Abstract
Based on an analysis of double hermeneutics in the human sciences, a distinction between a “weak” and a “strong” rhetorical analysis of human-scientific research is introduced, taking account of the self-reflective character of hermeneutic interpretation. The paper argues that there are three hermeneutic topics in the research process for human-scientific experience, which are associated with applying specific rhetorical tools. The three topics are described under the following rubrics: (a) bridging the gap between “experience-near” and “experience-distant” concepts; (b) achieving integrity of the cultural objects dispersed in different interpretive strategies; and (c) taking into consideration that an important task of hermeneutic interpretation in human-scientific research is to give an account of the object's immanent narrative coherence. The paper is written in the conviction that a kind of re-methodologization of philosophical hermeneutics which does not rehabilitate epistemological foundationalism can provide a new philosophical identity to the human sciences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Davidson, D. (1978). What Metaphors Mean. Critical Inquiry5: 31-47.
Derrida, J. (1971). La mythologie blanche. Poetique5: 24-67.
Eger, M. (1995). Alternative Interpretations, History, and Experiment: Reply to Some Commentaries. Science & Education4(2): 173-188.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1975). Truth and Method. New York: Seabury Press.
Geertz, C. (1976). From Native's Point of View: On the Nature of Anthropological Understanding. In K. Basso and H. Selby (Eds.), Meaning in Anthropology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Ginev, D. (1995). Die Mehrdimensionalität geisteswissenschaftlicher Erfahrung. Essen: Die blaue Eule.
Ginev, D. (1996). Philosophy of the Human Sciences at the End of Modernity. ManuscritoXIX (1): 97-126.
Heelan, P. (1989). After Experiment: Research and Reality. American Philosophical Quarterly26: 297-308.
Hesse, M. (1966). Models and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Hesse, M. (1980). Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science. Brighton: Harvester Press.
Kaufmann, F. (1941). Strata of Experience. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research1: 313-324.
Kuhn, T. (1991). The Natural and the Human Sciences. In D.R. Hiley, J.F. Bohman and R. Shusterman (Eds.), The interpretive Turn. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
Okrent, M. (1984). Hermeneutics, Transcendental Philosophy, and Social Science. Inquiry27: 23-49.
Pike, K. (1966). Phonemics. A Technique for Reducing Language to Writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Rorty, R. (1985). Epistemological Behaviorism and the De-Transcendentalization of Analytic Philosophy. In R. Hollinger (Ed.), Hermeneutic and Practice. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press.
Rouse, J. ( 1996). Engaging Science (How to Understand Its Practices Philosophically). Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
Taylor, C. (1980). Understanding in Human Science. Review of Metaphysics34: 18-31.
Zilsel, E. (1931). Geschichte und Biologie. Archiv für Sozialwissenschaften65: 101-119.
Zilsel, E. (1932). Bemerkungen zur Wissenschaftslogik. Erkenntnis3: 143-161.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ginev, D. Rhetoric and Double Hermeneutics in the Human Sciences. Human Studies 21, 259–271 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005327608803
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005327608803