|
Description:
|
This thesis explores and explicates the relationship between rhetoric and hermeneutics in two separate contexts : Jewish and Christian hermeneutic traditions , and secular philosophical hermeneutics . The impetus for this division is an analysis of Kierkegaard’s work , Fear and Trembling , which contains interpretations of the story of Genesis 22 , the binding of Isaac ; this event is referred to in the Jewish tradition as the Akedah . Kierkegaard’s own position as a Christian , philosopher and poet situate him on the dividing line between Christian and Jewish hermeneutics , as well as secular philosophical hermeneutic positions . To show these connections , the thesis undertakes two necessary literature reviews : a review of the current theoretical positions on the status of meaning , interpretation , and how rhetoric and hermeneutics intersect ; and a review of the history of interpretations of the Akedah in Christian and Jewish traditions . Out of the first review come three separate and general categories of secular hermeneutics : intentionalist , phenomenological , and deconstructive . Within each of these positions is a different understanding and application of rhetoric . Similarly , the second review reveals differences between Jewish and Christian hermeneutics which contain separate understandings and applications of rhetoric . Kierkegaard’s own interpretation is situated within these contexts . Finally , modern Jewish responses to Kierkegaard are examined to further explicate the differences between Jewish and Christian hermeneutics as well as the separate philosophical positions . This is done through an analysis of Levinas’ and Derrida’s separate critiques and appropriations of Kierkegaard’s interpretation of the Akedah in Fear and Trembling . The conclusion drawn from these reviews and analyses is that intentionalist hermeneutics has the most comprehensive understanding and application of classical rhetoric , which in turn makes intentionalist hermeneutics the most capable of preserving the possibility of rhetorical agency . |