“The Fullness of Understanding”?

Abstract

Hans-Georg Gadamer publicly acknowledged Jean Grondin on more than one occasion for having elevated an overlooked and recondite idea that introduces of famous ontological turn in Truth and Method. The dense ten pages entitled Sprache und (Language and verbum) describe theological encounter with Greek logos as an event that prevented forgetfulness of language in Western thought from being and provided Gadamer strong ally against still-entrenched cultural view of language as tool of conveyance for preconceived meanings. Gadamer himself had brought his interest in topic to Grondin's attention when he remarked off-handedly that inner word was basis of hermeneutic universality. Grondin subsequently used claim as thematic springboard for his interpretation of Gadamerian hermeneutics.1 Although some hermeneutic scholars picked up on theme as useful heuristic for getting at hermeneutic ontology of language, note of critical caution emerged in scholarly discussion in mid-90s, and Grondin himself backed away somewhat from centrality of verbum for philosophical hermeneutics. Since then interest in theme seemed to die down in philosophical circles.2 It was thus striking coincidence that two book-length studies devoted to topic should have come out within weeks of each other in summer of 2009, one in United States and one in Germany, with virtually same title: Mirela Oliva's Das innere Verbum in Gadamers Hermeneutik, and my The Inner Word in Gadamer's Hermeneutics.3 Both monographs took as their singular subject matter same ten pages of Gadamer's magnum opus. The basic structure of two books was likewise same, first half treating history of concept of inner word, and second half interpreting Gadamer's appropriation of idea.4 In wake of this renewed attention, it is still case that meaning and significance of Gadamer's inner word is contested subject. In 2006, for instance, prominent Gadamer scholar Gunter Figal wrote forceful indictment of Gadamer's appropriation of inner word that was published in The Cambridge Companion to Gadamer. This critique has remained, to my knowledge, unanswered. Because both Oliva's and my monographs were focused on Gadamer's text and did not treat in depth scholarly reception history of Gadamer's verbum, I would like to walk through major critical challenges that have surfaced and say where I think conversation stands right now. My own conclusion will be that I think we are still misunderstanding and missing important consequences of Gadamer's allegiance to idea of inner word. We must first briefly recall what verbum interius refers to. In his major work on Christian idea of Trinity, labor of fifteen years, Augustine struggled to find way to talk about doctrinal mystery of three persons in one God. He hit upon an analogy drawn from Stoic theory of language. Just as logos endiathetos, which is always already word, is seed of logos prophorikos. or spoken word that lives among us, so son proceeds from father as flesh of his flesh. Just as word that comes from thought is a word which is absolutely same kind ofthing as knowledge it is from, so is father perfect and complete, even when he gives himself entirely in love to his son. There is no loss, but only gain.5 Given direction of Western theories of language after and before, it is understandable why Gadamer would be struck by conception of language that described a true word from true thing, having nothing from itself, but everything from that knowledge from which it is born (413). What must be in mind is that direction of Augustine's analogy is principally from human language to divine identity rather than reverse. The strong correspondences between the word of man and the Word of God helped Augustine connect immanent and transcendent Trinity, and not reverse. …