A parade of flowers and bats

Ways In and Out of the Hermeneutic Circle Introduction to Theory of Literature Professor Paul Fry

Notable people:

• Hans-Georg Gadamer
• E. D. Hirsch
• Martin Heidegger

I suppose this is a literature theory class but we haven't dealt with any literature yet. I don't even think we can say we are considering literature at all yet but dealing with logical problems that concern meaning which is of course important to reading literature and very thorough to begin with. The professor's lecture is woven and things at the beginning are relevant to what is spoken about near the end except the end has accumulated more theory and maybe one has to contemplate more carefully.

The beginning starts with how the study of meaning came to be and it is pointed out that there was a period where there was not suggesting that it's a linear progression of society from naive connectedness to sceptical awareness. There is also a sense that this turn of contemplation cannot be undone and has not wavered and continues to focus into something.

But what really made people consider meaning enough to devote a study to it was the democratization of religious texts in the reformation where people were expected to find meaning by studying religious texts and there were obviously a diversity of interpretations. This too happened when societies became democratic and let more people maintain the laws they lived by.

The last stop on this train of thought is literature which is most relevant to the class. And in literature the reformation came very recently and the reasons the professor gives for this reformation is the people's attack on authorship and awareness of different perspectives from sub-cultures and large cultures that consider other cultures.

The study of meaning is described coming forth from a culture that values meaning but also finds it complicated to attain. This is revealed early in the lecture but about halfway through we hear a thought from Heidegger that regardless of the troubles we have with meaning, we see meaning in symbols innately and we have more trouble seeing a symbol without meaning than we do contemplating complex symbols that scholars struggle with.

Our innate ability to see meaning and the fact that meaning is complicated means our preconceptions flavor our understanding whether we choose to live simply or savor meaning to it's fullest. And our preconceptions make learning a process of first imagining what we are learning is before we know it and then after we receive some information we have to revisit that concept and modify it.

This seems cheerful and guided by eros but the professor leads us down a turbulent path while we contemplate the nature of meaning some more. Not only is this part of his lecture more sinister, it is more dogmatic. When we consider something as objective we focus on its truth but since truth is the universal thing regardless of thought it isn't meaningful in the sense of how we derive meaning. The converse is similar in that when we contemplate a meaning we have to set aside truth and wash ourself with subjectivity. Furthermore, subjectivity can seem distasteful because of it's personal nature which for instance separates a person from another. However, if we wish to commune with someone objectively we have a hollow notion that lacks meaning. The professor suggests we pick one way of viewing over another, but does not suggest we feel disheartened that meaning has a tragic flaw.

The Gift to his Adversary Tales of Hasidim Martin Buber

Here we consider the Hasidic emphasis on radical acceptance, irrationality, and transformation which is taught in its appreciation of friendship. In this story we consider the gift of money to an enemy. While money seems to be a reoccurring theme it always seems to be a barrier between living life either as in a prison bond or keeping two lovers from marrying.

Money being sense of rationality that distances ourself from being close to what otherwise we would simply by following our instincts. And in this story this money has brought an opponent to seek advice for a solution that isn't rational at all.

This story is not about conversion of two enemies to friendship but as gift of money resolves the feud between two enemies it introduces conflict to people considered friends. A family member is upset that the rabbi is more generous to an outsider than he is to his family.

There are also almost unseen qualities to the story. Why does the rabbi have a drawer full of money? Why does the desperate man see in the rabbi a solution to his problems? How does the family member find out about the gift?