We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 January 2010
In his Notes on Philosophy, which he began writing in 1796, Friedrich Schlegel asserts that ‘The fact that one person understands the other is philosophically incomprehensible, but it is certainly magical.’ In the interim a large amount of philosophical effort has been expended on trying to refute Schlegel's first claim. The fact is, though, that what Michael Dummett calls a ‘fullblooded theory of meaning’ is now looking less and less like a really feasible philosophical enterprise, so Schlegel may have actually been right. Dummett maintains that a ‘full-blooded theory of meaning’ ‘must give an explicit account, not only of what anyone must know in order to know the meaning of any given expression, but of what constitutes having such knowledge’. However, as I shall try to show via aspects of the hermeneutic tradition, it is precisely this way of talking about meaning and understanding that renders them incomprehensible. The differences between approaching the issue of understanding from the hermeneutic tradition and approaching it from the analytical tradition can, I want to suggest, tell us something important about the state of philosophy today. My aim is eventually to suggest that we need to understand the analytical version of the ‘linguistic turn’ in modern philosophy as a perhaps rather questionable aspect of a much more important ‘hermeneutic turn’, whose implications are now becoming apparent in more and more diverse areas of contemporary philosophy.
1 Schlegel, Friedrich, Kritische Schriften und Fragmente 1–6 (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1988), vol. 5, p. 71.Google Scholar
2 Dummett, Michael, The Seas of Language (Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 22.Google Scholar
3 Rorty, Richard, Essays on Heidegger and Others. Philosophical Papers Volume Two (Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Schlegel, Friedrich, Philosophische Vorlesungen (1800–1807) (Kritische Friedrich Schlegel Ausgabe vol. 12) (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schoningh, 1964), pp. 316–317.Google Scholar
5 Schlegel, Friedrich, Transcendentalphilosophie, ed. Elsasser, Michael (Hamburg: Meiner, 1991), p. 4.Google Scholar
6 Davidson, Donald, Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation (Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 263.Google Scholar
7 See Bell, David, ‘The Art of Judgement’, Mind, vol. XCVI, April 1987CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
8 Heidegger, Martin, Kant und das Problem der Metaphysik (Frankfurt: Klostermann, 1973), p. 109.Google Scholar
9 See Bowie, Andrew, ‘John McDowell's Mind and World, and Early Romantic Epistemology’, in Revue internationale de philosophic issue on Romantic Philosophy, Autumn 1996.Google Scholar
10 Kant, Critique of Pure Reason B, pp. 179–180, A, pp. 140–141. I use the usual pagination.
11 Dreyfus, Hubert L., Being-in-the-World (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991), p. 118.Google Scholar
12 Brandom, Robert, Making it Explicit (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 21.Google Scholar
13 Quoted in Frank, Manfred, Das Sagbare und das Unsagbare (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1989), p. 28.Google Scholar
14 Scholz, Heinrich, (ed.), Die Hauptschriften zum Pantheismusstreit zwischen Jacobi und Mendelssohn (Berlin: Reuther and Reichard, 1916), p. 51Google Scholar.
15 Schilling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph's Sdmmtliche Werke, Schelling, K. F. A. (ed.) (Stuttgart, 1856–1861), I Abteilung 3 Band, p. 508.Google Scholar
16 Quoted in Putnam, Hilary, Words and Life (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 337.Google Scholar
17 Wittgenstein, Ludwig, Philosophise he Untersuchungen (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1971), p. 227.Google Scholar
18 Coffa, J. Alberto, The Semantic Tradition from Kant to Carnap (Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 Bolzano, Bernard, Grundlegung der Logik, ed. Kambartel, F. (Hamburg: Meiner 1963), p. 66.Google Scholar
20 Lepore, Ernest (ed.), Truth and Interpretation (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986), p. 473.Google Scholar
21 Dummett, Michael, Frege and Other Philosophers (Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 276.Google Scholar
22 Schleiermacher, Friedrich, Hermeneutik und Kritik, ed. Frank, Manfred, (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1977), p. 171.Google Scholar
23 Schleiermacher, cited in Rossler, Beate, Die Theorie des Verstehens in Sprachanalyse und Hermeneutik (Berlin: Dunker and Humblot, 1990), pp. 232–233Google Scholar (from Short Account of Theological Study).
24 Schleiermacher, Friedrich, Ethik (1812/13), (Hamburg: Meiner, 1990), p. 116.Google Scholar
25 Heidegger, Martin, Metaphysische Anfangsgrunde der Logik (Klostermann, Frankfurt, 1990), p. 130.Google Scholar
26 Dummett, Michael, Urspriinge der analytischen Philosophic (Suhrkamp, Frankfurt, 1988), p. 11.Google Scholar
27 Dummett, Michael, The Seas of Language (Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 43.Google Scholar
28 Schleiermacher, Friedrich, Friedrich Schleiermachers Dialektik, ed. Odebrecht, Rudolf (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1976), p. 373.Google Scholar
29 From ‘Epistemology Externalized’, quoted in Frank, Manfred, Stil in der Philosophie (Stuttgart: Reclam, 1992), p. 21.Google Scholar
30 Heidegger, Martin, Unterwegs zur Sprache (Pfullingen: Neske, 1959), pp. 32–33.Google Scholar
31 See Bowie, Andrew, Schelling and Modern European Philosophy: An Introduction (London: Routledge, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Chapter 4; and ‘Identitat und Subjektivitat’, in Frank, Manfred, Selbstbewufitsein und Selbsterkenntnis, (Stuttgart: Reclam, 1991)Google Scholar.
32 Many of the ideas set out in this essay are developed in more detail in my Aesthetics and Subjectivity: from Kant to Nietzsche, second edition (Manchester University Press, 1993)Google Scholar, and From Romanticism to Critical Theory. The Philosophy of German Literary Theory (London: Routledge 1996)Google Scholar.
