Pathogoras' Fragments and Hermeneutics - Coursework Example

Philosophy questions In his work d “Fragments”, Pathogoras provides a distinction between absolutism and relativism by using man as the measure. Pathogoras states that man is the measure of all things and this expresses the essence of relativism. The concept of relativism can be explained in terms of variables “x” and “y”, i.e., x is relative to y. In this instance, x would be the statement pertaining to the right deed or the good aspect, while y will be the culture or background or timeframe against which this good is perceived. Thus, for example, abortion may be seen to be permissible and even good, when viewed in the modern context of English culture, but when it is viewed against a different background – for example, in the Middle Ages and in a male dominated culture, any form of abortion would be viewed as an evil deed. Thus relativism means that good and bad, right and wrong and similar concepts would be defined on the basis of the standards set out by man himself. Relativism also means that such concepts would be subject to change according to the changes in standards. As Pathogoras has explained, when a breeze blows, one person may feel that it is cold, yet another might not perceive it as cold; yet another person might view it as extremely cold and a fourth person may feel it is somewhat cold. The breeze blows the same for everyone, yet the differences in perception produce the different experiences. Absolutism on the other hand, deals with that which is considered to be fixed; for example Christians view the Bible as the literal truth. Absolutism in a moral sense would mean that there is a universal standard that exists about how one should behave and what is good and what is bad. Absolutism is fixed, while relativism is not. Dialogue communication, i.e, the art of rhetoric, is very important in both learning and debate. Protogoras in his school for rhetorical instruction, spoke about arguments and the art of debate as a means of communication between persons. The art of debate enables a person to be able to look upon both sides of an issue, i.e., to be able to see both sides and thereby understand an issue better. This also helps the person to better communicate exactly what he or she wishes communicated; because being able to debate both sides of an issue gives an individual a thorough understanding of the issue. The best summation of the essay may be provided by Protogoras in the fragments, where he states in essence that man is the measure of all things and that communication occurs best through effective dialogue between the parties who are communicating with each other. 2. The two specific interpretations that Protogoras provides in his work titled “Fragments” center around two major concepts. First, is the issue of relativism, wherein man is viewed as the measure of all things . The question of ethics and what is good and what is not is determined according to man’s standards. One of the central issues in Protogoras is the question of whether virtue can be taught at all and whether citizens can be educated to a point where they become good citizens. Another central theme of the book is that possessing virtue is equivalent to the possession of knowledge; whereas doing evil is merely an expression of ignorance in a person. The idea that men who choose to do what is pleasurable to them may be venturing into evil deeds and not have the self control to remain virtuous, is contested by Protogoras, who states that the very act of doing something pleasurable equates to being virtuous. In other words, he equates doing good to doing what one finds pleasurable. Protogoras states that the process of learning is centered around the acquisition of knowledge, i.e, learning to be virtuous means in effect, learning a specific science or kind of knowledge. Plato was the one who formulated the term “rhetoric”, because before his views were propagated, verbal art was not well understood and the general understanding was that verbal art and dialogue was more holistic. But Pluto has highlighted how it is actually differentiated . the major issue that Plato has expounded is to clarify and establish a clear difference between rhetoric and philosophy. There are differences in the teaching about logos; one is the goal of seeking success and the other is the goal of seeking the truth – the former is rhetoric and the latter is philosophy. 3. A linguistic element may be both vocal and psychological in nature. There is an internal concept associated with each linguistic unit, which may exist in the mind and its understanding of the linguistic element. The other is the external sound-image, which is the spoken word. Linguistic elements are the foundation of language and because the process of formulation of language is such a complex one, it is not one that easily lends itself to changes. Moreover, it forms a common link between various generations; it forms the means by which linguistic signs can be used to depict reality. While language as used through linguistic symbols can be a tool to depict reality, and thus forms a tool whereby truth and the facts can be passed down from generation to generation, and also spread across the globe, the nature of knowledge can change depending upon its interpretation. Linguistic symbols and language may be a means to acquire and pass on knowledge, both about reality and elements that extend beyond the realm of reality; for example into spiritual elements. As William James has stated in his article titled “the will to believe”, our own fate may lie in our own hands, because this will be determined by our own choices, i.e, whether we choose to believe or not to believe or wait to believe. His argument s that pure logic does not necessarily dictate the beliefs we have; all kinds of choices including religious beliefs arise due to our interpretation of the symbols that we are give and the choices we make in reference to our interpretation of those symbols. Part II: The Hermeneutic tradition: 4. Gadamer commences his approach to hermeneutics from two experiences of alienation; firstly, the experience of alienation of aesthetic consciousness and the alienation of historical consciousness. The former means that we associate ourselves with the quality of an artistic form, and the consciousness of this beauty is derived from the underlying truth, i.e, the work itself. The alienation of historical consciousness , i.e, the art of holding ourselves at a distance while we view the experiences of witnesses to a past life. This is the basis upon which an understanding may be reached , i.e., “understanding is the primordial way of being human, not a task that, once methodologically purified, will lead to truth (Ormiston and Schrift:20). He sees hermeneutics as a technique for interpretation - in other words, hermeneutics itself is not a method of understanding; rather it is an attempt to clarify some of the conditions under which this understanding takes place. He clarifies that understanding is always a matter of how a person seeking to understand something perceives that something, i.e, what are the associated prejudices and beliefs with which he approaches the process of understanding. Gadamer contends that hermeneutics and the process of understanding is one that is constantly changing based upon the changes which are occurring in the prejudices and perceptions of the person seeking to understand materials. He sees hermeneutics as the art of avoiding misunderstanding, i.e, the alienation consciousness is to be excluded to the exclusion of things that are alien and lead to misunderstanding. He argues that where there is commonality in understanding, i.e, where people are able to understand a particular idea or opinion in the same way, then it produces a deep, common accord and the question of personal prejudices will not come into play. The science of hermeneutics states that when different opinions exist, then it can preclude a common understanding and thereby lead to misunderstanding. The problem which arises in the case of prejudices however, is also the question of how to distinguish true prejudices which aid in the process of understanding versus the false prejudices which cause misunderstanding. Gademer has suggested that this problem can be tackled by a person taking a historical view and stepping back to take an isolated view of the prejudice in question; however, this is difficult to execute in practice. Moreover, there is also another aspect that Gadamer does not take into consideration in his views on hermeneutics. This pertains to the fact that whatever the issue that we are trying to understand, there is likely to be a horizon over and above which there is no view or vision, which thus limits understanding. Gadamer does not even try to argue that this horizon can be surmounted in order to arrive at a greater understanding; rather he refers to this limitation as the fusion of horizons, whereby the process of projecting historically in order to overcome prejudices, which Gadamer suggested becomes merely one phase in the overall process of understanding. As the individual’s prejudices and beliefs keep changing, the horizon also keeps changing and produces a new limit. Thus the overall effect would be that the understanding of the individual would keep moving along, with the horizons shifting and thereby allowing the individual in one way, to move beyond the limitation of the horizon. 5. The hermeneutic circle deals with the dynamic interrelationship between the parts and the whole, especially at the various different levels existing within the whole. In essence, this means that to understand the whole, it would be necessary to look to the parts and the reverse would also apply, i.e, to understand the parts, it would be necessary to look to the whole. In Ormiston’s words, “the meaning of every word in a given passage must be determined in relation to its coexistence with the words surrounding it.” (Ormiston and Schrift:13). Hence, the parts and the whole are all interdependent and are linked to each other in a mutually sym biotic relationship that is equivalent to a circle which flows continuously with no breaks at all. Hence, whenever any process of understanding, analysis or interpretation occurs, then it is inevitably goes back and forth, between the parts and the whole, with a person’s understanding of the data also shifting along the same circular path. In other words, when understanding a piece of text for example, a person entry into the text in order to derive its meaning, can be made at any point along the circle, at any one of various different levels, all of which are related to each other. It must be noted however that each entry point may offer different interpretations and perspectives on the part-whole interpretation of the text. Hermeneutics itself is primarily concerned with the process of understanding and the mechanisms by which it takes place. The hermeneutic circle builds upon this and puts forward the proposition that an understanding of a part of anything will inevitably lead to an understanding of the whole – the parts and the whole are interrelated in the form of a circle. Understanding is therefore not an isolated phenomenon, while we may approach understanding from one of the parts, we will nevertheless be led into an understanding of the whole because of the hermeneutic circle. Read More