SCHLEIERMACHER DISCURCUS

SCHLEIERMACHER;

OBJECTIVE TREND OF HERMENEUTICS

Biografi: His name is Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher, was born in Breslau (Jerman) 1768,  1834, in Protestan family.

Education: Institusi Morovian Brethren interest in Humanisme related, because of his sceptisisme to Christian’s doctrine, he moved to University of  Halle which considered more liberal than it. There he studied Theology, Philoshopy and Clasical Philology.

Career:

- private tutor (1790-1793)

- pastur in Landsberg (1794-1796)

- professor of theology in University of Berlin (1811)

His Work:

1.      On What Gives Values to Life (1792.3)

2.      On Freedom (1793.4)

3.      Spinozim (1793.4)

4.      Brief Presentation of Spinozist system (1793.4)

5.      Jurnal Athenaeum (1798.1800)

6.      On Religion: Speechest its Cultural Despisers

His thought:

When he becomed a pastur, he influenced romantisisme/obyektivisme, as like as August Wilhelm Schlegel.

Hermeuneutica was on site not only for Bible and classical text but also more exstensive in problem of human understanding as such. In His opinion, the object of interpretation included symbols, swan arts, and human’s behavior. This Hermeuneutic be familiar as  hermeneutica generalis or universal hermeneutics, which in 17 century ever concepted by Johann Conrad Dannhauer. Schleiermacher try to position this hermeuneutic middle of others sience which popular at the time, specifically Logical and Philology. At the past, Hermeuneutic as appendix for Logical all at once part of Philology.

Hermeuneutic relevance with rhetorica and dialectica:

# Paralelisme between Hermeuneutic and rhetorica is on the fact, that every act of understanding  as inversion of speech-act.

Dependence Hermeuneutic and rhetorica at dialectica in the fact that development of all sience a given under speech and understanding.

Act and art for speech are rhetorica’s domain, whereas process to understanding are Hermeuneutic’s domain. Both of can’t be separated. In  other side, dialectica is identificated by:

1.      Presentation of principles of the art of philosophizing, or

2.      Foundations for the artistic carring out of dialogue in the domain of pure thought.

# The relationship between Hermeuneutic and dialectica based on relation in universal aspect from language and the fact that individuals can borrow same words which use universally with different meanings. The distinguish between them are:

-          The art of explanation and transliteration (Hermeuneutic) include language to thought, move to the specific aim which purposed by them on their statement and their context.

-          Whereas dialectica include thought to language move to general validity under of universal argument.

# Understanding is only a being-in-one-another of these two moments of the grammatical and psychological.

Vedder explain more clear that Hermeuneutic concern in language and history (objective oriented) and Hermeuneutic psichologic/ technis concern in language study as somebody life expression (subjective oriented).

Both are completely equal and it would be wrong to call grammatical interpretation the lower and psychological interpretation the higher.

a.       Grammatical Hermeneutics

Grammatical hermeneutics is an interpretation relied on language analysis. Progressively an interpreter masters the language, progressively his interpretation get better. In the eyes of Schleiermacher this is the ‘objective’ side of interpretation. He defined some language principles which must be kept abreast.

1.      Paying attention to exist language system in the text appearance moment in order to reach an objective meaning.

2.      The sense of every word must be determined according to its being together with those that surround it. Hence, an interpreter must to paid attention to the relation among elements in the sentence and relation of sentence among sentences.

3.      The vocabulary and the history of the era of an author relates as the whole from which his writings must be understood as the part, and the whole must, in turn, must understood from the part.

b.      Psychological Hermeneutics

Schleiermacher had a notion that someone can not fathom a meaning of text only simply by paying attention to language aspect, but also psychological aspect of its author. According to him, the text does not stand alone but depended on its author. Text is author’s self expression as a response to what he had or is facing.

Schleiermacher offered two important methods in order to understand the psychological aspect of author; divinatory and comparative method. Divinatory method is the method in which one transforms oneself into the other person and tries to understand the individual element directly. Whereas comparative method is comparing someone with other by assumption they have congruities in order to get to know him. Schleiermacher affirmed that both methods are inseparable because for divination only receives its certainty via confirmatory comparison, without this it can always be incredible.

AVOIDING MISUNDERSTANDING

According to Schleiermacher, the said items above have to be given a damn to avoid misunderstanding. There are two kinds of misunderstanding; 1) qualitative misunderstanding that occurred in the content of text, and 2) quantitative misunderstanding that occurred in the tone of text. From the other facet, misunderstanding divided into; 1) positive misunderstanding or an isolated moment, and 2) active misunderstanding or the imputation which is the consequence of one’s own prejudice and one side preference for what is close to the individual’s circles of idea and rejection of what lies outside it.

In order to avoid these misunderstandings, interpreters have to do four analyses as follow: objectively historical analysis, objectively divinatory analysis, subjectively historical analysis, and subjectively divinatory analysis.

1.      Objectively historical analysis means realizing how the utterance relates to the totality of language and knowledge enclosed within it as a product of language.

2.      Objectively divinatory analysis means to conjecture how the utterance itself will become a point of development of language.

3.      Subjectively historical analysis means knowing how the utterance is given as a fact in the mind.

4.      Subjectively divinatory analysis means to how the thoughts contained in the mind will continue to have an effect in and on utterance.

All interpretation theories which have been mention above in order to reinvent the objective meaning. Nevertheless, such objectivity within the meaning of his idea is not the completely objectivity, but quasi-objectivity. According to him, objective is only to be achieved by approximation.