Albert John Lenn Q.

Caser Classical Hermeneutics

A reflection on Gadamers concept of fusion of horizon as an understanding of

We all are in a constant dialogue with our selves listening to the self, to be open

to the world and to be aware of everything 1. We do things, see things, talks about things

and understand things, we react and we always understand things from the perspective

of our own personal horizon. We come to recognize the value of things around us by

knowing it. In reality, we come to appreciate things when we look beyond. This push us

farther to venture, does understanding of the self—horizon and of the other—horizon

will lead to self-consciousness and eventually living an authentic life?

Neither we gain meaning from meaning nor we gain meaning from looking

beyond meaning. In this paper, I want to reflect on Gadamers concept fusion of horizon.

However, in order for my reflection to be realized, there is a necessity to expose

Gadamers way of developing our horizon and to inject some notions of Heidegger’s

hermeneutic circle and of Husserl’s phenomenology. By this, I can contextualize my

reflection. Hans-Georg Gadamer is a German philosopher which is a student and

follower of Heidegger. 2 He replaced the Heideggerian notion of biases and

presuppositions and the Heideggerian process of hermeneutic circle with his diagram

of fusion of horizon.

1
Cruz Corazon L: Philosophy of man, (National book store, inc. 1987) p.84.
2
F.P.A Demeterion: The philosophy of interpretation: What is Hermeneutics, (Copy right, 1889-1976) p.5.
 In his time consultation processes for patient who are in need of medical care in

sufficient and sometimes sickness is address incorrectly. Gadamer argues that modern

science methods are not adequate to understand people and the art of communication

with the patients are lacking3. In his work “Philosophical Hermeneutics” he explained

that Hermeneutics is a process that can help interpret and understand something from

someone else perspective it is a demanding process where in meanings are not clearly

understood in which it requires fundamental efforts to have a sufficient and clear

interpretation of a certain situation.

During his time, he uses Hermeneutics to interpret religious text but later on he

decided to use it entirely as a model of understanding of the world and with various

forms of understanding to interhuman communication and into manipulation of

society4 furthermore applying hermeneutics to the human interpretation he talks of a

“horizon” as a way contextualize understanding. His works mainly focuses on the

events during an interaction of two different horizon. He describes such horizon as “the

totality of all that can be realized or thought about by a person at a given time in history

and in a particular culture.” To acquire horizon two persons, cooperate, adapt and

adjust with each other. One must look beyond what is close at hand—not in order to

look away from it but to see it better 5 meaning in order to have a clearer horizon one

must have a clearer view beyond what is close at hand. Thus, understanding happens

when our present understanding or horizon is moved to a new understanding or

3
Gadamer H-G: Truth and method, (2nd revised edn. London: Continuum International Pub. Grp, 2004)
4
Gadamer H-G: On The scope and function of hermeneutical reflection, (University of California Press, 1977),.p18-
43.
5
Gadamer H-G: Truth and method, (2nd revised edn. London: Continuum International Pub. Grp, 2004)
horizon by an encounter6. Gadamer calls this process of understanding as “fusion of

horizon” at this point the old and the new horizon combining into something of living

value. Gadamer argues that horizon is not static that imprisons man person rather it is a

living framework that can be modified primarily through exposure to the other horizon.

Thus, if two person talks and interacts each horizon modify with each other.

In relation to Husserl’s phenomenology consciousness from the past has

something to do with those memories in the mind that are collected through experience.

Conscious experience is the starting point of phenomenology. 7 Thinking of what will

happen in the future, although it is unknown, consciousness is still present by asking

ourselves what to do or what must be done. In addition, consciousness is not personal

because there’s a connection between the subject and the external things outside of us.

All thought Heidegger may contradict Husserl’s method to understanding things by

bracket our biases and presupposition to have a clearer understanding. Heidegger

argue that instead of bracketing biases and presuppositions to interpret we could make

a better use of them by employing them as the starting point in understanding a given

text in a given situation. Heidegger further discuss that the reason why it’s too difficult

to capture the meaning is because we do not have the necessary biases and

presuppositions that would help us in grasping meaning. The act of using biases as tool

for interpretation to bring forth meaning and drawing back meaning towards the

interpreter constitutes Heideggerian method—hermeneutic circle.

6
Gadamer H-G: Truth and method, (2nd revised edn. London: Continuum International Pub. Grp, 2004)
7
Philosophical Reference: Phenomenology; substantive revision Mon Jul 28, 2008) p.4.
 Consequently, for us to have a clearer view of something we must be equipped

with necessary biases and presupposition. With the intention to elaborate the notion of

his professor, Gadamer then replaced the Heideggerian notion of biases and

presuppositions with his idea of horizon and the Heideggerian process of hermeneutic

circle with his paradigm the fusion of horizon. well in fact Gadamerian hermeneutics is

modeled with two different horizons interacting with each other a dialogue that is

aimed towards what he calls the fusion of horizon8.

To further escalate, biases and presuppositions that we have acquired in the past

is necessary for us to have a clearer view of the present. Understanding prese is the

fusion of our past and present horizon. Hence, the present cannot be formed without

the past. Past and present co-exist with each other and understanding is always the

fusion of these horizons supposedly this two exist 9 Since fusion of horizon entails an

interaction of two different horizon—dialogue.

In this sense, Gadamers model of understanding is the inherent participation of

the past to the present where in it continually affects our way of seeing and

understanding of the present. By observing the belief and practices of man on a culture,

it is undeniably true that in every act and thinking of man, the past has a big influence

in it and it is also undeniable that every point of views and world views of man are

influenced by the ideas, views, concept in the past.

8
F.P.A Demeterion: The philosophy of interpretation: What is Hermeneutics, (Copy right, 1889-1976) p.5.
9
Gadamer H-G: Truth and method, (2nd revised edn. London: Continuum International Pub. Grp, 2004)
 This situation can be clearly seen in the life of two friends at a given time and

different environment they grown they have two distinct horizons. At first, it can be

clearer seen both do not have any idea of each other horizon but due to the fact that

they always interact with each other their individual horizon serves as modifier for

them to get closer with each other. Two different horizons modified each other to have

a clear understanding of each horizon. After some time, we can see them perhaps

dating and doing things they like and refraining from their dislikes.

As an application, the concept of fusion of horizon place a very important

element in understanding the other and it serves as a manifestation that the—other

truly understood the—other. In relation to given situation, let’s have a clearer outlook

about the idea love. Many would claim that loving a person is one of the most genuine

responsibility but others fail to understand. Married people live in a legal relationship

of intimacy. In any relationship this close, the toughest feeling will have to be dealt with

and the toughest of all feelings are love and hate. Loving either in a beneficial way or

for Valuing. Sometimes loving may lead to manipulation of the other than actualizing. I

will give more emphasis on manipulation, Love is a mutual feeling which one feel

towards the other an affection so to say, it is an unconditional caring or such parent

affection has to a child. The danger here is that parents sometimes begin to feel they

own their child that eventually leads a child either to trust or mistrust. In relation to,

married couple made vow “for better or for worst till death do us part” tends to turn

such promise into owning that eventually leads to conflict.

sense. It may seem negative and irritating but it is not a bad thing. Conflict reveals the

horizon into an extent that one understood by the other. It brings out ones needs for

attachment over the other. A presence or a connection that which has been forgotten or

lost—a connection that made them one. A “fusion of horizon” that is so intimate and

revealing. Conflict is not bad but necessary and that there can be creative conflict 10 it

reveals the feeling for the other—a feeling that requires and must be expressed with

love not just by the rules of logic. In other words, feeling needs to be expressed deeply

and it does not need reason to do so. Through faith, one accepts when the other

expresses his feeling deeply. The “I” then will let the other prove himself towards a

resolution. A resolution of the conflict that had arises and will eventually ends up with

a clear understanding of both “horizon”. Hence, a healthy marriage is one that

undergoes conflicts but i do not suggest it becomes a habit.

Thus, fusion of horizon involves a conversation and understanding. Past and

present always an interaction of the same and dynamic horizon that does not imprison

the self rather an interaction brings forth a new horizon of understanding. Nevertheless,

I do not assert that all conflicts are brought about by the past. The way man thinks and

acts will prove that the past has an inescapable participation to the present or even to

the future although yet still unknown. A vow that couple hold on too must not be used

as a means for owning the other. A healthy marriage could appear as meaningful when

10
Shostrom Everett L: Man the manipulator, (Abingdon Press, 1967), p.127.
conflicts arises but keeping in mind that it must not become a habit for destruction or

manipulation over the other.