Dilthey and Historical Reason
Tom Rockmore
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/rip.226.0477
2003-01-01
Revue internationale de philosophie
Abstract:ion from what is given; but the social sciences depend on historical and social facts, and their understanding (Verstehen). Dilthey comprehends understanding in the sense of interpretation, later appropriated by Heidegger and Gadamer, as opposed to the con struction of the objects of experience and knowledge in Kant. social sciences presuppose personal or lived experience {Erleben), as distinguished from the vaguer notion of experience in general (Erfahrung), as well as its expression or manifestation {Ausdruck). Since interpretation {Verstehen) is always perspectival, the social sciences, which depend on lived experience, make objective claims to know relative to the views people hold. social sciences are historical because finite human beings are historical. History is the totality composed of physical and psychical dimensions which become manifest in and through what we do and are only understood through the understanding. individual, who is caught up in nature and society, is capable of reflecting on and inter preting what is present to mind. On the historical approach Dilthey favors, all human phenomena are to be understood as products of historical development (see GS VII, 105). Dilthey on Cognitive Objectivity and Weltanschauungsphilosophie Dilthey insists on a continuity between the social sciences and the experience of individual human beings. He detects no distinction between the social sciences, or the interpretation of the human world, and philosophical reflection on our world and ourselves. In insisting that the social sciences are historical, he raises concerns about objec tive cognition. It has been suggested that historical knowledge can be objective if and only if it can in principle be understood in terms of the law-like framework in use in the physical sciences(29). An approach of this kind saves objective cognition by sacrificing the subjective dimension of human history on the altar of the positivist conception of knowledge. Dilthey, who insists on the idea of human (29) See Carl Hempel, The Function of General Laws in History, in Readings in Philosophical Analysis, edited by Herbert Feigl and Wilfrid Sellars, New York: Appleton Century-Crofts, 1949, pp. 459-471. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.59 on Sat, 15 Oct 2016 04:42:56 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms DILTHEY AND HISTORICAL REASON 489 history as a totality arising out of the intentional actions of human beings, needs to show that and how objective knowledge can arise out of individual experience. Dilthey approaches this problem on two levels. To begin with, he contends that objectivity is guaranteed by the exchange with expe rience and the understanding of others, and the physical world is the basis of the historical world which is the proper object of the human sciences see GS VII, 119). In this model, the perceived contradiction between life and science is resolved through the understanding of the historical world as an effective whole (Wirkungszusammenhang) (see GS VII, 138). But this only postpones the problem. Any claim for objective interpretation raises the difficulty of how interpretation in the social sciences can achieve objective cognition similar to explana tion in the physical sciences. Dilthey's most convincing answer to this difficulty occurs in his important article on the relation between types of worldviews (Welt anschauung) and metaphysical systems(30). Many writers, for instance Husserl, regard the idea of a worldview as incompatible with claims to know in a rigorous sense. Any concern to base knowledge on human activity, such as Dilthey's Lebensphilosophie, immediately raises the idea that claims to know are merely relative, or perspectival. In Kant, knowledge claims are devoid of, or beyond, cognitive per spective. There is a conceptual chasm between Kant's aperspectival approach to knowledge, Hegel's perspectival approach in which later perspectives include their conceptual predecessors, and Nietzsche's view that there are only different, conceptually unrelated perspectives, hence no conceivable prospect of relating different points of view in a single conception. debate after Kant has tended to side with those who embrace perspective in contradistinction to those who oppose it. Epistemo logical debate since Kant turns on a series of related questions about cognitive perspective: can the aperspectical view of knowledge be recovered? What kinds of perspectives are relevant to knowledge? Is perspective incompatible with knowledge? Those concerned, like Kant, to defend a traditional conception of aperspectival knowledge tend to minimize the role of the subject, as in (30) See Die Typen der Weltanschauung und ihre Ausbildung in den metaphysischen Systemen, in Wilhelm Dilthey, GS VIII, pp. 74-118. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.59 on Sat, 15 Oct 2016 04:42:56 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms