Objective hermeneutics (neoclassic) of Quran

Objective hermeneutics (neoclassic):

In the second half of the twentieth century, some scientists such as Amiliobethy (1890-1986 A.D) and Arik Donaled Hersh (1928 A.D) disagreed with the relativism of philosophical hermeneutics and defended objectivity.
Since some matters of this group were the same as classic hermeneutics, they were called '' the hermeneutics of neoclassic''. The well-known person of this era is Hersh and the most important of his works are '' validity in interpretation'' and '' the purposes of interpretation''.
Hersh invited to challenge the dearest suppositions that were as the guidance of literary compilation in four decades with discussion in the thesis '' validity in interpretation'' in 1967 A.D. He expressed that if it was believed that the meaning of a sentence could change, there would be no fixed criteria whether a expert had been compiled properly or not.
Moreover, Amiliobethy introduced Heideger and Gadamer as destructive objective critics with publishing a pamphlet in 1962 A.D because they introduced hermeneutics as a swamp without norms. Bethy tried to prove however much the role of mind was in compilation was observed objectively.
Now we will mention the most important point of views of hermeneutics of Hersh:
He differentiates the methods of cooperation with text and this distinction is based on the different meaning of understanding, interpretation, judgment and criticism. Therefore, he criticizes Gadamer seriously and considers interpretation as a productive activity by interpreter without considering the purpose of author. He believes that Gadamer is in the trouble of this contrast because on the one hand, he presents the independent meaning of text that comes from the increase of the meaning of text, the reproduction of interpretation, the permanence, the destroying of foundation and the lack of criteria of interpretation and on the other hand, he talks about the matter that which interpretation is closer to reality.
Hersh considers the mission of an interpreter attempting for the understanding of the meaning of the purpose of author and he is in contrast with persons that disconnect relationship between text and author and consider only purpose of the interpretation of text as the understanding of the language of text. He believes that attempt for the language of text is about to make mistakes without considering the purpose of author because it is impossible to achieve a specific answer.
Text is the main key of the understanding of the purpose of the writer, but it is not enough and an interpreter thinks about beyond the text within his or her abilities. It is not expected that an interpreter can achieve the reconstruction of the world of the mind of the author without having enough information and data about the author and his or her personal and cultural point of views. It is not right that it is imagined that we can gain desirable conclusions from the text. An interpreter has to supplement gained information from other sources with his or her findings in order to achieve the appropriate interpretation of the text, the understanding of the purpose of the writer and the reproduction of his or her awareness. Interpretations about the situation of the writer are gained from other sources apart from the text.
From the point of view Hersh, the mission of an interpreter is to deal with reproduction, logic, cultural data of the author, orientation and the world of the mind of the author. The area of this reproduction is the part of the mind of the author whose verbal meaning is dependant. For example, when a talker tells a lie and conceals it from addressees, the understanding of his or her talk is not dependant on the understanding of this hidden part from the mind of the speaker because a mistake is made and the author does not achieve his or her purpose, telling a lie.
Understanding and interpretation are not only possible through the understanding and the reproduction of the mind of the author and speaker. Each speaker has hidden purpose and the actions of mind that have no role in the formation of meaning and his remarks. The mission of an interpreter is to understand mind that has created text. An interpreter is not responsible to reproduce the real and complete mind of the author. Most of speakers are aware of the meaning of their remarks in their inner. The mission of an interpreter is not to understand these hidden purposes and actions that he or has no interference in the meaning of their remarks and texts.
Hersh emphasizes that we should not exaggerate in the role of rules on the process of interpretation. In his opinion, achieving the purpose of the author is not done easily through depending on method and a collection of rules. It is not true that following specific rules guarantees its validity and it does not guarantees that an interpreter can achieve the purpose of the author. It is a mission that method usually follows.
From the point of view Hersh, the process of interpretation has two main processes: the first process is the understanding of the purpose of the author and is hypothetical and an interpreter guesses the meaning of text. The second process is the measurement and the evaluation of the rate of the validity of this hypothesis. In the first stage of discussion, using way and rules is not discussed because there are no methods and rules for guessing. The action of methods is related to the second stage in the process of interpretation.
An interpreter does not make sure about the correct understanding of the meaning of the text in dealing with text. Of course, there is not a specific method for the stage of interpretation and understanding (guessing). But the criticism and the evaluation of the validity of these guesses is a methodological method. Hence, the process of the understanding of text needs the logic of validity. The most basic problem of interpretation is to guess the real purpose of the author.To achieve this purpose is possible, but an interpreter cannot mostly make sure about it. The purpose of interpretation is to analyze the ways of the increase of the probability of the veracity of interpretation. In other words, we can recognize correct and valid interpretation among different interpretations through the correction of the rules of the logic of validity.
The science of interpretation is based on the basis of the logic of validity not the methodology of achieving meaning. The rules of this logic are located under the underlying of achieving objective probable judgment in all of realms of thoughts.
From the point of view of Hersh, the position of corrections and the rules of hermeneutics is the area of criticism and the evaluation of guesses, in other words, the logic of validity because hypothetical interpretation should be done in the area of each text and according to documents specifically. Of course, there are no general and specific ways for this stage, but there are a lot of skills and elements in the stage of criticism and the evaluation of the validity of interpretation that we should follow them seriously in order to depict the logic of validity.
Hersh believes that two stages of the process of interpretation, hypothesis, theorizing and criticism, are not separated from each other, but an interpreter reconstructs meaning gradually and deals with hypothesis and criticism simultaneously. Although criticism and hypothesis are always together, this does not prevent from the belief in the appropriate way of criticism.
Before the norms of the recognition of a valid interpretation are expressed, we should get familiar with the belief of Hersh about the validity of interpretation. In this part, the most important of his beliefs about valid interpretation and its nature are expressed:
1. The purpose of the author is not transferred to an interpreter certainly. An interpreter cannot make sure that his or her understanding is in line with the purpose of the author because an interpreter achieves his or her understanding from the meaning of text in the world of his or her mind, but he or she cannot have the mind and the thoughts of the author in the world of his or her mind. After he or she compares both of them with each other, he or she achieves certain equality between his understanding and the purpose of the author.
Lack of the possibility of making sure about from the understanding of the author does not cause that the attempt of the interpreter becomes futile and fruitless. Logically, lack of the possibility of making sure does not mean lack of the possibility of understanding because we should not equalize knowledge and understanding certainly. Most of good and useful sciences of human do not claim the assurance and the use of this certainty.
2. We should consider the purpose of interpretation present validity that is an affair that can be determined and recognized because achieving ultimate correctness is the interpretation of inaccessible wish.
Distinction between the present validity of interpretation that can be determined and ultimate correctness that we cannot achieve should not have this confirmation that correct interpretation is impossible. Veracity is the purpose of interpretation and an interpreter may achieve it although we cannot gain science about it. Maybe, reality is in our hand, but we cannot make sure that we have achieved it. In spite of lack of such assurance, we can already have knowledge from the kind of probability. We can reach agreement about results that have the highest probability of veracity.
3. The evaluation of the validity of different interpretations from each text follows different results. It is not true that we always recognize the highest probability about an interpretation because documents may consider two or several interpretations valid equally and it is not possible to consider one of them the most likely interpretation.
Some ideas of the interpretative idea in the favor of two interpretative ideas are powerful and our knowledge is limited; therefore, we cannot make a decision firmly. Hence, the purpose of evaluation is not its validity and announce one of them a winner, but the purpose is to achieve objective result about relative probabilities.
Someone may conclude that the interpretation of A is more likely than the interpretation of B or none of those interpretations are allowed. Therefore, the benefits of the evaluation of validity are to show this way that two or several interpretations have equal validity and to encourage us to search more because different interpretations cannot be appropriate.
Interpretative theorizing is probability judgment that may be valid or invalid. Valid logic of Hersh is to evaluate valid interpretation related to the logic of probabilities. The logic of validity and lack of assurance are usually related to statistics and quantity data, but the validity of probability judgment is mostly expressed with the conceptions of quality such as less or more or so much. Hersh claims that we cannot present exact data of statistics and math about the interpretation of the text, but we can apply these conceptions of quality about different interpretations with the help of documents and consider a probability judgment more valid than others.
There is no fault about the application of the logic of probabilities about human and historical topics. Some believe that the topic of historical sciences is completely different from experimental. Hence, we cannot benefit from the logic of probabilities about human and historical sciences. Hersh believes that we cannot abolish the presuppositions of the opposite side and determine the interpretation and the understanding of subjectivity as clearly as experimental sciences. Accepting the foundation of Carol Paper, he announces that the reality of interpretation and idea, in other words, probability judgment, cannot be proved through documents, but only solution is that we select an idea abolishing probable ideas and probable judgments of the rival. From the opinion of Hersh, we should apply this idea about the interpretations of each text. Of course, documents and methods are in contrast with each other in human and historical sciences whose understanding of the text is based on them. In such conditions, we cannot consider probable judgment as valid understanding and the most likely interpretation.