The goal of interpretation is to
bring the message and that message is truth. Hermeneutics is that tool to which
the gateway or the access of truth is made possible. But the receptacle of
which wherein these is all happening is in language, and language as Heidegger
would say is the “house of being”. In language, even going back to Aristotle’s
Organon is that in the spoken language is the transmittance of the mental image
or of the idea. It is the means of which we can understand one another due to
it, not just phonetics or of sound and arrangement of letters but such sound
bears meanings or the spoken word itself is a carrier of meanings, or a symbol
or a signifier. It is either it carries the meaning and relays to us what it
means, or it may resemble something or it is a pointer towards something.
Definitely what language refers to is a something, and everything is a being.
Everything is Being. To speak of something is to speak of being and therefore
the bottom line in the transmission of language is the transmission of being,
all in the course that something is understood. But the dilemma of
interpretation of hermeneutics is that truth is concealed or wherewith it
restricts its revealing unto us or have we been using the wrong method?
There are a lot of ways wherein we
can arrive at the meaning of anything as we endeavour with Hermeneutics
especially when language takes on varies of elements with it. We may understand
anything through the basis of the intent of the author that is of course when
the author is still alive to be able to relay his intent directly. But there
comes a point when the author is practically dead and we have but no direct
access to his intent whatsoever, and all we have to do is to figure out what
trace could he had left in other forms that could be the key into his
intentionality, but that again is problematic because if whatsoever relic he
has left, when still it is in a form of language is subject to interpretation.
Or we could endeavour a certain profiling of his history of which we can know
his background to which we can reflect upon his word usage coming from his
orientation. It is because one tends to be a product of his own upbringing to
which his language might manifest from that. Simply the author plays a part in
the message and in the objectivity of the message because the author has the
power over his work to which he calls upon any piece to any language construct
he desires coming from his make-up. One can be Freudian in the approach, which
is to say that one tackles into the unconscious aspect of the author to
determine what determines his conscious acts, in this case, his intent that is
made manifest in his linguistic expression. It is because there is this
hypothesis that the unconscious has a dialectical relationship with the
conscious and of which also the culprit in whatsoever that comes out in the
conscious realm will be also of what is the configuration beneath. But this
again poses another problem of which the simple question is asked, can we
really know the unconscious side of the author? We have yet to undergo a
psychoanalytic process of determination but that again is another problem
because we do not get any data in direct instructional modules but we also have
to undergo again the problematic task of interpreting the dialectical relation
itself. Again we can never be too sure in our analysis so as if we arrive at
any conclusions then is it sufficient to be in use in interpreting the text?
Another way of which is to resort to historical-consciousness wherein we have
to unearth a history that is left behind that could be a possibility in
arriving at an understanding of something. It is because history is part of the
formation of thought, and time plays a role in incorporating almost all
products of thought in time into many correlations thereof to which it will be
of assistance to the author in creating his piece. Even also of the
consciousness that is presented in history will also determine the evolution of
understanding thereof that lead the author into the creation of his thought.
Simply it is a recollection of history especially the thinking history that
shaped the content of his text, but again the problem goes that of the burden
of unearthing the past. The past is so immense and even the preservation of which
is present in relics but still relics are also subject to interpretation there
of which still we cannot have a direct access to objectivity or of the intent
laid. But again the great burden rests on the unearthing of such historical
element to which a whole length of time has already passed to the point that
there is the immensity that we have to uncover in order to arrive at directives
to mandate us in our interpretation.
But at some point there is this
death of the author wherein, the author simply even if he is alive he still has
no connection or even with the use of authorian psychology or of just direct
interview of the intent. Completely the text has a life of its own, wherein the
author has no power or control over it. Simply the text is separate from the
author and that we tackle the text by itself, to which poses another problem in
the objectivity of the meaning that we are searching for. It is because the
text itself is a entity having a multiplicity of possibilities of being
interpreted it is because words themselves are explosive entities that does not
carry only the idea itself, but so to other ideas into it that which of course
may depend upon word usage or even how the word reveals unto a subject
differently to which the one reading the text has his own schema in
understanding the text. And even the words themselves are in themselves
insufficient especially not only as an instrument of which wherein we can have
an idea at or have associations with other ideas, but also it is incapable of
incorporating with it the element of the experience felt in the word. The word
has become abstract that it encounters a difficulty in relaying the element of
experience with it. Although we may exhaust linguistic capabilities of
expressing again the feelings into words, but that again will be another
abstract field, it can only approximate the experience but never can it really
struck upon the audience the experience of the word. Moreover when we do
translation wherein there is a specific feel of a word in a certain language
wherewith the meaning or the experience of one race over the word has already
been lost once it undergoes translation and the result of which is that only
the idea has been translated or even there is the still question over that of
which if in the level of the abstract i.e. translation of words relaying ideas,
is the idea really been transmitted? The non-linguistic which is experience is
already posing a difficulty because of its incapacity to be fully contained in
a word, and even now in the level of what is contained in the word undergoes
also the same problem because it itself in the level of the abstract is
incapable of sufficing the meaning. The
text is so broad and is explosive once we try to interpret it, minus already
the intent or of the subjective element of the author. The very basic tool in
which we can tackle the text wisely in lieu of the author is our understanding
of the grammar of the certain language, wherewith there is such as grammar or
the order or a configuration of the language wherein the language can be best
understood once it is in accordance in its rules. Tackling the text into
linguistic elements to which the words has a specific function in grammar that
of which we can identify the meaning of the text by the rules set. But such
case is to really compartmentalize the text into elemental figures to which
there will come a point that we have to busy ourselves with identification and
of function that in the end there is nothing that we can derive at. Especially
that grammar is not known to all, and is only rich into the people who have
undergone a certain rigid of education that they may know of the mechanics of
grammar compared to a person who simply understands anything plainly, or that
is to say the layman’s way. The layman has no difficulty in undergoing the
rigorous formulation of grammar and even to its identifications and functions
but still he arrives into an understanding of something. But there might be congruence
or a difference of understanding that will happen to both kinds of audiences
but still one understands something, the other is less contained and carefree
from the structures of grammar. But that is the case, when the author is dead,
tackling the text itself is to tackle it by itself and grammar is an instrument
in interpretation so as with relying to one’s own personal construct. But still
the differences of interpretation is the evidence of which why hermeneutics
calls for objectivity. It is because we have indeed in need to arrive at the
truth, to which is it singular as to say if we need to have common
understanding, but to resort to common understanding is again another faulty
case, it is because we reduce understanding into mere convention or of
commonality, that is to say that we have to be in congruence what the others do
say about it to arrive at an understanding of something. Again this is a
possible resolution to interpretation but still to resort to the claim of the
crowd is to delimit one’s own hermeneutic capabilities to which some truth may
reveal unto one that of which if he will undergo the rigorous endeavour of
interpretation but if one submits to the authority of the mob, then one is
short of a revelation of truth.
Of all, there are several ways in
interpreting, of which there is an immensity of possibilities of which one is
lead into a standstill of which path are we going to choose. But of all
interpretations they are all gateways into understanding but the burden lies in
recognizing all of these possibilities but where then is objectivity? It
remains a question unresolved and that is why hermeneutics is encountering a
difficulty in attaining a method that will really account for truth, but is
truth, the singularity of it will be inclusive of everything that is accounted?
The hermeneutics of being will be as what Hegel’s says that the “truth is the
whole”[1],
and that of which all particularities. It is not then a matter of misinterpretation,
but an addition of interpretation and to say, an addition to understanding. But
simply what we are trying to interpret or to do hermeneutics is being, since
then again being is made manifest in language.
Simply what I stated above is a
summary of the hermeneutics of Being still in my interpretation in our class
and I will refer to Heidegger for a specific opinion in the Hermeneutics of
being.
“Language
is the house of being. In its home man dwells. Those who think and those who
create with words are the guardians of this home. Their guardianship
accomplishes the manifestation of Being insofar as they bring the manifestation
of language and maintain it in language through their speech.”[2]
Language
is the house of being because it is were being is made manifest for it is in
language that beings are expressed in such a way that being is thus
communicated and therefore understood especially when there is also the
presence of the one listening. Beings are the things which we all are immersed
and by that we came to know them and not only such we come to understand them
by language which speaks to us to make them known. Even in common sense,
language is the expression of being wherein being could be made possibly known
because it is there we can hear of being and furthermore maybe relate with it.
Simply a house is that which shelters and language shelters beings in such a
way that is something where beings rest and thus if language is visited beings
are there or when language takes place, beings come to be. Or it maybe
understood in other terms in relation to the quote above that it is where that
specific being namely “man” dwells. Man dwells in language because man uses
language and not arbitrarily uses it, but he needs language in order to make
communication and understanding possible. Man is thus in this house and is his
comfort so as to say because he finds the luxury to be at home, to dwell in
this house by just the mere evidence of his inevitable use of language in his
daily life. But why man is at this home? As how it goes in Being and Time, man
is that one being wherewith all of the other beings are left to futility, that
has the capability and the power to which Being can be revealed or made known.
Because Heidegger was posing the question whether Being can be known especially
that it is the most common thing around and for all we’ve known we are immersed
with beings or everything is being. And thus starting from the most common we
then derive whether we can possibly know such to the point wherewith in the
arrival of the understanding of Being, then we must go through being but the
problem is which being then is that which is open to Being? Among all of the
other beings, Heidegger says that we start from that being which is closest to
us and that is man, or ourselves, wherein the primacy of the question also is
in emphasis wherein there is no other being who has the ability to question and
that is man per se. Man in relevance to the primacy of asking the question is
in use of language in order to render open what is ask. In Heidegger’s own
words “. . . questioning builds a way” (Question Concerning Technology),
wherein questioning is a quest, a search that we might ultimately find
something what we quest for. But again the agent responsible of which is man.
Already, in Being and Time, man has already been given that role wherein he is
that being wherein he can or might grasp Being because he has the language in
order to make it thus happen.
“In
its essence, language is not the utterance of an organism; nor is it the
expression of a living thing, its symbolic character, perhaps not even in terms
of the character of signification. Language is the clearing-concealing advent
of Being itself.”[3]
Language
is the tool or an instrument wherein Being is made manifest. The being which is
closest to us uses this language wherein it is even what Being “uses” to where
it makes itself known. But as stated above the way we understand commonly
language is put to bay here showing that it is not the utterance of what we
deem as the spoken language, but language is this clearing-concealing of being.
A clearing or a giving lucidity or creating space for something to appear,
liken to a clearing of trees in a forest in order for that certain space to be
used. But at the same time clearing is to make clear to make something without
a doubt as it is, whereas to conceal is to close or to prevent from showing
something. But this clearing-concealing is somewhat a paradoxical assimilation
of thought wherein Being is somewhat revealing and unrevealing at the same
time. Being by language shows itself and at the same time it is hidden because
of it. For by language itself creates the way to the understanding or to the
revealing of being but at the same time it is also in that field of language
that one will get lost into arriving at Being. Because there is no other way
wherein we can arrive at being, then the only way is the only way but it is the
most probable way also that we might get lost also, because it is the only way.
Man is dwelling on language and has been in use of language since he came to be
but still he is puzzled whether he arrived at even the understanding of Being
per se.
“Language
still denies us its essence: that it is the house of truth of Being. Instead,
language surrenders itself to our mere willing and trafficking as an instrument
of domination over beings. Beings themselves appear as actualities in the
interaction of cause and effect.”[4]
Although
language is the house of being, yet as mentioned earlier it creates a
paradoxical dilemma wherein it is the way yet the only way which is probable to
getting lost. Language itself denies the access of Being but it is also in
language itself the Being is manifesting itself through it and man is the
closest of which the understanding of it is will be made manifest. “Being is
farther than all beings and is yet nearer to man than every being.”[5]
Though language which is already made available to man to which man’s tool also
in the understanding of Being is also put to question whether if there be a
method wherein it can be used properly to where Being will be made available to
understanding or will finally reveal itself. But is this really so the
contention wherein is there a proper usage of language wherewith the coming of
Being be made known to man? Yes language is the house of being, and man dwells
in it and through it man can come to the understanding of Being, and so too
Being is using language wherein it will show itself but at the same time is
hidden because of it. We are left at a standstill because we are in between a
paradoxical dilemma wherein the only path is a problematic path. Whether in our
venture we will remain perpetually lost and will never reach Being or will
Being show itself unto us.
“Being
is the nearest. Yet the near remains farthest from man. Man at first clings
always and only to being. But when thinking represents being as beings it no
doubt relates itself to Being.”[6]
Since
what is made available to man are beings man first clings to them because it is
what is immediate but again Being be the objective here, but even so Being is
already at the foothold of being known to man, but it is so near yet so far but
even so when man relates with beings, he inevitably relates with Being, but
again even though yet Being remains far. Man is thrown to and fro in the quest
for Being. Language is the house of being and maybe so also the house of Being.
The house of which being (man) is in the utility in order to arrive at his
quest whereas also Being is already in language but yet remains hidden because
of the nature of language as clearing-concealing. Wherein it clears for a way
in order for revealing but at the same time the revealing is hindered because
it conceals. Being teases or is man helplessly teasing himself into the arrival
of his quest. But still language is the house of being because it is that maybe
a tool to where an opening takes place. But too limited at the same time too
rich for an opening, but also too rich of possibilities to being misled is
language, but has no other option for being man is also in relation of being
capable of language and thus being also helplessly in the quest for Being.
The
same move is also inherent of, especially in how Heidegger portrays his
Question Concerning Technology, wherein quoting from Holderlin that
from
where the danger is,
grows
also the saving power[7]
that
from technology is danger of man but also if there is a “way” wherein the
manipulation of technology be of use to where it can be a saving power then it
thus be so. Heidegger poses that in a certain entity already bears the opposing
sides within, that technology is dangerous but at the same time the saving
power. That is why there will come a certain point that technology is Enframing
wherein it serves as a danger to man since it will conceal the revelation of
Being but it is in that danger wherein Being will slowly unfold itself and thus
the Turning occurs, wherein there is the decisive turn wherein as danger it
will become a saving power, a path to the revelation of Being, of its
unconcealment. Typically, as how I’ve understood Heidegger’s approach on his
philosophy is that he leads us to thinking yes and we cannot help but to
continue to think because of the paradoxical strategy of his relaying of his
thoughts. Thus what Heidegger is calling to is what we call poetics. Wherein
from the Greek connotation of “poesis” that is to create is how Heidegger’s
method goes, wherein the collision of opposites leads to the creation of
thought, a somewhat Hegelian Dialectics wherein opposites tend to meet and thus
create a synthesis, an offspring from the collision. Such is the methods of
poetry, creation of thoughts and a continuous creation thereof.
The quest for Being is then this
continuous poetry wherein thoughts are always created into just only to
understand or to make Being reveal unto man. Language is that only and
problematic key wherein the poetics or the surge of endless thoughts come to
place in order to fully grasp this Being which hides and shows. Poetry is a
creation of meanings especially in making use what is common to it and these
are beings, assimilating essences, ideas only to fully grasp what is meant but
still language still is insufficient but the beings that are used in a specific
poetic schema may mislead someone to the understanding of what is meant or may
be that key which open us the way. Being is that which is supposed to be
understood, and thus poetry is like in the same manner or it is the
manifestation of Being. Because Being is that which is near, it is already
inside the poem or the work of poetry but still yet so far, because man is still
incapable or is capable but still cannot reach to witness the revelation of
Being. The play of language and the essences in poetry is how Being is also in
its process of revealing itself. Being is in a poetic movement for it again
continuously reveals itself and hides, like how poem functions that already in
the language scheme is the opening to the understanding of it but also the
language scheme is also the probable factor of not understanding it all.
Poetry or poetics is one way or is
the activity of the revelation of Being wherein Being is thus continuously
created in many fashions in many intermediaries of beings that are present only
to finally find Being. Language is the key and that problematic key but also
the way to Being is poetry due to its continuous creation. Thus Being is this
posing aim, wherewith man moves towards it but the movement is a complicated
because it is thus Being revealing itself, therefore this philosophy is at one
point a transcending of the natural way we look at cause and effect, because
Being is revealing making it static but an object of activity of man in his
quest for it.
References
Hegel, G.W.F.. The Phenomenology of Spirit .Translated
by A.V. Miller. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962.
Heidegger,
Martin. “Letter on Humanism”. Basic
Writings. Edited by David Krell. London: HarperPerennial, 2008.
________.
Poetry, Language and Thought. Translated
byAlbert Hofstadter. London: HarperPerennial, 2001.
[1] G.W.F. Hegel. The Phenomenology of Spirit .Translated by A.V. Miller. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1962. p. 11.
Comments
Post a Comment