public

Gadamer’s Prejudicial Imaginings

Gadamer’s Prejudicial Imaginingsp.(x) = Big Data Determinism (2020) by Philosopher Daniel SandersonGadamer on the French préjugé or the German Vortuteil is simply prejudicial imaginings. Etymological apologetics attempt to impregnate

5 months ago

Latest Post The Cost of (Dis)Comfort by Daniel Sanderson public

Gadamer’s Prejudicial Imaginings

p.(x) = Big Data Determinism (2020) by Philosopher Daniel Sanderson

Gadamer on the French préjugé or the German Vortuteil is simply prejudicial imaginings. Etymological apologetics attempt to impregnate prejudice with a pejorative meaning and this is fair. A side analysis flipping the pejorative to eulogistic romanticism produces completely different counterfactual outcomes. Imagine the possibilities! No polemic here, simply an observation claims the ethologist, yet "Steward" has her own ship and it couldn't be on more terra firma. The pathways to prosperity lie at (towards) the potential we have to evolve. Cospeciation is an interesting narrative. Beyond the cave, the approach is a host/virus social contract. Biodiversity is this host, making humanity the virus.

When judgement descends into the hermeneutic circle, laws recognize any and all prejudgements as a stage towards judicial outcomes. This is reassuring. A treaty into the...

Classicist... Agnostic to ?? Isn't it ironic that Gadamer defends a classicist position when he was so forgiving if his own claims of prejudices for the favour of a subjective self-examination? Cold and rigid it is not. E.D. Hirsch was antithetical at first glance but I propose a unifying structure. It is possible to approach literary analysis as a Gadamarian and a Hirschster while monitoring and critiquing the counterpoint and counterfactual outcomes that arise. Oddly, the only way I could formulate a union between the two approaches was to offer the following disclaimer,

DISCLAIMER: "No Hirschsters were harmed in this study, none of their individual bias or philosophical positions influenced any of the outcomes of this study (in any way, shape or forme). Bracketing imagination is a tactic used to identify and isolate the subjective framework, or ontological framework (revised version of structuralism perhaps?). NO ADDITIONALLY IMPLIED TRUTH CLAIMS WILL BE PERMITTED. All other viable approaches will be considered.".

Again, its ironic that the cannon isn't coming from the classicist. Animated if you will, I will provide you with some examples.

Cannon Fodor memes? Good examples if I can make them work.

Professor Paul Fry calls the two systems unreconcilable. I beg to differ and offer the following by way of apology...

Further, I have to disagree with Professor Fry's Hirschy footnote falsification of Gadamer (pg. 731), "[J]ust as in conversation, we understand irony to the extent to which we are in agreement on the subject with the other person." Isocrates to the defence... really would he be that stupid as to limit the value of his thought by making such a statement? Chances are what we should be discussing. {Go into Isocrates}.

Is Gadamer a "traditionalist"? Yes, and by his own self-fulfilling truth functioning! As a traditionalist, the subtlety is the place for nuance, the value ethic is the barometer for well Being. This is elementary my friend, Watson agree (operantly of course)! Gadamer's aesthetic is one of like-mind, he is evoking the allusion of friendship and coupling it to another symmetrical pair; his epistemology and aesthetics.

Gadamer's Epistemology

Gadamer's Aesthetics

I want to immerse myself in Gadammer's subjectivity but tethered to my Achilles heel is the object of my perfection. Ariadne provided the string, the way back to a state of grace. I experience the literature in planksip® bites, the ontology for which replicates.

Hirsch vs Gadamer. What side are you on? I am definitely a Gadamarian if the choice was binary. Either or represent an understanding of our understanding. Not implicit to the conversations are ontological or structural frameworks to lattice the conversation giving an apologetic framework for counterpointing analysis between these two giants.

Thinking outside the circle of hermeneutics, I assure you is not as hard as it sounds. Consilience is far-reaching and Big Data determines outcomes and further define bias. Once we know we Kant say no! The end ends with you. Turns out true claims lie and wait. A derelict pre-recollection.[^N]

Gadamer positions understanding in a historical context (relative at Will) next to overlapping counterfactual imaginings, ironic and otherwise. The Cartesian concept of doubt emerges from a prejudicial doubt towards cogito ergo sum. Emerged after-the-fact, history offers an additional understanding, unique from the subjective conceptualizations (Gadamer) or any pseudo-substantiation attempts (Hirsch). The added hermeneutic technique that I offer is outlined as follows...

I see this as beneficial for two reasons. 1. Expands the scope of Gadamer scholarship and epistemology.2. I identify Hirsch as a stifling influence (so isolate the influence).

[^N]: See also Anussati on Wikipedia.


Daniel Sanderson

Published 5 months ago