Jonathan VanOyen

Introduction to Hermeneutics: Gadamer, “Man and Language” Write Up

Gadamer writes about the relationship of language and thought. He says, “we can only

think in a language, and just this residing of our thinking in a language is the profound enigma

that language presents to thought”. It is hard to get a complete grasp on what Gadamer means by

this, but to my understanding it means that one cannot exist without the other. When we think,

we think in English. For someone who speaks Spanish, they presumably think in Spanish as well.

The point is, we can only think in one language at a time and explicitly in language, and that it

presents us with this odd relationship or “enigma” that language is what gives us the ability and

comprehension of thought. I think if you were to go back to a time before language, people then

would not have language to give essence to thought, but instead may think in pictures or signals,

or perhaps nothing at all.

Gadamer then goes on to discuss the three characteristics of language: “self-

forgetfulness”, “I-lessness”, and “universality”. These characteristics go on to suggest that

language is an inseparable thread, that connects men and their own relationships with the

surrounding environment and reality, which is ultimately our basis of understanding. Gadamer

says that language is a living operation and continuous, and because of this we become less

aware of it. This self-forgetfulness of language goes to show that the real entity of language

derives from what is said using it. In our every day lives, we fail to consciously recognize the

presence of language, and so the constant self-forgetfulness remains one of three important

characteristics of language. His second characteristic is I-lessness, and his view is that when we

speak, our language cannot belong to the “I”, meaning about one singular person, unconnected to
other people. Instead, it belongs to the “we” and that through language we are unified in

understanding of one another. His third feature is “universality” or rather “language is all-

encompassing”. He views universality as a being that has an inner infinity and no end. I have a

hard time deciphering what this means exactly, but the best I came up with is that language does

not begin in one place and end in another. Instead every sentence and phrase, dialogue and

speech are one small aspect of the greater identity of language, which will continue without end

until either language becomes absent from the world, or the world becomes absent from

language.

Gadamer goes on to compare dialogue and conversation to a game. The gist is that two

young men are playing on the saw, and once one man’s movement ends, the other one begins.

Good conversation represents this well, because good conversation is fulfilled when both sides

go back and forth fluidly and on impulse, or a “reciprocal behavior of absolute

contemporaneousness”. I think that just means it happens fluidly during the same period, and

without flaw and issue. Language must be similar in the sense that it goes on almost seamless

and subconsciously, but once it is finished, both sides of the game are fulfilled by the dialogue

that exists after it, and language feeds into dialogue. It is harder to grasp how language resembles

a game because I do not think that playing on a saw can encompass the vastness and complexity

of language. If life were to be viewed as a game, then the language would represent the tool we

use to distinguish which means in life we pursue or leave behind, and what decisions we make.

Gadamer claims that the motivational background behind a question shapes the answers

we find. Although this can be useful, it also poses a problem that the same question can have

different answers, depending on the motivation behind asking the question. The analysis

approach on the other hand breaks down the problem into separate pieces, so that it can be
solved. Motivational background is the flip side, because instead of breaking down the question

and problem to find the solution, we look behind the question at what made the question

relevant. I think the same could go for the answer, being that the motivational background of the

answer is directly correlated with the response to the question. Either way, the analytical

approach instead breaks down the question to find an answer, instead of looking through

motivation to find an answer.