Skip to main content

What Can Philosophy of Science Learn from Hermeneutics: and What Can Hermeneutics Learn from Philosophy of Science? With an Excursus on Botticelli

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Multidimensionality of Hermeneutic Phenomenology

Part of the book series: Contributions to Phenomenology ((CTPH,volume 70))

  • 1533 Accesses

Abstract

For a long time hermeneutics and phenomenology were the dominant positions in the philosophy of the humanities. Consequently objects of interpretation and understanding were denied an objective standing. Hence the validity of these constitutive acts of meaning depended on the historical situation of the interpreter and of the object of interpretation. In this paper I deny that this needs to be so. I do agree with the hermeneutic-phenomenological tradition that interpretation plays as significant a role in understanding objects of science as it does in understanding cultural objects. I propose a view of interpretation and understanding that rests on the idea that human cognition is a natural phenomenon. I therefore hold that the science of the humanities is not that different from other empirical sciences as long as we include human intentions as the core object of understanding. Based on these suggestions I conclude that there exists objective understanding in the humanities in the sense that the validity of an interpretation, no more than an explanation in the sciences, needs to depend on the interpreter’s historical situation or personal affairs. At the end I use the interpretation of Botticelli’s The Mystical Nativity as an example.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Dilthey (1894), 144.

  2. 2.

    See, for instance, Polanyi (1966), Chap. 1.

  3. 3.

    See Gadamer (1960/1993), especially 302–307.

  4. 4.

    In Faye (2012) Chap. 5, I discuss Gadamer’s view in greater detail.

  5. 5.

    For a further presentation, see Faye (2002), Chap. 3, and (2007).

  6. 6.

    Note that the interpreter and the questioner may be one and the same person but may also be two different persons. In the first situation the interpreter eventually answers his own interpretation-seeking question by expressing his own understanding, in the second situation the questioner raise an interpretation seeking question to another person in the hope of being informed by this person’s answer.

  7. 7.

    See Faye (2010, 2011, 2012).

  8. 8.

    This translation is due to Hatfield (1995), 98.

  9. 9.

    Hatfield (1995), 112 ff.

  10. 10.

    Ibid, 94.

  11. 11.

    Ibid., 96–98.

  12. 12.

    Gadamer (1960/1993), 7–8.

References

  • Dilthey, Wilhelm. 1894. Gesammelte Schriften, Vol. 5. Leipzig and Berlin, 1914–1936.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faye, Jan. 2002. Rethinking science. An introduction to the unity of science. Aldershort: Ashgate. An enlarged version of Athenes kammer. En introduktion til videnskabernes enhed (2000). Copenhagen: Høst & Søn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faye, Jan. 2007. The pragmatic-rhetorical view on explanation. In Rethinking explanation, Boston studies in the philosophy of science, vol. 252, ed. J. Persson and P. Ylikoski, 43–68. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Faye, Jan. 2010. Interpretation in the natural sciences. In ESPA epistemology and methodology of science, ed. M. Suárez, M. Dorato, and M. Rédei, 107–117. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faye, Jan. 2011. Explanation and interpretation in the sciences of man. In Explanation, prediction and confirmation, ed. Dennis Dieks, 269–280. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Faye, Jan. 2012. After postmodernism: A naturalistic reconstruction of the humanities. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardamer, Hans-Georg. 1960/1993. Wahrheit und Methode. English edition: Truth and Method, 2 edn. New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatfield, Rab. 1995. Botticelli’s Mystic Nativity, Savonarola, and the Millennium. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 58: 88–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, Michael. 1966. The tacit dimension. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Faye .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Faye, J. (2014). What Can Philosophy of Science Learn from Hermeneutics: and What Can Hermeneutics Learn from Philosophy of Science? With an Excursus on Botticelli. In: Babich, B., Ginev, D. (eds) The Multidimensionality of Hermeneutic Phenomenology. Contributions to Phenomenology, vol 70. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01707-5_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics