Mine wrote, > Regarding *critical* hermeneutics, one should have a look at Paul Ricour's > works, not Gadamer's. Paul R. tries to abridge the gap between Marxism and > understanding, and the role of marxist methodology in interpretation. I second the endorsement for Ricoeur but wouldn't disdain Gadamer. To put it simply, the question I've been engaged in since about 1967 is why are people so receptive to some explanations -- which might be described as ideological distortions, if not venal lies -- and so resistant to others, which may more accurately reflect their collective and individual interests. Or, to put it more strongly, why does there seem to be a "will to be deceived" that can only be overcome with great effort and on rare occasion? I take this to be in the tradition following from Marx's critique of The German Ideology. Lukacs addressed the issue as "false consciousness" in _History and Class Consciousness_. That's where this critical theory "lit crit sh*t" comes from. I have to admit that I haven't succeeded. Or at least, if I have succeeded in answering the question for myself, I haven't in trying to transmit that understanding to others. One of the problems that Freud addressed in Moses and Monotheism was Moses' inarticulateness, an inarticulateness that might even be attributed to his understanding. Gramsci called for pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will. I guess I can lay claim at least to the first part of that formula. Tom Walker
