Quran and Hermeneutics

Introduction

Quran is a divine text and needs interpretation. For example, some of its texts are similar. Hence, over last fourteen centuries, there have been a lot of interpretations and each one has had a way and a tendency in understanding and interpreting. Hence, some branches have been founded for foundations, regulations, ways and interpretative tendencies.
Such a way has been followed about a holy book (Turah, Bible and their examples). Hence, the scientific branch of hermeneutic was formed for understanding and interpreting a holy book as well as all kinds of texts.
Hence, it is necessary that a comparative analysis is done between the points of view of interpreters of Quran about the foundation and the ways of understanding and the points of view of the scientists of hermeneutic.
These comparison, analysis and criticism are effective and they prevent from extremes and limits and they may create new horizons in the ways of understanding and interpreting.

Conceptualization and background:

The matter of hermeneutic has been discussed in the matters of Quran for a while and some writers have presented it under the title '' the interpretative way of hermeneutic of Quran'' in the ways of the interpretation of Quran. Some other writers have discussed about the matter of hermeneutic in the area of the foundation of the interpretation.
With ignoring the rightness and the falsity of this matter, the matter of hermeneutic and its relationship with the interpretation of Quran, need analyses. The points of views of the matter of hermeneutic are so extended and different and the acceptance of each one needs specific necessities and it is in contrast with the necessities of the acceptance of another point of view. Hence, the analysis of this matter needs a dependent compilation.
We are trying in this writing to refer to some matters of hermeneutic, its acceptable consequences and its negative and abolished consequences. Hence, we will mention several matters:

First: the background of the matter of Quran and hermeneutic among Muslims:

The matter of hermeneutic started formally in the west from the seventeenth century, but the matter of the interpretation of Quran and hermeneutic have been presented in recent decades. Most of persons that have dealt with this matter have mentioned relationship between the interpretation of Quran and hermeneutic in books and articles. However, some persons have dealt with this matter independently such as Muhammad Mojtahad Shabestari in the book ''the hermeneutic of book and the tradition'' (1375 Sh), the magazine of the criticism of book of the interpretation about the idea of relativity and hermeneutic (1376), Abbasali Amid Zanjani in the foundation and the interpretative ways of Quran (1379 Sh), Ahmad Vaezi in the book '' introduction to hermeneutic'' (1380 Sh), Hussein Alavi Mehr in the book '' interpretative ways and tendencies'', Muhammad Ali Rezaei Isfahani in the book '' the logic of interpretation'', Ali Rabani Golpayegani in the book '' hermeneutic and the logic of understanding the religion'', Ghasem Pur Hasan in the book '' comparative hermeneutic'' and Nasr Hamed Abu Zeid in the book '' Ashkaliat Al-Tafsir and Aliat Al-Tavil'' . Of course, these persons have not had an equal point of view toward relationship Quran and hermeneutic; some of them had optimistic points of views, others had pessimistic points of views and still others have had fair points of views.

Second: conceptualization and the background of hermeneutic in the west:

A. the conceptualization of the hermeneutic:

The word '' hermeneutic'' means '' interpret'' from the word of Geek Language '' hermeneuin''. This word has been used since the time of Plato and it means to understand an ambiguous thing and position. Arastu used this word for naming a part of the book '' Arghonun'' that is about the logic of stories.
Some say '' this word basically means explanation, the turning out and the clarification of a message in Greek Language and its equivalence is '' interpretation '' in Arabic Language.

This word is used in Arabic Language literally and it includes one of following meanings:

1. Interpretation means in its extended meaning that a quality that clarifies and turns out an ambiguous topic. Therefore, Hermes was called the messenger of Gods, the interpreter of dynasty and a talker from Gods. Therefore, the people of Loster were called Pules Hermes because he was a pioneer in talking and was a person that interpreted Gods. Hence, a person that translates is not called an interpreter, but an interpreter is a person that explains and clarifies a difficult and complicated message.
2. Translation: changing a word to other word;
3. Explanation: the statement and the explanation of a difficult and complicated meaning that has been used in a meaningful statement;
But some have translated hermeneutic to '' return'' and even scientists call it ''returner''.
They have emphasized on this meaning on each and every page of the book and mention the interpretation of Ismaeilie and its similarity with Eskandarie as teachers that the Christians have learned from him the science of interpretation.
Before the seventeenth century, there was no specific branch of science that was called hermeneutic and after the seventeenth century, hermeneutic became a branch of the science of human.
The conception of hermeneutic was defined in different ways throughout history and they will be mentioned.

B. Hermeneutics throughout the history:

The science of hermeneutic means the interpretation of holy book or Hermeneutics Ghodsi and probably, the most common understanding of the word in the new era refers to the principles of the interpretation of holy books. When this word was used in the seventeenth century, it was necessary to understand the appropriate principles and the regulations of understanding the holy book that Nahle Protestant had turned away from the reason of the church of Catholics and was looking for the norm of the interpretation of holy books. The knowledge of hermeneutics in this meaning was more than the methodological rule of the interpretation and a way and logic for the interpretation of holy books. This meaning of hermeneutics covers a lot of these points of views and Shalayer Makher, Wilhelm Dilthey, Amiliobeti and Arik Hersh are considered as the examples of the supporters of this point of view.
Hermeneutic started formally from the seventeenth century. Dann Harver was the first person that included the word '' hermeneutic'' in the title of his book. The title of his book was hermeneutic Ghodsi or the way of the interpretation of holy books.
Some scientists consider religious modifications as the starting point of hermeneutic. However, Shalayer Makhara (1768-1834) is called the founder of the new hermeneutic. Hermeneutic was compiled as a way of thinking by Wiliam Dilthey(1833-1911) around a hundred years ago for the first time and his purpose was to promote the values of humanities and to equalize it with experimental sciences.
This theory has been dangling between the peak and the depth of wells and has got a lot of ups and downs. However, new thoughts have helped this theory to grow again and the factors of its growth include:
1. Linguistic structure has got deep effect on cultures and has been imposed on experience;
2. The experiences of human have interpretative nature and are expressed through culture and language.
In this area, Protestants (the talkers of Protestants) have got the most effect on in its modification and criticism.
Nasr Hamed Abu Zeid, the Egyptian intellectual person, says '' hermeneutic was presented in old science as well as new era and its sciences. Its pivot is based on the relationship and the interest of an interpreter toward clear texts and this pivot is not only for western thoughts, but it is observed in old and new Arabic works. However, since it is discussed the west part of the world, it is appropriate to share our thoughts with the western thoughts.
The scientists of hermeneutic emphasized on the intention of authors on understanding texts. Afterwards, another point of view appeared in hermeneutic. Martin Haideger (1889-1976) and Gadamer (1900) were its founders and philosophical search in understanding texts and the intention of authors was not highly important. Then it was emphasized on the understanding of texts and the intention of the author in the twentieth century with the appearance of Amilo Beti (1890) and Arik Hersh (1928) and hermeneutic formed tangibly.

Hermeneutic was considered as a scientific branch, but the Notification:

matters of hermeneutic were presented in the books of scientists before the seventeenth century under the title '' nameless hermeneutic'' such as: Sent Agustin, the Christian philosophy and talker, ( 430-454) considered the phlegm of the real meaning and virtual and metaphor meaning as the main reason of the ambiguity of holy books.
Some matters such as interpretation and the principles of jurisprudence and matters such as the theories of hermeneutic have been presented among Muslim scientists. In other words, some matters of the principles of jurisprudence deal with the regulations of understanding texts and interpreters deal with matters about the understanding and the interpretation of Quran in the articles of interpretation. The matters of the ways of the interpretation of Quran are considered as the matters of hermeneutic such as the interpretation of reference (as codes, ironically, as exemplification and …)

C. The definitions of hermeneutics:

Different definitions have been mentioned for hermeneutics such as:
1. John Martin Kladinus (1710-1759) considers humanities based on the art of interpretation and mentions hermeneutics its other name. Hermeneutics is the art of access to complete understanding and oral and written statements, of course, in cases that ambiguity happens.
2. Fedrik Agust Velf (1785-1807) defines hermeneutics in this way '' science includes regulations that help us to understand the meaning of signs''. The purpose of this science is to understand verbal and written thoughts of a writer or a speaker, according to what is thought''.
3. Ferderish Arnest Danil Shalair Makher( 1767-1834) looked at hermeneutics as the art of understanding . He paid attention to the matter of misunderstanding and believed that the interpretation of the text was at the risk of misunderstanding. Hence, hermeneutics should be applied as a system of practical and effective regulations for removing this threat. He considered the purpose of interpretation as the discovery of the intention of a writer and emphasized on two pivots:
First: the understanding of the structures of the kinds of statements and cultural and linguistic cases that the author existed with and determined and influenced;
Second: the technical and psychological understanding of s specific point of view or the creativity of the author.
4. Vilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911) considered hermeneutics as knowledge that took the responsibility of the methodological presentation of humanities. The main purpose of his attempts of hermeneutics was the promotion of validity and the value of humanity and its equality with experimental sciences. He relies on distinction between '' understanding '' and '' explanation''. The explanation of natural events relies on the employment of general events. However, a historian tries to know the factors of events so that he or she can discover their intentions, purposes, features and personalities in order to understand their actions. Understanding means '' I discover myself in you'' and this is possible due to the general human nature. His followers are Maks Veber from Germany (1920-1864) and Yavakhim Mark from Germany.
Babner, the contemporary writer of Germany, has defined Hermeneutics as '' training of interpretation''. Of course, this definition is in line with the philosophical hermeneutics of Martin Haideger( 1889-1976) and Hanes Gadamer( 1901). Gadamer believes that there are ideas according to our understanding and tries to analyze understanding and to explain the conditions of its gain and doesn't limit in the framework of the understanding of humanities. Haideger believes that in the societies of human, we know the world through presuppositions such as assumptions, expectations and conceptions. These form our understanding. Gadamer confirms the beliefs of Haideger and believed '' a text or a thing that is interpreted from specific point of view belongs to a specific tradition and creates a specific horizon that we can understand everything in its framework.
This horizon usually modifies in confrontation with things, but there are no tangible and final interpretations.
6. Arik Dunaled Hersh (1928) defends objectivity in the interpretations of texts and Hersh considers the mission of interpreter attempt for understanding the meaning and the purpose of the author and believes that the text of the main key of understanding is the purpose of an author, but it is not enough and an interpreter should think beyond the text within his or her ability. From the point of view of Harsh, the position of regulations of hermeneutics is the area of the criticism and the evaluation of guesses (logic) is valid. These definitions show that the extension of hermeneutics and interpretations from it are very various and the area of its matters has become more extended along with its historical analysis and the introduction of hermeneutics as a guide for religious and law interpretation and philosophical thinking about the nature of understanding and the conditions of its gain have promoted.

The interpretation of hermeneutics of Quran:

The way of the interpretation of the hermeneutics of Quran whose annunciation comes from Arab was presented in the Arabic works by the instructors of Arabic Language at first after it was translated in Farsi Language. Then it was transferred to the works of Farsi incompletely and vaguely.
The analysis of the way of hermeneutics of the interpretation of Quran is based on an interpretation that the persons that claim the actions of this way in the interpretation of Quran have referred to. Hence, if this interpretation is not in line with the idea of its main theorizers such Haideger, Ikeltun and … that have challenged in the area of literary texts, the fault of this interpretation is due to persons that have related this way of incomplete research to the heavenly books especially Quran and have depicted the way of hermeneutics as a modern way for the interpretation of Quran.
Dr. Nasr Hamed Abu Zeid confirms in his writing '' Hermenu Tigha'' that has been published in the book '' Ashkaliat Al-Gharae and Aliat Al-Tavil'' the holiness of Quran with applying the way of hermeneutics and emphasizes on the way of hermeneutics of Quran since Quran is not made by human.

The stages and the courses of hermeneutic;

Different classifications have been presented for the courses of hermeneutic and we can present them. We will mention some of these classifications:

The first classification: historical classification

First: nameless hermeneutic:

Hermeneutic started formally before the seventeenth century. In this era, there were thoughts that were not presented as hermeneutic formally, but they had the themes of hermeneutic. In other words, they were in line with the tendencies of hermeneutic. Of course, we can classify nameless era in two parts:

A. Legendry hermeneutic:

The legendry hermeneutic was the full of the legendry thoughts and they were used for the understanding of left works from old eras and were called '' hermeneutic Aghdam'' or '' legendry''.

B. The hermeneutic of Ghodsi:

This era lasted years after Renaissance Era and hermeneutic became religious and was welcomed by Jewish and Christian scientists in order to interpret holy texts although there was no name of the science of hermeneutic. For example, the scientists of this era presented the matters of hermeneutic of a holy book without mentioning the name of hermeneutic.
Hermeneutic promoted as a formal branch of science from the seventeenth century. There were ideas and thoughts before this era and after this era and they were not presented with the formal name of hermeneutic, but they had the content of hermeneutic. These kinds of thoughts and point of views are interpreted as '' nameless hermeneutic''.
The purpose from the content of hermeneutic is that they have been in line with the tendencies of hermeneutic. For example, if an intellectual person believes that the understandings of human are interpretative, he or she has approached the point of view of philosophical hermeneutic of Hidger and Gadamer. Hence, he or she has expressed the idea of hermeneutic even though they have not expressed the name of hermeneutic among his or her works.
Most of new courses deal with such matters that in old eras, before these courses were formed and organized and its topics and the general framework of its matters were confirmed, some topics and matters of that course were discussed in the words of other intellectuals sporadically. For example, we can refer to the philosophy of morality whose root comes back to an independent course and a branch of philosophy in the twentieth century. The analysis of moral conceptions such as ''good or bad'' and '' should not ad should'' forms a part of the matters of the philosophy of morality. Most of talkers and philosophers have analyzed the conception '' good and ugly'' without naming them the philosophy of morality.
At the beginning of the seventeenth century, Dan Haver (654) named his book the Hermeneutic of Godsi or the way of the interpretation of holy books.

Second: modern hermeneutic (classic and methodological):

Shalayer Makher (1768-1834) is commonly known as the founder of modern hermeneutic. In this era, hermeneutic was presented in the form of a science or an art of the understanding of any kinds of texts through the appearance of the new kind of rationality. Basically, its purpose was to present the ways of avoiding misunderstanding and achieving the purpose of an author as the basic meaning of the text. This era is called methodological hermeneutic, classic hermeneutic and romantic hermeneutic because of high cooperation of romanticisms in its growth.

The most important hermeneutic point of views of Shalayer Makher include:

1. Shalayer Makher mentioned the matter of the understanding and the interpretation of the text as the matters of hermeneutics. Before him, hermeneutic was only a technique and logic to understand, to interpret and to remove the ambiguities of the text and they never discussed about the nature of its understanding and its obstacles.
Shalayer Makher considered understanding and interpretation as '' reconstruction'' and '' reproduction''. When an artist tries to understand an artistic work, he or she has done historical reconstruction and tries to penetrate into the mind of the creator of the work so that he or she can understand its meanings. In other words, to understand a work, we should get familiar with the mind of its creator. A historical reconstruction includes some elements. An interpreter should establish and reproduce a main situation that an artist has in his or her mind and feels the mind that a work belongs to.
This is true about the interpretation of a text. An interpreter will understand a text if he or she discovers the first and main process of the mind of an author and understands the atmosphere of the mind of an author that produces a text.
Before Shalayer Makher, the understanding and the interpretation of the text was seeing a text and its ambiguities whereas Shalayer Makher considered the understanding of a text the recognition of the mind of an author and the penetration of the world of his or her mind through reconstruction or the understanding of the individuality of an author.
The specific interpretation of Shalayer Makher from the nature of understanding and interpretation changes the mission and the duty of hermeneutics. The mission of hermeneutic was to remove ambiguities and the understanding of the text was its interpretation and the interpretation of the text was practical. Since then, the mission of hermeneutic was situational and it was used in order to remove ambiguities.
2.The specific point of view of Shalayer Makher understanding a text and an art work developed the mission of hermeneutics and changed it from a minor situation to a general situation because the understanding of a work was the understanding of the individuality of its creator and the reconstruction of the world of his or her mind in the time of the creation of a work. Hence, each understanding involves the understanding of individuality and if we define hermeneutic as the art, means and interpretation of understanding a work, hermeneutic gains a general mission because hermeneutic will be the means and art of understanding a text that is difficult. Hence, we should find the secret of generality of hermeneutic of Shalayer Makher in his specific interpretation from understanding that is the understanding of individuality.
3. Shalayer Makher developed the area of hermeneutic from the aspect of quantity. In his opinion, Hermeneutic does not belong only to religious texts, but it also includes any kinds of texts, even unfamiliar and translated texts. Moreover, hermeneutic includes written language as well as oral language because there is a basic difference between the understanding a text and the understanding of the remark of a person.
The point of view of Shalayer Makher, hermeneutic includes written texts as well as talking and oral remarks, was welcomed by Diltay Rar. Diltay Rar extended the realm of hermeneutic toward humanities.
4. Talking and writing are considered as an art and are presented within the framework of art. A talker or a writer fosters a feeling or a meaning in his or her mind and presents them in the form of oral or written statements. This presentation is not a mechanic action and the reflection of the thought and the feeling of mind, but meanings and feelings wear the garments of pronunciations and words through art and a talent. The meanings of expression, the technique of saying poems, and literary talent are glorious garments that decorate talks and writings.
The understanding and the interpretation of talks and writings pass the opposite path of talking and writing. To understand something, at first, we deal with writings and talks and try to understand mind, meanings and feelings that have created statements. Hence, the mind of a talker or a writer in words and sentences is not a mechanic action, but it is an art. The understanding of meanings and statements are not gained through literary regulations and they need talents and art. Hermeneutic is an art that is used to understand writings and talks. Entering the mind of the creator of a work and the understanding of his or her individuality need the art of hermeneutic.
5. Shalayer Makher considers understanding'' the understanding of the individuality of another person because there is not a close relationship between you and I and individuality is different from a person to the other person. However, there are common talents, feelings and experiences among persons. It seems that each person has some talents, feelings and experiences of another person. Hence, understanding another person is not impossible.
Misunderstanding always exists and we do not understand the individuality of an author and the creator of a work. Shalayer Makher paid special attention to this matter and considered the basic pivot of the matters of his hermeneutic some ways for avoiding misunderstanding.
6. One of important points in the thought of Shalayer Makher is paying attention to lack of the efficiency of the grammar of a language for the understanding and the interpretation of a text. Before Shalayer Makher, the mission of hermeneutic was to do technical duty and the depiction of literary regulations for achieving this understanding. Kladnius had understood this point well that whatever was in the mind of an author might be more than meanings that are extracted from the sentences of a text, but he did not consider the mission of hermeneutic the understanding of these meanings whereas Shalayer Makher considered the mission of hermeneutic the understanding of the individuality of an author. Hence, he paid special attention to these meanings that were out of control of regulations of grammar.
Lack of the efficiency of the interpretation related to linguistic and grammatical regulations had Shalayer Makher consider complete understanding in two matters: 1. the grammatical interpretation relies on literary regulations and deals with interpretative text and forms. 2. Technical and psychological interpretation tries to understand the individuality of an author and his or her mind. Writing and talking has two stages, whatever is in mind and whatever is expressed in statements. The understanding and the interpretation of writings and talks should pass these two stages. Understanding whatever is expressed in form of a language is grammatical interpretation and the understanding of whatever is in the mind and the intention of an author is psychological interpretation.
8. Shalayer Makher considered the understanding of a text in technical and psychological aspects of the text and the language. The grammatical aspect of a text is a clear matter and it is accessible applying regulations and rules. The basic problem of understanding is the technical aspect of a text that is related to its psychological aspect and the thoughts of an author and the way of his dominance in language and words. This aspect of understanding a text is subjective and its reconstruction is done through guessing and prediction. Shalayer Makher could present the grammatical regulations in the first aspect of understanding. However, he knew this point well that he did not limit himself to these regulations in the predictive reconstruction of a text because the understanding a text needs prediction. His purpose from prediction is a kind of guessing not inspiration and the blessing of God. He had a good feeling to lack of regularizing this predictive aspect of hermeneutic and interpretation. Hence, it can be said that his attempt for the presentation of a valid way in order to prevent misunderstanding was incomplete.
9. The important references of Shalayer Makher were the circle matter of understanding. He suggested the circle matter of understanding for the description of the understanding of texts. The circle of hermeneutic emphasizes on this point how specific matters and general ones are related to each other as a circle in the process of understanding in interpretation. The understanding of parts is necessary for understanding generals whereas we should understand parts for understanding generals.
On the basis of circle understanding, knowing is return action .We can understand something in the time of comparing it with something that we know more. Circle as a general defines its parts and parts form a circle. A sentence is a unit whose words are understood from the whole sentence and the meaning of a sentence depends on the meaning of its words. With regarding a mutual relationship between generals and parts, each one gets its meaning from the other one. Hence, understanding is like a circle because meaning is gained in this turn. This turn is called '' the circle of hermeneutic''.
Very important point in the matter of hermeneutic of Shalayer Makher is that he believes in the possibility of understanding a text like past persons. In other words, he considers the real purpose of a talker possible and accessible and believes in the possibility of accordance of the understanding an interpreter with the real meaning of the text (the mind of an author). Shalayer Makher paid attention to misunderstanding and an interpreter was to misunderstand. This affair did not have him have mind imagination and get away from understanding a text. This point was one of his differences with philosophical hermeneutic.
Shalayer Makher believed in the reconstruction of the thought and the revitalization of the experience of an author. He never considered statements a part from their authors. This revitalization of the experience and reconstruction are not gained through the psychology of the author and his or her causes and the incitements of feelings. But knowing is the art of the reconstruction of the thought of an author. This art is gained through intuitive approach in relation to text. The purpose of an interpreter is not to study psychological aspects of an author with ignoring texts and with analyzing his or her psychological conditions and factors, he or she penetrates into his or her mind and thought. But an interpreter tries to discover the mind of an author into the text. Therefore, an interpreter comes out of himself or herself and enters into the author so that he or she can observe the processes of the mind of an author that creates a text and can reveal the purpose of the text.

The second classification: psychological classification

1. The specific hermeneutic that referred to the first formations of hermeneutic was as a branch of science. In this type, some regulations and ways are provided in order to improve the quality of the interpretation of texts in different sciences and theologies such as law, literature, holy books and philosophy and each branch of science had some interpretative regulations and principles. Hence, the hermeneutic of each major was only for that major. Hence, these hermeneutics devoted their own scientific and thinking traditions. For example, hermeneutic that learned the way of the interpretation of holy texts were used in the interpretation of classic literary texts.
2. General hermeneutic is from a methodological aspect and it deals with the presentation of the way of understanding and interpretation, but it does not belong to a specific area of sciences and covers different branches of interpretative sciences. This tendency started from the eighteenth century and the first person that presented an organized explanation was a German talker, Shalayer Makher. Today, some person such as Amilo Bethy and Erik Hersh follow this kind of hermeneutic.
The presupposition of this hermeneutic tendency is that general regulations and principles are dominant on the understanding of a text ignoring the kind of text. A scientifist of hermeneutic should try to edit and arrange these general regulations.
We should subsume the attempt of Vilhelm Dilthey in this type because he considered only the sciences of human, but his presupposition has a complete proportion with the presupposition of the believers of general hermeneutic. Dilthey believed that the behaviors, remarks and writings of persons represented their mind and inner and the sciences of human should find a way in order to enter the inner of creators of these actions and works. This affair depends on common and general principles, regulations and ways and the duty and the mission of hermeneutic is to arrange and to edit these principles and regulations; in other words, its duty and mission are to explain methodology dominated on the sciences of human properly.
3. Philosophical hermeneutic focuses on philosophical thinking in understanding. Hence, it is not interested in the presentation of a way, the expression of principles and regulations related to understanding and interpretation whether this way is used about the understanding of a text or the sciences of human. Of course, if we pay attention, it is clear that this kind of hermeneutic is not interested in the presentation of a way and deals with criticizing methodology and criticizes this idea '' we can achieve reality through arranging''.

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 an 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 dependent 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.
The main problem in judging different interpretations is the way of determining of the value of documents and confirmed possibilities related to each interpretation. The solution of this problem is to prove the most important evidences of an interpretation in comparing to other interpretations. Doing this affair needs principles and norms that become the basis and the foundation of objective selection of the importance of documents. The evaluation of the validity of each interpretation (probable judgment) is based on its adaptability with these principles and norms. The main claim of Hersh is that such principles and norms can be determined and identified.
It has been turned out so far that from the point of view of Hersh, we cannot understand the purpose of the author certainly. The purpose of an interpreter should be this case that an interpretation of the text is more possible than other interpretations. We should look for verification in hermeneutics. Verification is a process whose relative probabilities are acceptable and proved. We should pay attention to four principles and norms in order to prove the likeliness of an interpretation. We can name these norms as '' the criteria of the verification of the interpretation''.
The first criterion: the legitimacy of the first step in hermeneutics is to show that this interpretation of the text is possible and likely with regarding the norms and the methods of language. This interpretation should be allowed within the framework of public methods of language that text is made of them.
The second criterion: correspondence: each interpretation should consider all of the components of the language of the text and supposed interpretation should be based on the components of the text. An interpretation that ignores some parts of the text is not considered as likely interpretations.
The third criterion: generic appropriateness: the interpretation of each text should be based on the kind of that writing. For instance, if we deal with scientific text, it is not appropriate that we interpret it like a text that includes references and signs. Violating this norm causes that an interpreter makes a mistake about the kind of the meaning of the text (text's genre) easily.
The fourth criterion: plausibility or coherence: three previous criteria were related to different interpretations from a text. In other words, they did not cause any barriers for the path of different interpretations. But the fourth criterion helps the interpreter to select an interpretation that has more adaptability with text. Hence, the main criterion of the verification of interpretation is its adaptability with the text. The attempt of Hersh is to prove that verification along with adaptability involve the reconstruction of aspect that are related to the subjectivity of the author. He defends this thought that the objectivity in the interpretation of the text involves referring to the subjectivity of speaker. Of course, in the first point of view, relationship between the objectivity of interpretation and subjectivity is paradoxical, but this affair proves the nature of adaptability. An interpretation that has the highest adaptability is formed according to all aspects of the subjectivity, the awareness and the purpose of a speaker. Hence, adaptability is dependent on the understanding of context; in other words, it is the understanding of the meaning that an author has paid attention to. The components of the meaning of text are acceptable if they are adaptable and appropriate with the horizon of meaning.
A person that has inappropriate interpretation from the text imagines that he or she has presented desirable and adaptable interpretation from the text. But in fact, he or she has not understood the ground and meaningful point of view of the author. There is no certain norm among different interpretations whose each
one claims adaptability.
The solution is to know which one of grounds that the adaptability of interpretation is based on has the highest probability of veracity.
From the point of view of Hersh, the recognition of the meaning of the text and the determination of which interpretation has the likeliest adaptability, it cannot be gained only through referring to text, but whatever helps to reconstruct the meaning of the text and the awareness and the mind of the author should be considered even if they are beyond the text and in include cultural and social data.