Reviewing Hermeneutics: Relativity of Truth, Knowledge & Texts – Part 1

December 28, 2014

 The post below is continuation of  introduction to Hermeneutics where the author will elaborate more on each concept within Hermeneutics. The article below will be the first post of several posts to come elaborating on this concept. 

Part 1 (Primary Definitions of Relativity)

By: Hussein Al-Rumaithi

(Based on the thoughts and theories of Ayatollah Sayed Murteza Al-Shirazi)


Preliminary Intellectual – Critical Approach in (Relativity) & its indications and perceptions:

Relativity differs according to the definition and interpretation desired out of it, nevertheless, the interpretations affiliated with this concept has been identified as fifteen different ones. However, we will mention some of these interpretations and definitions, and we will review the others throughout the research as necessary. Therefore, relativity is defined as:

  1. All of our knowledge, apprehension and sciences are presumptive and conjectural. It does not repeal the verification and certainty of any level of foreign apprehension, which is presumption. According to one opinion, presumption is a psychological condition and some have states, it is extradited from re-action. In addition, some believe presumption is derived from addition and preferential in the concept of intellective existence. Regardless, whether it is conditional, emotional (re-action) or additive, it has an absolute nature. However, if we claim relativity that is defined as above is absolute, the notion of relativity is dismantled, and it no longer holds the usual presumed bearing it contains. Nevertheless, if we assume relativity is presumptive and conjectural, the notion of relativity remains but it contradicts its interpretation.
  2. If relativity is defined as, effectuality of clannish cognition and psychological backgrounds on intellect, it will be placed in the column of (action). However, if relativity is defined as, affection of a human in the state of apprehending realities according to backgrounds and preconceived, it will be placed in the column of (re-action). Nonetheless, in both cases relativity faces the previous problem of contradiction in definition. Therefore, the notion of effectuality and affection is considered an information, and information is type of intellect, so in case of an assumption that an author or a sponsor of this information is affected by his clannish and background experiences, this notion would contradict itself and can’t be reliant as a cognitive base for exploring the inclusive equation of all sciences and cognitions.

In addition, relativity is a knowledge, information, apprehension, interpretation or a presumptive definition and therefore, it is subjected to psychological backgrounds and previous intellect. This results in definition to be formed and labeled in the mind of each scholar different than another one, so if he/she considers this notion as relativity the interpretation developed would be achieved before the real interpretation of the text.

This notion will result in a state of denial and rejection, due to the fact that each scholar is basing his/her definition on the presumptions and conclusions, which are not tarnish free. Therefore, an academic research about definition of relativity and relativity of knowledge would lose its credibility, as comprehending other acquisitions would be unreachable as far as all sides are convinced and satisfied with their findings and presumptions. Therefore, if the authority and dominion of presumptions and backgrounds was not absolute, we would witness tolerance and acceptance of reality, if it was presented and clarified with the proper tools and evidences.

  • However, if relativity is referred to addition the definition would be verbatim, and according to its primary subjective interpretation in addition to its other definitions a term would be defined as its own. For instance, (IN) would be circumstantial if used in a text. Nevertheless, a verbatim is considered a nominal definition, due to the fact that what’s included within this definition is visualizing rather than being visualized. Nonetheless, if the interpretations derived from all verbatim definitions and relativity are dissected, the notion of relativity would be annulled and therefore, non-relative and non-additive, when considering the indications and the evidence.

To simplify this notion, let’s consider the presumed partner of the almighty, is not a partner according to the dominant artificial presumption and the tangible existence, and the two extremes are unbendable and will not meet. In addition, considering the notion of existence they are not contradictory (extremes) as their bendability is not possible if they were. Therefore, if the interpretation identifies them as contradictory and extremes according to the authenticity of the statement made and presumed, the interpretation is illustrative, and this notion would be identified as non-illustrative when presumption about the (non-Existing) is made. This notion would annul relativity and itself, since a statement or a presumption about the (non-Existing) was made, which means the (non-Existing) is actually present in the world of intellect (MIND), and this neglects the nature of non-existence according to this definition of relativity. In other term, relativity in its primary subjective interpretation can’t be anything but itself, as depriving matters from their own existence if impossible, which means relativity shall have the possibility of being absolute according to some of its definitions, or relative according to other definitions, although possible refutations might be presented.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Top Posts From Last Year

Recent Post