Talk:Hermeneutics

message: Sorry to be negative, but after reading the article I feel I am absolutely none the wiser.  Hermeneutics seems to me to be a technical synonym for "interpretation".  Is this all there is to it?  In many ways the article reads a little like an expanded disctionary definition, saying not a lot more than: "interpretation is used in the following areas: ......"
Interpretation (hermeneutics) is required of all natural communication it seems to me so I'm struggling to see what the word adds to things, and even why there's an article on it here at all.  
Perhaps some examples within some of the sections might help to cast some light.  Other sections could be combined for instance where hermaneutics/interpretation is a practice/occupation/study in architecture, design, art etc.   
LookingGlass (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long but lacking detail 

message: I wish the article discussed actual methods as a central sub-topic.
I wish this article could have taken the time to explain this at a simpler level. I consult Wiki to have things explained, not obfuscated  — Preceding unsigned comment added by74.95.126.250 (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The article is now very long and hard to read through. Would it be better if the history of hermeneutics would be separated from the main article? The main article could focus on the general description of hermeneutics, its applications and methods, while the historical perspective could be moved to a different article.
Another possibility would be to move more of the Biblical hermeneutics to that article - most of the history in this article is still more or less Biblical.Wikikrax (talk) 06:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea sounds exciting. How would you go about the project? Start with outlines? What are the "core elements"? -- Streen (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separating the history of hermeneutics from hermeneutics 

message: The previous entry in the talk page helps to account for the non-neutral point that has developed on this page, since it seems to indicate that people who love the topic are the main ones to write the article. There is a lot of material, but it dearly lacks that encyclopedia-like clarity and lack of bias. In other words the page needs less Sein und Zeit and more Encyclopedia Britanica.
I suggest that a synopsis of the problems with Hermeneutics be included in the intro, something like: A number of rational intellectuals from fields within and beyond the realm of philosophy, such as Murray Rothbard, argue that Hermeneutics does more to obfuscate rather than enlighten. http://rationalargumentator.com/hermeneuticalinvasion.html
Then a synopsis of critical viewpoints in the overview of each major subsection would be rather helpful. In some cases, the overview itself would need to be written, but this provides the chance to go beyond the band-aid of tacking on critical viewpoints, and allows the clean incorporation a variety of viewpoints in a comprehensible overview created de novo. If you happen to be a hermeneutics lover and are up to the challenge of stepping outside of your comfort zone and playing devil's advocate, I'd say try the latter. inthedryer (talk) 8:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely you don't detect a bias in your repeated use of the word "rational", the fact you cite a well known heterodox and politically motivated economist (economics+hermeneutics=??), and the fact you seem to plain not like hermeneutics? Article is crappy and could use work, but not from you.68.197.81.85 (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's start to balance this article 

message: Murray Rothbard is not a major critic of hermeneutics, and while the case can be made for mentioning his views somewhere in the article, they do not belong in the lead (I've been reading the article by Rothbard, and while it's quite amusing, it's clear that Rothbard is not too familiar with French philosophy; he mistakenly identifies Paul Ricoeur and Michel Foucault as proponents of deconstruction). If someone wanted to establish a "criticism" section, it might be appropriate to mention Rothbard's views there. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rothbard 

message: The article says that "Hermeneutics […] is the theory and methodology of text interpretation", but also that "Hermeneutics […] includes written, verbal, and nonverbal communication.". Which is it? 172.56.21.62 (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: Hi, the four levels of interpretation could perhaps be linked to main article ...wiki/Allegory_in_the_Middle_Ages ? T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical Hermeneutics 

message: While reference to Gadamer (et al) elsewhere in this article is ample, there is none to [Paul Ricoeur]. His works, particularly the Rule of Metaphor, and Interpretation Theory, were essential reading in Dalibor's architecture design studios at Cambridge in 1980s. The key point is the notion of 'surplus' of meaning in architecture, that links to 'simultaneity' of experience both optically visual and culturally/historically contextual, especially where any or all of those aspects might be 'latent'. That is the essence of Dalibor's 'theory' of the 'fragment', a term he used metaphorically for the experience of the city. The seminal work <Architecture in the Age of Divided Representation> expands the argument fascinatingly. Domskitect (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  architectural hermeneutics 

message: # Here is the Anglophone Wikipedia. We should firstly respect the Anglophone English words.
# If we use the Grecophone English words we are supposed to write the most correct first (hermenism and hermeneuticism are both correct and synonymous but hermeneuticism is needlessly complex).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8424:6200:750F:2BCC:E87F:2804 (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  interpretationism = ερμηνισμός = hermenism = ερμηνευτισμός = hermeneuticism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hermeneutics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060509173437/http://www.existentialgraphs.com/peirceoneg/existentialgraphs4.418-529.htm to http://www.existentialgraphs.com/peirceoneg/existentialgraphs4.418-529.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hermeneutics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130411141156/http://www.objective-hermeneutics.com/bibliography/bibliographic-database.html to http://www.objective-hermeneutics.com/bibliography/bibliographic-database.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Etymology section does not use the term "folk etymology" correctly. The linked Wikipedia entry for "Folk Etymology" contains sound information and is evidence enough that the term does not apply when describing the origin of the term "hermeneutics." Folk etymology does not mean "people commonly believe that the word comes from...." but rather "people take newly adopted foreign words and modify them so that they fit more smoothly into their own language." An accurate example of folk etymology would be "crawfish": the Old French "crevis" (from Old Frankish, "small crab") is adopted into Middle English as "crevis." The final syllable then changes in the English word from "vis" to "fish," by way of folk etymology. The word initially referred to crabs, not fish, but in English it came to sound like "fish" and thus was changed to "fish." Jk180 (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misuse of the term "folk etymology" 

message: I added the word "incorrectly", and removed the word "corrects" from the same page in different spots without prior planning. And didn't realize till looking at it all after the second edit. 
Dunno why, but I couldn't just leave it at that without comment. Sajiky (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh, go figure. 

message: Hi, 
I came across this promising Draft:Hermeneutics of feminism in Islam (relating to women's rights) and myself supported the same editorially too. IMO since topic potential is vast many Reliable sources on Google scholar seem to be available hence the article needs more editorial hands for some more update and expansion along with appropriate references.
Pl. do join to update and expansion, your help will be most welcome.
Thanks and regards
Bookku (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Draft:Hermeneutics of feminism in Islam]] 

message: Would someone write a Simple English version of this page? Maybe 2-3 paragraphs at most, no Greek.
Thank you. Jblack4 (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple English, please! 

message: The quote that begins "A divine message must be received with implicit uncertainty" does not appear anywhere in the 1994 edition of Grondin's work.
Assistance in correcting the source of the quote would be appreciated. 74.96.249.118 (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch! It looks like the issue is that the quoted section is not actually supposed to be a quote at all. It was mistakenly marked as such in this edit: . I updated the article. Jhvx (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. In attempting to track this down I did manage to find half a dozen theses and books on amazon, etc., that attribute the quote to Grondin! Only one of them mentioned that the attribution came via Wikipedia... 74.96.249.118 (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. So it looks like putting the whole paragraph as a quote from Grondin was the right move? If so, shouldn't it be reinstated? Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 01:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Quote - Grondin