Lesson 7: Introduction to Learning – Part 1: The Importance of Hermeneutics

Original journal entry from October 17, 2025 – Response to Lesson 7: Introduction to Learning (Part 1: The Importance of Hermeneutics). This was my reflection on the difference between scientific objectivity and the circular, context-dependent nature of interpretation in literature, history, theology — and why perfect understanding may always remain elusive.


The speaker's assertion that scientific claims don't have meaning is based on the idea that with the observations of scientific data and application of the laws can’t change over time. Running the same experiment, using the same variable and numbers over and over should always yield the exact same results. In contrast, the speaker points to hermeneutics or interpretation in literature, history or theology as a circular process where one must look at the whole to understand more about its parts and to look at the parts individually to better understand the whole.

The speaker explains that there is a difference between natural sciences and human sciences, where the natural sciences seek to explain something that already exists or has already happened, while human sciences seek to continually better understand, and to some degree, never come to complete understanding.

According to classical hermeneutics, if I understand correctly, correct interpretation, requires the interpreter to completely understand the author as if they were the same… to some degree, the interpreter has to “become” the author for attempting to completely and accurately be able to interpret the author’s work. Be it art, literature or music, for example.

I suppose I don’t have any reason to disagree with this. It’s not the definition that I would disagree with but rather the idea that 100% correct interpretation is even possible.

The author (artist/composer/etc.) is free to express themselves however they want and the interpreter has the freedom to interpret how ever they want as well. But if we are trying to understand the work, the best place to start is to look to the author.

However, I do think it’s possible that even the author can misinterpret his or her work eventually as time goes by. They made the work under a certain set of circumstances and those circumstances may no longer exist. The feelings and emotions they were experiencing went into the work, people were in their lives then that are no longer alive, the memories start to fade etc.

Context also plays a role. If I were to see a swastika in Germany in a building from 1942 I would more likely think of Nazis and the horrible things they did, but if I saw it at a Hindu temple I’m more likely to think of it as a symbol of good fortune and well-being.

Hermeneutic approaches can and should change over time. There will always be something new to discover, especially if it’s an old or ancient work. Every major religion has sacred texts and every day different people learn to interpret them a little bit more. A perfect interpretation will never exist.

I had a thought. In the Bible, Jesus tells His followers the 2 commandments that are the summary of all the laws and the content of all the books of the prophets from the Old Testament. Here is Jesus as God, pointing to writings that were inspired by God. Jesus gives an interpretation. And yet readers today are still trying to accurately interpret both the laws and the prophets, as well as Jesus’ teaching. I suppose there is also a dependency on who makes the interpretation. Jews do not recognize Jesus as the promised Messiah, therefore, Jews are also unlikely to receive this interpretation as accurate and would rather look to other works, such as the Talmud, for (more) accurate interpretations.

An example of a common misconception or poor hermeneutic approach, other than one of the examples I made earlier, is in the general sense where the interpreter comes with his or her own biases and does not make any considerations for the author’s context.

If I read a story by a black author who writes about racial profiling and getting pulled over all the time because of the color of their skin, I might bypass viewing the experience as a white man and think of all the times I’ve been pulled over for traffic infractions, and not consider how someone might be pulled over because of where they are driving and their race. It’s likely that the only way I could more accurately interpret the author’s view of events that resulted in the text I’m reading is if I go to that same geographical location as a black man and drive around. I don’t know. Maybe a bad example, as this would not be practical. Does it answer the question though?

Umalohókan

House of Twin Suns
TM: Carlos Martinez

"You don't have to see the whole staircase just to take the first step."

(Signature links to IP Journal, Apprentice Journal, A.div Journal, and Degree Tracker omitted for brevity — these were forum navigation links at the time.)


Looking back now: This entry was a thoughtful dive into hermeneutics — recognizing the circular, context-dependent nature of interpretation and the limits of perfect understanding. It helped me see how even sacred texts and personal stories evolve in meaning over time and through different lenses, encouraging humility in all reading and learning.