self-evident and available more or less unproblematically to the reader. Thus understanding much writing in history and non-fiction was taken to be primarily an act of intellection, of simply reading what was on the page and understanding it in an unmediated fashion. Subtilitas then, was needed when the meaning of a text was not self-evident, but rather required explicandi, some act of interpretation on the part of the reader. Poetical texts, for example, were taken to require some form of explication, and early hermeneutics was much concerned with the development of interpretive methods that could provide this illumination considerations of the – intention of the author, the context of the writing, etc. And while we can still discuss the question of the truth of such texts is the poem true to human experience, for instance this – – truth is neither as evident nor as unproblematic as it the previous case. Finally subtilitas denoted a third and separate cognitive act whereby the meaning of a text apparent applicandi – now thanks to the work of could literally be applied to a task at hand. In subtilitas explicandi – this application the meaning of the text is essentially re-interpreted into the contemporary context. Truth here relates to the extent to which the text is true in my current context. to me Prior to Gadamer’s writing, the German theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher’s romantic hermeneutics had united understanding (subtilitas and interpretation (subtilitas intelligendi) by arguing that interpretation is not some special faculty recruited when meaning is explicandi) not self-evident but is instead always implicated in understanding. In doing this, romantic hermeneutics illustrated that interpretation is not occasional but continual an ongoing process – in which we come to understand the world. Insofar as we understand anything at all—not just obscure or arcane texts but also aspects of life”—we engage in interpretation. This “everyday interpretation can be more or less on the part of the interpreter, but it occurs in every conscious case of understanding nonetheless. Even observations that are true are, from this “self-evidently”
self-evident and available more or less unproblematically to the reader. Thus understanding much writing in history and non-fiction was taken to be primarily an act of intellection, of simply reading what was on the page and understanding it in an unmediated fashion. Subtilitas explicandi, then, was needed when the meaning of a text was not self-evident, but rather required some act of interpretation on the part of the reader. Poetical texts, for example, were taken to require some form of explication, and early hermeneutics was much concerned with the development of interpretive methods that could provide this illumination – considerations of the intention of the author, the context of the writing, etc. And while we can still discuss the question of the truth of such texts – is the poem true to human experience, for instance – this truth is neither as evident nor as unproblematic as it the previous case. Finally subtilitas applicandi denoted a third and separate cognitive act whereby the meaning of a text – apparent now thanks to the work of subtilitas explicandi – could literally be applied to a task at hand. In this application the meaning of the text is essentially re-interpreted into the contemporary context. Truth here relates to the extent to which the text is true to me in my current context. Prior to Gadamer’s writing, the German theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher’s romantic hermeneutics had united understanding (subtilitas intelligendi) and interpretation (subtilitas explicandi) by arguing that interpretation is not some special faculty recruited when meaning is not self-evident but is instead always implicated in understanding. In doing this, romantic hermeneutics illustrated that interpretation is not occasional but continual – an ongoing process in which we come to understand the world. Insofar as we understand anything at all—not just obscure or arcane texts but also aspects of “everyday life”—we engage in interpretation. This interpretation can be more or less conscious on the part of the interpreter, but it occurs in every case of understanding nonetheless. Even observations that are “self-evidently” true are, from this
Truthiness%20And%20Method.docx