One way we can make the distinction between interpretation and understanding, on the one hand, and cognition, on the other, more visible is through the fore-structure of interpretation. Interpretation is never just a mere looking at something present-to-hand. Rather it looks both backwards and forwards: 'backwards' in the sense that it is shaped by 'facticity', and forwards by possibilities. The analogy here is with reading. I never come to a text presuppositionless. My reading is already shaped by both my prejudices and expectations. We cannot avoid this. Context-free knowledge is an illusion. Even the most abstract way of looking at something hides its own prejudices and expectations, because this belongs essentially to the way Dasein is. Every interpretation supposes an understanding which guides it, but to complain this is a 'vicious circle' is to take logic to be the guide of existence, rather than existence the guide of logic. The problem with traditional metaphysics is that it thinks logic is true precisely because it believes it to be contextless (which it is not), and thus completely distorts the meaning of existence.

P. 60

¶ 7:15 PM