Xn3cTs

a post in autograffiti, may 9, 2003

I once gave a remark:

“Read and read, until you understand.”

Rather harsh?

But it wasn’t meant to be a slight on anyone’s intelligence. Understanding (a text) is not necessarily premised on one’s intelligence. Tama ba ‘yon?

My point is that you need more than intelligence to be able to read and understand. You need a sympathetic ear, a willingness to “hear” what the other has to “say.” More than intelligence, you have to have the right attitude for a better understanding.

Hermeneuts like Schleiermacher (a hermeneut is one who specializes in the philosophy of understanding/interpretation) began with the presumption that there is always the possibility of MIS-understanding. That is why there is a need for hermeneutics (the art of interpretation).

Gadamer, following Heidegger, turned this around and said that we always already understand. All of us come from a fore-knowledge/fore-understanding of things which become the very basis of any future understanding. In other words, we all have biases and prejudices which determine the way we look at and understand anything in the world.

But lest we say, “Ah, we don’t need to make the effort to understand, anyway we always already understand,” Gadamer didn’t stop there, one’s “prejudices” (literally “pre-judgments”) is corrected by hearkening/listening to the otherness of the text.

That’s why the injunction “to read and read until one understands” is meant for all of us, especially when difficulty in understanding comes.

Reading and understanding is always meant to be a dialogue, a dialectic, a to-and-fro motion between the familiarity of our own assumptions and the strangeness of the otherness of the text.

It is definitely not masturbation.

best regards,

ian

next: the primacy of the text