There are 3 statements: respond to each individual statement in a minimum of 150 words, at least one in-text citation, and a reference list for each question, evidence should ONLY be from peer-reviewed journal articles.
Original Question FOR STATEMENT 1 & 2: What does Dilthey mean when he uses the metaphor “blind window”? What is Dilthey’s view of personal bias in interpreting written text?
STATEMENT 1:
When Dilthey uses the metaphor “blind window” he is talking about how we translate the world around us from our own perspective (Dilthey & Jameson, 1972). They go on to say, “The very way in which reality is experienced within us raises the gravest difficulties as to its objective apprehension” (Dilthey & Jameson, 1972, p. 231).
When reading and researching for this question, I came across Kurland’s (2000) Critical Reading website and it helped me to understand what Dilthey was saying. Although it is not a peer reviewed article, it had useful information. The way we approach text, purpose for reading text, and what we expect to gain from text determine the outcome of reading the text (Kurland, 2000). All three of these will impact our understanding and interpretation of written text. In addition to this point, religious text (and related) are prone to subjectivity. This is because “no mere reflection of reality within consciousness, but is rather first and foremost an inner reality, a coherence experienced from within” (Dilthey & Jameson, 1972, p. 231)
Recognizing the bias in our understanding and interpretation will assist us in formulating a starting point for discussing how to minimize (or use to our advantage) our levels of subjectivity.
STATEMENT 2:
It is essential to take into consideration that an individual cannot discuss the rise of Hermaneutics without mentioning Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911). Gough and Madill (2012) maintain that Hermaneutics is the study of scientific knowledge of individuals and how humans can attain such knowledge using available means for the purposes of reaching higher levels of happiness. Dilthey argued that all human knowledge and understanding is neither derived from a subjective form nor a purely a rise of intuition. In his doctrine of ‘Verstehen’.
Nelson (2010) maintains that Dilthey proposes that when faced with a dilemma, humans tend to be overwhelmed and a little temporarily confused. However, there is need for the subject to be separated from its object in order for understanding of the reasons for the dilemma to occur. That is, limited interest can often result in limited understanding. In his view of personal bias in interpreting written text, Dilthey explains the possibilities of misinterpretation as a result of blind window. He uses this metaphor to explain how bias can be made possible by our own personal interests and our limited interest which then influences our judgement.
Original Question FOR STATEMENT 3: Discuss the difficulties in employing hermeneutics as a scientific tool. Is this approach to interpreting text and action too vague and subjective, or does its subjective starting point offer certain advantages within psychological inquiry?
STATEMENT 3:
The approach to interpreting text and action is a good starting point and offers certain advantages within psychological inquiry because it forces us to look from different perspectives and consider other interpretations. “Psychology has held that psychological practice shall consist of applying the knowledge that is generated by research inquiries”, but practitioners “don’t use generalized research findings in determining what they do with clients” which poses a problem because their therapeutic techniques should be limited to “empirically validated set of techniques” (Polkinghorne, 2000 ,p. 455).
The problem with employing hermeneutics as a scientific tool is the lack of observable or actual understanding of the context in which the text is written. Perspective and perception on built on one’s own understanding of a situation based on experience either of the actual event, closely related event or of another event with impactful significance. In other words, the perception and perspective are based on how the individual responds to a situation or event real or imagined.
There is a problem with objectivity in psychology as it relates to the scientific method. Last week we touched on religion and psychology and how the natures of personal religious experiences align with hermeneutics because they are interpretive. We discussed how it is difficult to relate such things to science.
“Within more established disciplines, advances have been made in understanding the nature of knowledge generation. These advances are not sufficiently reflected in mainstream supervisory thought. For example, scientists and philosophers both agree that human thinking influences scientific reality” (Gough & Madill, 2012, p. 4).