Any Gadamer pros around? He seems pretty important - basically the man when it comes to hermeneutics, which is essentially the conclusion of the Neo-Kantian project.
But I don't know much about him, would like to see if there are any better-read anons around who could tell us how we might approach his stuff fruitfully.
>>7479339
I'd hate to see this thread 404 without a single reply so I'll contribute even though I've worked little on Gadamer.
From what I've seen, you could either approach him by diving straight into Truth & Method or read some essays he wrote (he wrote quite a few of them and they mostly reiterate his work in Truth & Method).
I don't think you really need to have read other philosophers in order to read him, just have a general idea about what modern philosophy, from Kant to Heidegger and the hermeneutical tradition is about. Reading Schleiermacher or Dilthey helps of course, but Gadamer isn't that difficult on his own.
The real difficulties come from reconciling hermeneutics with semiology, as a professor of mine said. It's no coincidence that the meeting between Derrida and Gadamer was unfruitful.
I've read Truth and Method as well as a lot of Paul Ricoeur as far as Hermeneutics goes. It's honestly pretty easy to jump in if you know vaguely what Heidegger and Kant are about, as well as a little bit about historicism and textual interpretation in the Theological. tradition.
One thing people often don't realize is how crucial Aristotle is to T&M! Definitely have at least a basic understanding of him or a lot will simply be lost on you.
Ricoeur does some of this, but I think a lot more work could be done to bridge the gap between Hermeneutics and Wittgenstein/Analytic philosophy, or at least to show how they interact.
>>7479339
Jumping straight in to T&M isn't too bad, just remember that he's going to take you on an Historical trip, so don't worry too much if you are lost.
Where Gadamer derives his conclusions aren't the only places the principles he describes can be found. Read some Ricoeur for some attempts to approach the ideas from places other than Kantianism vs. Romanticism. He does a lot from the standpoint of Psychoanalysis and Marxism.Historicism.
How he sets stuff up can be a bit confusing, and you may not realize why he's telling you all this seemingly irrelevant crap for a while, but hold out! The ends of his chapters/sections are always great fun to read, and he recaps everything and ties it in quite well.
The whole structure of the book works this way, actually. Tons of slow plodding setup and then a section of amazing epiphany. So the first sections are the most boring and it gets really cool towards the end.
I'm still wrestling with his conclusions, that everything is language, but it makes a sort of sense and after now reading more Heidegger, it comes together a lot smoother. I probably should have read them in the other order (Being and Time then Truth and Method) but that's not how the classes were arranged.
>>7481235
>Everything is language
is a pretty gross oversimplification, so don't let the audacity of this statement turn you off. A better phrasing is to say: all the kinds of being which we comprehend are only comprehended through language. This is still not enough, but its better, if you want more explanation, read the silly book!
There's actually a book that just came out from that "Very Short Introduction" series on Hermeneutics. It's pretty cheap or you can find the pdf online quite easily, it might help you. I happen to know the guy who wrote it and he's pretty much just summarizing T&M.
>continental shills thinking any follower of Heidegger can have actual content
>almost as bad as Lacan, fucking L. Ron Hubbard tier
>give books extremely bold titles like "being and time", "truth and method", "the sense of the world", "the literary absolute"
>immediately circambulate the title question and invent nonsensical technical terms, enveloping the reader in your idiosyncratic terminology to the point where they can't apply any of your teachings and all they can really perform is exegesis
and thats how you become a continental philosopher
>>7481252
>Hasn't actually read anything he's making fun of
>Doesn't realize the importance of Historically situating an idea.
classic analytic sophistry
yall are scrabble players; pure word games.
>>7481265
>hasn't read Hubbard's brilliant dianetics
>doesn't realize the importance of scientology
classic common sensical skepticism
yall are sheeple and government shills
I found this to be a great intro to Gadamer's hermeneutics in context:
http://oyc.yale.edu/english/engl-300/lecture-3
It starts out a bit intro-y but don't worry, it's meaty. The next session is about half on Gadamer too. Enjoy!
>>7481269
You are this: you are that!
My identity is good: your identity is bad!
>>7481235
>all the kinds of being which we comprehend are only comprehended through language
Could you give some definitions? What are comprehension and language supposed to be? Do they just refer to mental comprehension and verbal language or do they stretch further?, is what I want to know.
>>7481372
Assertion, which is verbal language (or written, too) is a derivative of interpretation which can take place in the mind. Understanding is prior to both. This comes from being and time.
Again, for an in depth understanding, why don't you just read the book?
>>7481386
Well, I'm not the OP, just an Anon passing by.
>>7481252
>Someone out there actually believes this.
Go circambulate yourself.
