation, as I understand it, does sit well with probability, though I don't know how close it is to it. Is an interpretation probable? How can we justify one interpretation over another? And do changing contexts determine this plausibility? En re virtue ethics: MacIntyre and MacDowell (as well as Ricoeur if he counts as a VE) discuss a different way of understanding moral objectivity that requires historical understanding. The idea here is that pace consequentialism and Kant, moral objectivity cannot be determined in advance by some calculus or reference to a principle or duty. It must be won by understanding, applying, and examining the moral resources of one's tradition (which includes principles, virtues, duties, etc.). So moral reasoning is always underway towards what is morally objective, as opposed to having concluded what it is in advance. I hope those comments help indicate my view and shed some light on the territory.
Yes, the ending is not particularly clear. The idea is to pose three questions of a friendly clarificatory/explanatory nature. They can be three distinct questions or they can be related (i.e. follow ups to the response to the first question). Ex. "I'm not quite sure I'm understanding what you mean by X. I get the impression that it involves a, b, and c. Am I right?" "I guess one of the concerns that arises for me is that when you mention X, I think of some worrying examples, like a, b, c. Do you have the same worry?"
@@JDNicoll only that hermeneutics (as I understand it) recognizes the problems of relativism and tries to include safeguards against reducing to a relativistic view. I think, nonetheless, critics of hermeneutics attempt to argue it is relativistic because it uses context to help determine meaning. Contextual awareness does not necessarily mean being relativistic in a reductive sense, though.
@@philosophy2u Thanks for trying to explain. I was using the term in a general way as any "principle or guideline of interpretation" that someone might put forth. To translate my original comment: Watch out for the distorted principle(s) (or methodology) of interpretation used in an attempt to say that there is no absolute truth.
Hi Will, I'm still trying to nail a shoveit consistently. I've actually been told by those who can Shaka that it may be better to go into shakas and skip shoveits since it's difficult to stop shoveit habits when attempting to go around 360. I've also been told not to think of a shoveit or shaka as an upwind jump. Are you on Facebook? Lots of windsurfing groups for advice and tuition.
