‌‌‌ "Historicality" of understanding from Schleiermacher's point of view with regard to his hermeneutic approach

In the history of thought and human sciences, two approaches to "understanding", "thinking" and "rationality" can be listed: the "non-historical" approach and the "historical" approach. In the non-historical approach, "intelligence" has a single, universal, transtemporal, trans-spatial, and translinguistic meaning, but in the historical approach, "thinking" and "rationality" is a historical thing, and rationality is influenced by social, historical, political, etc. conditions and In fact, thinking, knowledge, rationality, understanding and all the things that are related to humans in some way are historical. The question of this research is, in which group does Schleiermacher's approach to the problem of "understanding" place him? For this purpose, Schleiermacher's hermeneutic views were discussed with a descriptive method and the findings of the research show Schleiermacher's historical approach to the problem of "understanding" and "thinking", based on which, an attempt is made to get to the author's or speaker's thinking, which is influenced by the historical-environmental situation and conditions. He helps us in reaching the correct understanding. By transferring hermeneutics from "text" to "understanding" and believing that our understanding and perception are influenced by historical conditions and situations, Schleiermacher is one of the philosophers who has a historical approach to man and his understanding and thinking.
Key words: Schleiermacher, hermeneutics, interpretation, historicity of thinking, historicity of understanding.
Introduction
Friedrich Schleiermacher is considered as one of the historical philosophers of thought, and it can be said that his thought, after Vico and Herder, was the first steps taken in the path of historical thinking. The meaning of historical vision is to pay attention to Historicity, or the historical aspect of mankind, which believes in the historical nature of all understandings, interpretations and actions, that although a person is thrown into historical possibilities, his position and condition in It determines this world based on its historical fate, but it has the possibility of overcoming them, but within the same range of its historical possibilities.
Friedrich Schleiermacher was called "the father of modern hermeneutics" for his efforts to create general hermeneutics. The study of Schleiermacher's opinions and thoughts reveals that most of his ideas regarding the historicity of understanding and thinking are expressed in his hermeneutic viewpoints, in which, inspired by the school of romanticism, he believes that the understanding of the text is dependent on the understanding of individuality. And the author's and theologian's mentality, and in order to acquire it, he proposes the reconstruction of the author's whole life along with the method of guess and comparison. Schleiermacher was the first person who included the issue of the nature of understanding and interpretation of the text among hermeneutics and paid attention to the historicity of human understanding.
The main issue and question of this article is, what is Schleiermacher's approach towards understanding and thinking, and in his opinion, what factors should be taken into account in order to achieve a correct understanding of each text and each attitude and thinking?
Methodology
Schleiermacher addressed the issue of the nature of understanding and thinking with hermeneutic method and believed that for the correct understanding of any thought and any text, one should pay attention to the historical factors affecting that particular text or thought. Based on this, he paid attention to the historicity of man and everything related to man, including understanding, rationality and thinking. Schleiermacher, knowing far from the understanding and connection of the whole and the part in every text and every thought, believed that the text or thought as a part should be understood in its general cultural context, and on the other hand, the understanding of the whole depends on the understanding of the individual parts, and if such a method is not applied It will lead to an abstract understanding that will be far from the reality of the matter.
In this article, by examining Schleiermacher's hermeneutic approach, an attempt has been made to present a suitable method for the correct understanding of any matter and any reality that is not abstract but concrete, and this correct understanding can provide suitable facilities to overcome and overcome the inappropriate understanding of historical and cultural realities.
conclusion
Schleiermacher transferred hermeneutic topics from "text" to "understanding". He saw the text as a historical source that should be interpreted and understood according to the historical context and the special mentality of the author, which is also historical. Schleiermacher considered every word to have two aspects: the aspect of its relationship with language (technical), and the aspect of its relationship with the speaker's thinking and thought (psychological).
From Schleiermacher's point of view, any understanding is distant and referential; Referring to previous knowledge and in a circular process between the part and the whole. The understanding of the whole text depends on the understanding of its individual parts, and on the other hand, the parts are understood as a whole. At a more general level regarding the understanding of the text, the hermeneutic round is related to the author's work as a part, in relation to the cultural whole in which it is located.
In order to understand the works of an author, one must understand his language and historical period. But in order to understand that language and history, it is necessary to understand the writings of that time, including the works of the author. Schleiermacher believed in the influence of language on understanding and considered it a social phenomenon that finds its meaning in the context of society. On the other hand, he believed in the unity of language and mind, and therefore he considered the knowledge of a person's mentality as subservient to the complete knowledge of his language, and the knowledge of language as subservient to the knowledge of his environment and historical and social conditions.