Where to start with hermeneutics? Schleiermacher? Guenon? Barthes? Is a solid base on semiology necessary to learn about this field?
Why don't you ask your professor?
>>8071341
Hermeneutics is a big and old category.
Schleiermacher was important as he was the first to expand hermeneutics from a Theological field to wider Philosophy of Interpretation but I don't think he is essential to read today.
Reading Dilthey and Gadamer will tell you everything you need to know on him, I also suggest you look into Edmund Husserl particularly The Crisis
Read the Stanford Encyclopedia article on it for starters. Schleiermacher is interesting in certain respects, and I have a bias here (he influenced Ranke's historical hermeneutics, which influenced 19th century Geisteswissenschaften) but not really necessary and not a good place to start. You want to have basic background on two things: the actual tradition of textual (especially scriptural) criticism called hermeneutics, and then the vague idealist milieu that hermeneutics in the modern sense grew out of.
Dilthey is where you want to start, but you're better off getting an understanding of Dilthey's basic outlines and (in my strong opinion) the intellectual context in which he was writing, i.e. as a response to Comtean and related positivist epistemologies of science which were felt to be seriously challenging the epistemological primacy of idealism, including other similar attempts at such like Droysen, Rickert, and Windelband. Collingwood's Principles of History (easily pirated) actually has a nice little skim of this so-called crisis of historicism and of its major figures, stating that Dilthey is the one that really gelled the hermeneutic thesis. Of course, he also founded the distinction between Geistes- and Naturwissenschaften (but again, similar to idiographic and nomothetic distinction of Windelband). Just some basic understanding of this helps. In all honesty, unless you're doing real research on the topic, there's not much reason to jump into Dilthey himself.
Subsequent hermeneutics is more difficult because it branches in so many directions. The neo-positivists of the Vienna circle were directly responding to the crisis of historicism and Dilthey's division, Husserl significantly was, and Heidegger departs from Dilthey and Husserl, especially in his earlier work, etc. But Heideggerian hermeneutics are their own thing, and so is Gadamer (e.g.), who is departing from Being and Time. The Diltheyan division/crisis also branches off into a lot of other fields and touches on a lot of things - Habermas, e.g., who debated Dilthey, Ricoeur, but just so many. It's a huge question. I wish I had a single survey book to recommend.
>>8071399
Sorry, Habermas debated Gadamer.
>>8071341
Shleiermacher is pretty good, after him you can easily read Gadamer who refers to Shleiermacher a lot. Then Ricoeur, Barthes
>>8071341
Herder. And read Michael Forster's work on Herder and Hermeneutics in general.
>>8071436
>personal interest
Do you study Quantum Mechanics out of personal interest too? Jesus.
>>8071436
If it's personal interest and you have time for deep background, check out Georg Iggers - The German Conception of History
Ernst Breisach is also good for modern hermeneutics I think
Also remember to check the secondary literature sections at the end of Stanford Encyclopedia articles
what's the difference between semiology and semiotics?
oh, there isn't one. except -ology makes it sound like a legitimate field of study.
>>8073180
it was nice of you to bump this thread seven hours after the last post from page 9
Can anyone explain what hermeneutics actually is?
Something to do with hermes?
>>8073228
yes, hermes was the messenger of the olympus
message -> communication -> interpretation
hermeneutics is the study of interpretation. the neutics part may have something to do with Nausicaa idk
>>8073247
Isn't that basically what 'literary criticism' is?
What's the difference?
>>8073267
it's the study that deals with theories of interpretation, i should correct myself. read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics
the nausicaa part is just trolling
>>8073228
err-me-naught
The Bible.
>>8073218
not a problem. i got kicked out of LaTrobe university for punching a guy so hard he was sent to hospital.
fucker used the word "Filmic" when he SHOULD have said "cinematic". i don't think he'll be making that mistake again any time soon.
>>8073277
hermione-naughty
>>8073267
it originally was textual interpretation
then it started to involve the psychology/culture of the author, because you need that to interpret texts
then it started to mean any process of interpreting human deeds, cultures, minds, or artifacts
then it became associated with gadamer
