Introduction
In the article, Wilhelm Dilthey narrates the conditions suitable for understanding oneself and others. He adopts a hermeneutic approach since the main focus is on interpreting evidence, including autobiographies, to support his views (Dilthey 220). As a philosopher, Dilthey devoted his work to the need to distinguish between natural and human sciences. The principal ideas examined by the thinker are the possibility of explaining human dynamics through the lens of history, using categories reflecting life experience and their application to individual and collective affairs (Dilthey 214). Hence, considering these concepts applied to the subject of Dilthey’s study helps grasp the meaning of his contributions.
The Method of Approaching the Theme
The method Dilthey selected for presenting his argument regarding re-experience and transposing as a way to understand others is the analysis of historical pieces or, in other words, hermeneutics. Their interpretation was approached by highlighting the necessity of demonstrating the importance of lived experience, which is “a temporal sequence in which every state is in flux before it can become a distinct object” (Dilthey 216). According to the author, this concept cannot be fully assessed when relying on one’s stance as temporal succession, which is the main category of cognition, cannot be revealed by subjective views (Dilthey 217). Thus, the adopted way of studying these phenomena, as per hermeneutic tools, is their interpretation by analyzing the available information about people’s lives.
Articulating the Topic
The topic of one’s self and others’ experience is articulated by Dilthey by addressing and criticizing the previously implemented methods for examining this area of life. Thus, the philosopher claims that interpretation of complex conditions of the exchange of common notions between people can be performed by referring to the objective spirit (Dilthey 229). Meanwhile, Hegel’s emphasis on the explanatory power of organic life, which is “an intermediary link between inorganic nature and the historical world,” seems inappropriate for this purpose (Dilthey 219). This standpoint is based on the irrelevance of natural sciences for processing human categories because, in this case, they “transgress their limits” (Dilthey 219). In this way, the criticism of this approach is grounded on the inapplicability of such instruments’ inclusion when considering the processes related to the population’s consciousness.
Consequently, the subject matter, which is the suitability of Dilthey’s modes of apprehension to revealing the common ideas of groups of citizens from the perspective of hermeneutics, can be understood by discussing others’ views. In present-day society, one can face such situations when objective spirit correlates with specific movements stemming from the past. This claim derives from the thinker’s conclusion on the significance of previous experience “with all its temporal fretting” for people’s opinions (Dilthey 216). For example, the organization of initiatives, such as Black Lives Matter, is primarily guided by the existence of inequality over history rather than other considerations. In this case, the possibilities, which are connected to creating a favorable environment for everyone’s wellbeing, determine the desire for predictability.
Conclusion
To summarize, the process of re-experiencing and ensuring a better understanding of others is regulated by categories of human sciences. As it was put by Dilthey, they facilitate the implementation of the hermeneutic approach, which compensates for the failure of natural sciences to address this task. Thus, objectivity in this respect can be gained only by the inclusion of modes of apprehension, among which time is the most significant concern, especially when it comes to evaluating current societal movements.
Work Cited
Dilthey, Wilhelm. Drafts for a Critique of Historical Reason, pp. 213-240 [PDF Document].