Manifestation of Truth Across Interpretive Approaches
Short Essay on the Deconstruction of Truth Manufacturing: A Typology of Interpretive Frameworks, and How They Shape, Distort or Reveal Truth Across Disciplines
A Set of High-Level Tools for Thinking, Ready for Real-World Use.
Reason Praxis | Make Sense in Epistemology
This short essay explores how different interpretive frameworks influence our access to truth across disciplines. It argues that truth is not simply discovered but shaped, sometimes distorted, by the method of interpretation applied. Using examples from law, science, scripture, and ordinary language, it contrasts literalism with hermeneutics and maps eleven frameworks ranging from exegesis to dialogical reasoning. The typology reveals that some methods, like integrative hermeneutics and exegesis, align more closely with objective reality, while others, such as phenomenology or semiotics, invite greater subjective influence. The article warns that even science is now affected by ideological and institutional pressures, undermining its objectivity. Ultimately, it calls for disciplined interpretation to safeguard shared understanding and prevent the unchecked manufacture of truth.
Table of Contents
Structure of the Argument: A Preview of the Three Parts
Part I – Literalism vs Hermeneutics: Two Foundational Poles
Part II – A Typology of Interpretive Frameworks
- Comparative Table of Interpretive Approaches: Truth vs. Subjective Influence
- Visual Representation of Interpretive Approaches
Part III – Conclusion: Balancing Truth Seeking and Interpretation
Introduction
In an age where truth is increasingly shaped by pluralism, polarisation, and performative truth-claims, discursive power, and social consensus rather than coherence or correspondence with reality, the act of interpretation has become a decisive force, capable of either clarifying or distorting what is real. Even scientific research, once held as a bastion of objectivity, has not been immune to these drifts: nowadays, the method selected often predetermines the outcome, with results increasingly shaped by funders’ expectations, institutional incentives, or prevailing ideological agendas and climates.
This article builds on the foundations laid in “Are Facts Possible Without Context?”, which argued that facts are never free-standing but always embedded within systems of interpretation, categorisation, and verification.
Here, we extend that inquiry by examining how truth manifests across a spectrum of interpretive approaches. Each framework, whether grounded in legal reasoning, scriptural analysis, scientific method, or ordinary communication, shapes not only our access to truth, but the very form truth takes within a given domain.
We propose that interpretation is neither neutral nor incidental. Rather, it functions as a mediating force between language and reality, with significant consequences for what is ultimately regarded as true, valid, or admissible.
Ultimately, this paper argues for the careful calibration of interpretive method, not to eliminate subjectivity, but to alert the reader on its risks and prevent its unchecked dominance over what is real – i.e. the sophism that there are as many realities as points of views.
In doing so, it aims to recover the possibility of shared understanding in disciplines where interpretation must serve as a disciplined pathway to truth grounded in reality.
Structure of the Argument: A Preview of the Three Parts
This article unfolds in three stages, each developing a deeper understanding of how interpretive frameworks shape our understanding of reality and access to truth:
Part I Preview – Literalism vs Hermeneutics: Two Foundational Poles
Introduces the foundational tension between literal and interpretive readings. Using parallel examples, from legal clauses to biblical verses, scientific statements, and everyday instructions, it shows how differing methods yield diverging meanings, demonstrating that interpretation is not ancillary, but integral to truth-making. [read]
Part II Preview – A Typology of Interpretive Frameworks
Here, the article develops a structured comparison of eleven interpretive approaches. Each is applied to the same seemingly simple instruction, “Keep the door closed at all times,” in order to reveal how methods of interpretation shape meaning differently. This part also outlines the philosophical roots, strengths, and limitations of each framework, showing how each one balances clarity, context, and subjectivity. [read]
The 12 Interpretive Frameworks under review
- Literalism
- Hermeneutics
- Internal Consistency
- Mereology
- Semiotics
- Exegesis
- Contextualism
- Pragmatic Interpretation
- Phenomenological Reading
- Integrative Hermeneutics
- Dialogical Approach
- Causal and Structural Analysis
[read]
Part III Preview – Conclusion: Balancing Truth Seeking and Interpretation
Synthesises the findings through a comparative matrix, mapping each approach against two axes: alignment with objective truth, and susceptibility to subjective influence. It argues that while subjectivity cannot be eliminated, interpretive methods must be calibrated to prevent distortion, especially in disciplines where shared understanding depends on fidelity to the real. [read]
Part I – Literalism vs Hermeneutics: Two Foundational Poles
Literalism refers to interpreting words, texts, or concepts strictly according to their explicit meaning, without considering context, subtext, or metaphor. It’s often applied to language, law, literature, and religious texts, where a literal interpretation might overlook nuance or intended symbolism. Philosophically, it aligns with logical positivism, which values direct, verifiable meanings.
The opposite of literalism is often called non-literalism or figurative interpretation. In language and literature, this includes metaphor, allegory, and symbolism – approaches that seek deeper or more abstract meanings. Philosophically, this is relates to hermeneutics, particularly the works of Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur, who explored the layered, interpretive nature of meaning.
In practical contexts like law or theology, this opposition becomes significant. For example, constitutional originalists in law lean toward literalism, whereas living constitutionalists interpret the text in light of modern values. Similarly, religious fundamentalists favour literal interpretations of scripture, while more liberal theologians see texts as metaphorical or context dependent.
Here are some illustrations that show the inherent limits of both approaches:
1. A Legal Clause (Precision vs Interpretation)
Example: “Freedom of speech shall not be abridged.”
- Literalism: Focuses on the exact wording, concluding that any restriction is a violation.
- Hermeneutics: Considers the context, intent, and societal implications, allowing for reasonable limits (e.g., hate speech or defamation laws).
This example highlights the practical consequences of different approaches, especially in law and governance.
2. A Biblical or Literary Passage (Text vs Symbolism)
Example: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”
- Literalism: Advocates exact retribution as justice.
- Hermeneutics: Interprets it as a metaphor for proportional fairness rather than literal retaliation.
This example illustrates how strict literalism can lead to moral rigidity, while hermeneutics fosters nuanced, yet potentially far-reaching in flexibility ethical reasoning.
3. A Scientific Statement (Fact vs Interpretation)
Example: “The Earth revolves around the Sun.”
- Literalism: Takes this as an empirical fact.
- Hermeneutics: Might explore the broader implications for humanity’s self-perception, historical resistance to the idea, or its metaphorical use in literature and philosophy.
This example shows how interpretation can expand understanding beyond the factual statement itself. The hermeneutic reading does not contradict the literal one but potentially opens the possibility to add layers to its significance.
4. A Simple Daily Instruction (Pragmatism vs Misinterpretation)
Example: “Keep the door closed at all times.”
- Literalism: Never opens the door, even in emergencies.
- Hermeneutics: Interprets the instruction in context, understanding that exceptions are allowed when justified.
This mundane example effectively demonstrates the practical consequences of interpretation and the potential for confusion when instructions are taken too literally. We will be using it in Part II.
Part II: Systematisation of Interpretive Frameworks: From Literalism to Dialogical Approaches
This analysis focuses on the example of a simple statement – “Keep the door closed at all times” – to demonstrate how each interpretive approach shapes the understanding of objective truth. Philosophers such as Aristotle, Wittgenstein, Husserl, Gadamer, Ricoeur, Peirce, and Bakhtin provide foundational concepts that illuminate the strengths and limitations of each approach.
Below, the notion of “Trajectory”, borrowed from evolutionary science and economics,refers to the interpretive path a thinker takes, from initial analysis to final conclusion, shaped by the rules or methods of the chosen approach.
The 12 Interpretive Frameworks under review
Philosophical References can be found at the end of this article.
- Literalism
- Hermeneutics
- Internal Consistency
- Mereology
- Semiotics
- Exegesis
- Contextualism
- Pragmatic Interpretation
- Phenomenological Reading
- Integrative Hermeneutics
- Dialogical Approach
- Causal and Structural Analysis
1. Literalism: The Path towards Strict Compliance with the Word
Literalism aligns with logical positivism (A.J. Ayer), which prioritises direct, verifiable meanings. The instruction is taken at face value: the door must remain closed without exception. Over time, this approach leads to a rigid, rule-bound mindset, often criticised for lacking flexibility and common sense. Misunderstanding arises when literalists apply the rule in situations where the original intent would allow exceptions.
Despite its rigidity, literalism maintains high alignment with objective truth because it preserves the instruction’s direct meaning, with minimal room for interpretation or bias.
- Initial Analysis: the door must be kept closed without exception. No further context is considered. It doesn’t mean that it couldn’t get open (the instruction is not “Do not open the door”), but that the normal state of it is a door closed.
- Trajectory: The thinker remains confined to the direct meaning, dismissing emergencies or maintenance as irrelevant.
- The thinker’s reasoning remains confined to the direct meaning of the words.
- Situations that require opening the door (e.g., emergencies or maintenance) risk being dismissed as irrelevant because they contradict the literal directive.
- Over time, this approach leads to a rigid, rule-bound mindset, often criticised by detractors for lacking flexibility and common sense. Still, what is meant by this directive should be carefully analyse as it means what it means – nothing less, nothing more.
- Potential for Confusion: Misunderstanding occurs when
- strict adherence leads to impracticality or conflicts with context, or with others who interpret the rule more pragmatically.
- literalists apply the rule in situations where the original intent would allow exceptions.
- Alignment with Truth: High (objective meaning is preserved, but practical reality may be ignored).
- Subjective Influence: Low (minimal room for interpretation or bias).
2. Hermeneutics: The Path of Context and Flexibility
Hermeneutics, rooted in the works of Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur, interprets meaning within its context. The thinker considers historical and situational factors, recognising that the instruction is not absolute. This approach fosters adaptability and nuanced decision-making, allowing justified exceptions aligned with the underlying intent. However, divergent interpretations may arise because different individuals prioritise different contexts, leading to moderate subjective influence.
- Initial Analysis: The instruction’s meaning is interpreted within its context. Is the door meant to control temperature, noise, or security? Each context may alter the interpretation.
- Trajectory: The thinker considers situational factors, allowing justified exceptions.
- The thinker considers historical and situational factors, recognising that the instruction is not absolute.
- Exceptions are allowed when aligned with the underlying intent, e.g., opening the door during emergencies or brief use.
- This approach fosters adaptability and nuanced decision-making.
- Potential for Confusion: Different individuals may prioritise different contexts, leading to disagreement.
- Divergent interpretations arise because different individuals may prioritise different contexts.
- What one person deems a justified exception might be seen as a violation by another, leading to disagreements over what the rule really means.
- Alignment with Truth: Moderate (truth is understood within context, but interpretations may vary).
- Subjective Influence: Moderate (contextual flexibility allows some subjectivity).
3. Internal Consistency
In a broader context – Internal consistency or coherence theory: In textual analysis, internal consistency means that each part of a text aligns logically and thematically with the whole, ensuring that its elements do not contradict one another. This concept is crucial in literature, law, philosophy, and critical thinking.
In philosophy, particularly in epistemology, the Coherence Theory of Truth states that a belief is true if it coheres with a system of other beliefs rather than standing in isolation. Similarly, in hermeneutics, scholars like Hans-Georg Gadamer emphasised that interpreting a text requires understanding the relationship between its parts and its whole—often referred to as the hermeneutic circle. This concept holds that to understand a text as a whole, you must grasp its parts, and to understand its parts, you must consider the whole.
The thinker checks whether this directive contradicts other internal instructions, such as fire safety signs or evacuation protocols.
- Initial Analysis: The thinker evaluates whether this instruction logically fits within the entire set of guidance or rules provided. Does this rule contradict other instructions, like fire safety procedures, or is it consistent with an overarching aim such as maintaining air conditioning or preventing contamination?
- Trajectory: The thinker checks if every part of the document or system aligns with this rule. If other parts imply the door must sometimes be open (e.g. for deliveries or emergency exits), then the instruction as stated may be inconsistent or require revision to maintain coherence.
- Potential for Confusion: Confusion arises if the directive is at odds with other elements of the system. For example, if “the door must remain closed” is next to a sign reading “emergency exit – keep clear”, the contradiction undermines interpretive clarity.
- Alignment with Truth: Moderate to High. Coherence enhances truth, but it depends on the quality of the system to which it is being compared.
- Subjective Influence: Low. This approach limits subjective drift by testing internal logical structure, though it may ignore external practicalities.
4. Mereology: The Theory of Parts and Wholes as The Path of Structural Consistency
Mereology is the philosophical study of how parts relate to wholes and to each other. While mereology shares with internal consistency a concern for coherence, it focuses more rigorously on the structural and ontological relationships between parts and wholes. Rooted in logic and ontology, it explores concepts like composition, dependence, and the identity of wholes. Key figures include Stanisław Leśniewski and Peter Simons. Mereology aligns closely with the idea of internal consistency because it examines how individual components must fit together to form a coherent whole. For example, in literary analysis, mereology can guide the examination of how character development, plot, and themes interconnect to create a unified narrative.
- Initial Analysis: The instruction is assessed within a larger system it belongs to (e.g., building safety protocols or workflow regulations).
- Trajectory: The thinker ensures logical coherence, balancing adherence with practical flexibility.
- The thinker examines whether the instruction logically fits within the whole, considering how each part (closing the door) contributes to the system’s function (safety, privacy, or efficiency).
- If keeping the door closed contradicts other elements (like emergency access), the thinker concludes that the instruction must allow for contextual exceptions.
- Potential for Confusion: Differences arise when individuals prioritise different “wholes.” For example, someone focused on security might enforce strict adherence, while another prioritising accessibility might permit more exceptions.
- Alignment with Truth: High (emphasis on structural logic aligns with objective reality).
- Subjective Influence: Low (focus on logical relationships limits subjectivity).
5. Semiotics: The Theory of Signs and Meaning-Making as The Path of Meaning and Symbolism
Semiotics studies how signs convey meaning. A sign consists of a signifier (the form) and the signified (the concept) and meaning emerges from their relationship within cultural and linguistic contexts. Key figures include Ferdinand de Saussure, Charles Sanders Peirce, Roland Barthes, and Umberto Eco. Semiotics bridges the gap between literalism and hermeneutics by explaining how both explicit meanings and symbolic interpretations arise from signs. However, Semiotics accounts for how meanings are produced, but not necessarily for whether they are true. For example, in legal texts, semiotics can explain how a law’s literal wording (denotation) and its broader social implications (connotation) shape its interpretation.
Semiotics, as developed by Ferdinand de Saussure, Charles Sanders Peirce, and Roland Barthes, considers both the literal meaning (keep the door closed) and the symbolic implications (maintaining boundaries, security, or control). Interpretation becomes subjective as individuals may assign different symbolic meanings, leading to higher potential for confusion. While this approach provides deeper insights into why the instruction exists, it risks deviating from objective reality when overextended.
- Initial Analysis: The instruction is viewed as a sign whose meaning depends on its relationship with other signs and its cultural context.
- Trajectory: Both literal and symbolic meanings are considered.
- The thinker considers both the literal meaning (keep the door closed) and the symbolic implications (maintaining boundaries, security, or control).
- The meaning is shaped by context: in a laboratory, it might signify safety, while in an office, it might symbolise privacy.
- This approach often leads to deeper insights about why the instruction exists, not just what it says.
- Potential for Confusion: Subjectivity arises when individuals assign different symbolic meanings, which can lead to over-interpretation or divergent understandings that stray from the original intent.
- Alignment with Truth: Moderate (focus on symbolism can deviate from objective reality).
- Subjective Influence: High (personal and cultural interpretations increase subjectivity).
Note: Unlike most interpretive frameworks in this article, Semiotics does not seek truth as its end. It is a framework for decoding and re-coding meaning systems. In this sense, it is more akin to a tool of influence, such asrhetoric or marketing, rather than a discipline of discernment. Its inclusion here is essential, however, because many apparent “truths” in modern society are semiotic constructs.
6. Exegesis: The Interpretation and Meaning Extraction as The Path of Balanced Understanding
Exegesis is traditionally associated with religious texts, but it now applies to literature, law, and philosophy, focusing on uncovering a text’s intended meaning through rigorous analysis. It balances literal meaning, structural coherence, and cultural context. In law, exegesis ensures that statutes are interpreted according to legislative intent while considering modern contexts. In literature, it enables deeper appreciation of a text’s thematic and symbolic layers without losing sight of its literal foundation.
Exegesis, rooted in traditional biblical interpretation and influenced by hermeneutics and linguistic analysis, aims to uncover the instruction’s intended meaning through systematic analysis. The thinker balances textual fidelity with contextual flexibility, developing a nuanced yet consistent interpretation. By considering the instruction’s purpose, historical context, and situational applicability, exegesis achieves high alignment with objective reality while minimising subjective influence.
- Initial Analysis: The instruction is analysed through a systematic, contextual approach aimed at uncovering its intended meaning.
- Trajectory: The thinker balances textual fidelity with contextual flexibility, allowing justified exceptions.
- The thinker starts with the literal wording, then considers the instruction’s purpose, historical context, and situational applicability.
- By balancing textual fidelity with contextual awareness, the thinker develops a nuanced yet consistent interpretation.
- The final conclusion is that the door should remain closed as a rule, but exceptions are permitted when justified by the instruction’s intended purpose.
- Potential for Confusion: Exegesis minimises confusion by striving to capture the text’s true intent, but differences can still arise due to subjective judgments about the context and purpose.
- Alignment with Truth: High (systematic analysis aligns closely with objective reality).
- Subjective Influence: Low (structured methodology limits bias).
7. Contextualism: The Path of Circumstantial Understanding
Rooted in pragmatism (William James, John Dewey), contextualism considers the situational context to interpret meaning. The thinker adjusts the interpretation depending on location and purpose, achieving high alignment with objective reality but allowing moderate subjective influence. Unlike general hermeneutics, contextualism centres on immediate circumstances rather than broader historical or textual frameworks.
- Initial Analysis: Interpretation considers the situational context.
- Trajectory: The thinker adapts meaning based on situational context and demands, such as physical setting or practical constraints.
- Potential for Confusion: Differences arise from varying contextual assessments. One reader may prioritise health and safety, another convenience or custom
- Alignment with Truth: High (situational accuracy aligns with objective reality).
- Subjective Influence: Moderate (contextual interpretation allows some flexibility).
8. Pragmatic Interpretation: The Path of Practical Consequences
Inspired by Charles Sanders Peirce and William James, pragmatic interpretation focuses on practical outcomes and consequences. Interpretation is guided by effectiveness and impact, resulting in moderate alignment with objective truth and subjective influence. It could be named Utilitarian Interpretation.
- Initial Analysis: Focus on practical outcomes rather than literal meaning.
- Trajectory: Interpretation begins from practical stakes, not textual form, and evolves through outcomes deemed successful or functional.
- Potential for Confusion: Different views on what is practical can lead to disagreement when aggregating subjective pragmatic interpretation in search for the common good or common truth.
- Alignment with Truth: Moderate (alignment depends on practical success).
- Subjective Influence: Moderate (pragmatism allows personal judgment).
9. Phenomenological Reading: The Path of Lived Experience
Phenomenology, developed by Edmund Husserl and Maurice Merleau-Ponty, emphasises the reader’s experience of the text. Interpretation is shaped by personal perception and sensory responses, leading to high subjective influence and low alignment with objective reality. While its subjectivity is pronounced, this approach can be valuable in disciplines where personal experience is central to understanding like psychology, theology, or art interpretation although this is disputable in itself.
- Initial Analysis: Interpretation is shaped by personal perception and experience.
- Trajectory: Meaning emerges from sensory and emotional responses.
- Potential for Confusion: High, as interpretations vary based on individual experience.
- Alignment with Truth: Low (subjectivity may distort objective reality).
- Subjective Influence: High (personal experience dominates interpretation).
10. Integrative Hermeneutics: The Path of Balanced Inquiry
Paul Ricoeur’s hermeneutics of (toward ideology or hidden motives) and trust (in the coherence and meaningfulness of the text) combines textual fidelity with contextual awareness. The thinker respects the text’s literal meaning while allowing justified exceptions, achieving high alignment with objective reality and low subjective influence.
- Initial Analysis: Combining textual fidelity with contextual awareness.
- Trajectory: The thinker respects the text’s literal meaning while allowing justified exceptions. Interpretation remains grounded in the text, and proceeds through disciplined engagement with its setting.
- Potential for Confusion: Minimal, as structured reasoning maintains alignment with truth.
- Alignment with Truth: High (balanced interpretation aligns with objective reality).
- Subjective Influence: Low (structured methodology limits bias).
11. Dialogical Approach: The Path of Meaning through Interaction
Mikhail Bakhtin’s concept of dialogism sees texts as part of an ongoing dialogue with other texts, authors, and readers. Meaning emerges from interaction, balancing personal views with collective insight. This approach maintains high alignment with truth as something ‘co-discovered rather than imposed’ (whatever imposed may practically mean unless it is a repeat of the Tabula Rasa or a repeat of Enlightenment’s rejection of alleged Dogmatism) but allows moderate subjective influence due to its collaborative nature.
- Initial Analysis: Meaning emerges from dialogue and interaction.
- Trajectory: Interpretation evolves through shared perspectives.
- The thinker approaches the text as one voice among many, recognising that understanding develops over time and through exchange.
- Interpretation is dynamic, evolving through disagreement, negotiation, and mutual refinement.
- While initial meanings may diverge, sustained engagement can produce shared clarity or mutual understanding.
- Potential for Confusion: Moderate, as prolonged debate may either delay or help reach better consensus on truth. Still, certain ambiguity may also be seen as generative, not just obstructive.
- Alignment with Truth: High (collaborative interpretation refines understanding).
- Subjective Influence: Moderate (interaction balances personal views with collective insight).
12. Causal and Structural Analysis
This framework interprets meaning by examining the underlying causes, functions, and structural relationships that shape a directive or statement. It does not stop at surface meaning but seeks to uncover the broader system of dependencies, rules, or forces behind the text. It is often used in institutional, scientific, or sociological analysis to explain not just what a message says, but why it exists and how it fits into a larger causal or systemic logic.
- Initial Analysis:
- What systemic function does this instruction serve (e.g. temperature control, contamination prevention, risk containment)?
- What causal chain does the open or closed state of the door trigger (e.g. does it activate sensors, alarms, airflow, security protocols)?
- Is the directive part of a broader operational structure (e.g. compliance with fire safety law, infection control procedures)?
- Trajectory: The reader reconstructs the broader structural logic that gives rise to the instruction, often inferring the rule hierarchy or institutional design behind it. They may consult procedural documents, architectural plans, or regulatory frameworks to determine the logic and necessity of the instruction. If the directive appears arbitrary or unconnected to a coherent system, its authority may be weakened.
- Potential for Confusion: Moderate. Misinterpretation can occur if the causal structure is opaque or unstated. For example, if the door’s role in maintaining air pressure or chemical containment is not visible, the instruction may appear overcautious or irrational.
- Alignment with Truth: High, when the causal and structural logic is sound and the directive reflects real-world relationships or system constraints. However, if based on faulty assumptions or poor system design, structural reasoning may justify false or outdated interpretations.
- Subjective Influence: Low to Moderate. The framework prioritises objectivity through structural and systemic logic, but causal assumptions can still reflect ideological or institutional bias.
Comparative Table of Interpretive Approaches: Truth vs. Subjective Influence
The interpretive approaches discussed above can now be compared using two key dimensions:
- Alignment with Objective Truth – How closely the interpretation reflects the intended or empirically verifiable meaning.
- Subjective Influence – The degree to which personal, cultural, or emotional factors shape interpretation.
These dimensions define a two-dimensional matrix that can be visualised as the Table below and a quadrant.
Visual Representation of Interpretive Approaches
The below comparative graph is a summary that visualises each approach’s alignment with objective truth (vertical axis) and its susceptibility to subjective influence (horizontal axis). Approaches such as Exegesis, Literalism, Mereology, and Integrative Hermeneutics achieve high alignment with truth while maintaining low susceptibility to bias. Conversely, Semiotics, Phenomenological Reading, and highly flexible interpretations show higher subjective influence, reducing their capacity to reveal objective truth.
Interpretation of the Graph
Top-Left Quadrant – High Truth Alignment, Low Subjective Influence (Green Zone)
This zone represents the most robust alignment with objective truth and the lowest susceptibility to subjective distortion.
- Exegesis, Literalism, and Integrative Hermeneutics perform best at revealing what is, based on rigorous textual fidelity and minimal interpretive drift.
- Mereology and Internal Consistency also operate within this zone, offering structured, logic-based interpretation grounded in internal coherence and part–whole relationships.
- Causal and Structural Analysis sits at the edge of this group, bringing system-level clarity by examining the ‘why’ behind a directive, though it may still be subject to systemic assumptions.
Top-Right Quadrant – High Truth Alignment, High Subjectivity (Purple Zone: epistemic Dogmatism)
This is the realm of enacted ideologies, where truth is claimed, belief is turned into ‘truth’ not denied but is filtered through doctrinal or ideological subjectivity.
- Although no framework in this typology sits fully within this quadrant, it is important to note that certain applications of Contextualism or Dialogical Approaches may drift here when truth claims are tightly coupled to ideological perspectives that resist contradiction.
- Interpretation in this zone can appear truth-aligned, but its commitment to truth is often conditional on the framework’s internal coherence rather than empirical validation.
Upper-Centre Quadrant – Moderate Subjectivity, High to Moderate Truth Alignment (Yellow Zone)
This region reflects thoughtful interpretation with increased openness to dialogue and situational nuance.
- Dialogical Approach and Contextualism allow for adaptive engagement, recognising historical, cultural, or dialogical frames of reference while maintaining reasonable fidelity to truth.
- Pragmatic Interpretation focuses on outcomes and utility, offering real-world grounding but risking drift when practicality overshadows principle.
- Hermeneutics, closer to the subjective edge, retains conceptual depth but requires constant critical self-awareness to avoid relativism.
Bottom-Right Quadrant – Low Truth Alignment, High Subjectivity (Red Zone: Solipsism Zone)
This is the zone of interpretive drift, where truth is more often constructed or enacted than discovered.
- Semiotics and Phenomenological Reading are highly interpretive and often shaped by internal or social meaning-making rather than external fact.
- These frameworks can produce powerful insights into perception and ideology but risk disconnecting from shared or verifiable reality, especially when applied prescriptively or dogmatically.
Bottom-Left Quadrant – Low Subjectivity, Low Truth Alignment (Blue Zone: Bureaucratic Legalist )
This is the zone of mechanical or formalistic interpretation that is low in bias but also detached from contextual reality.
- Interpretations in this quadrant are rigid, rule-bound, and disengaged from purpose or adaptive reasoning.
- A possible example would be enforcing “Keep Door Closed” during fire evacuation purely because “the sign says so,” ignoring overriding priorities like safety.
Centre Zone – Transitional Space
Frameworks near the centre offer interpretive versatility but also demand disciplined application to avoid slippage.
- Their value lies in adaptability, but without clear methodical grounding, they may veer into either rigidity or relativism, depending on the user’s intent and intellectual discipline.
Key Insight From the Graph
- Frameworks in the top-left quadrant—Exegesis, Literalism, Integrative Hermeneutics, Mereology, and Internal Consistency—provide the strongest balance between clarity and objectivity.
- The further an approach shifts rightward, the more it risks being shaped by personal, institutional, or ideological agendas.
- Semiotics, by its nature, resists categorisation. While most frameworks operate as thermometers—gauging the alignment of meaning with reality—Semiotics functions more like a thermostat, actively shaping the interpretive climate. Still, when used reflectively, it remains a valuable situational thermometer.
Disciplines grounded in law, regulation, or theology may prefer the top-left, while cultural critique or psychology may embrace the dialogical and phenomenological paths. Still, when public trust, shared standards, or empirical reliability are at stake, the need to check subjective drift becomes paramount.
Part III – Conclusion: Balancing Truth Seeking and Interpretation
This analysis demonstrates that while each approach offers a different lens through which to interpret facts, they differ in how effectively they reveal objective truth.
These methods steer clear of both the claimed rigidity of strict literalism and the subjectivity of unbounded interpretation. By encouraging attention to both explicit content and broader implications, they foster understanding rather than conflict.
Where literalism and hermeneutics tend to represent polarised ends of the spectrum, the approaches examined here offer more adaptive and calibrated ways to derive meaning. Their trajectories show that even a simple instruction can lead to diverse understandings depending on whether one prioritises context, practicality or utility, personal experience, textual integrity, or collaborative dialogue.
The core challenge remains achieving consensus when individuals apply different interpretive frameworks. While Integrative Hermeneutics offers the most balanced and consistent approach, the Dialogical Approach provides the best chance of resolving differences through shared understanding, albeit at the cost of increased complexity and potential delays.
Approaches like Exegesis and Integrative Hermeneutics strike the best balance, combining textual fidelity with contextual awareness. Conversely, approaches like Phenomenological Reading and Semiotics risk greater distortion due to subjective influence.
Ultimately, the pursuit of truth requires recognising the strengths and limitations of each interpretive framework, ensuring that personal beliefs, biases, and agendas do not obscure what objectively exists.
To Go Further: Key Philosophical References
Interpretive Frameworks and Associated Thinkers
1. Literalism and Logical Positivism
A.J. Ayer, Language, Truth, and Logic – A leading figure in logical positivism, Ayer advocated for a verificationist theory of meaning. His work underpins literalist approaches by insisting that statements are only meaningful if empirically verifiable or analytically true.
2. Hermeneutics
Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method – Introduced the concept of historical consciousness and the “fusion of horizons,” showing that interpretation is conditioned by the interpreter’s own historical position.
Paul Ricoeur, Freud and Philosophy – Developed a theory of interpretation that balances suspicion and meaning, combining hermeneutics of trust with critical reading.
3. Internal Consistency
Brand Blanshard, The Nature of Thought – A key proponent of the Coherence Theory of Truth, arguing that truth lies in the logical interconnection of ideas.
Otto Neurath, Unified Science – Emphasised that statements derive their meaning from their consistency within a network of propositions.
Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method – Advanced the idea of the hermeneutic circle, where understanding arises through continual movement between part and whole.
Willard Van Orman Quine, Two Dogmas of Empiricism – Challenged foundationalism by suggesting that beliefs face the tribunal of experience not individually but as a web.
Donald Davidson, A Coherence Theory of Truth and Knowledge – Defended coherence as the best available path to truth, rejecting the need for an independent foundation.
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice: Used a method of reflective equilibrium, which relies on internal consistency between principles and considered judgments.
4. Mereology
Stanisław Leśniewski, Logical Foundations – Originator of formal mereology, the logic of part–whole relationships.
Peter Simons, Parts and Moments – Extended mereological analysis into structural and philosophical logic, offering tools for textual and conceptual decomposition.
5. Semiotics
Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics – Distinguished between signifier and signified, laying the foundation for structuralist semiotics.
Charles Sanders Peirce, Collected Papers – Developed a triadic sign theory involving sign, object, and interpretant.
Roland Barthes, Mythologies – Explored how cultural symbols embed ideological meanings; introduced concepts of denotation and connotation.
6. Exegesis
Augustine of Hippo, De Doctrina Christiana – Defined Christian principles of scriptural interpretation, blending literal, moral, and allegorical readings in a theological framework.
7. Contextualism
William James, Pragmatism – Linked truth and meaning to practical consequences and situational usefulness.
John Dewey, Experience and Nature – Emphasised how meaning is shaped by lived and historical context.
Raymond Geuss, Philosophy and Real Politics – Argued that political understanding must begin with historically grounded interpretation, not abstract theory.
8. Pragmatic Interpretation
Charles Sanders Peirce, How to Make Our Ideas Clear – Emphasised the meaning of ideas in terms of their observable consequences in lived action.
William James, The Will to Believe – Defended belief as a practical guide to action in contexts where certainty is unattainable.
9. Phenomenological Reading
Edmund Husserl, Logical Investigations – Founded phenomenology as the study of conscious experience and intentionality.
Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenology of Perception – Emphasised the embodied and sensory dimensions of subjectivity in perception.
Judith Butler, Gender Trouble; Excitable Speech – Pretended identity is constructed through linguistic and performative acts.
10. Integrative Hermeneutics
Paul Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning – Argued that disciplined interpretation can preserve meaning beyond the literal.
Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge – Asserted that all knowing involves personal participation, yet can remain oriented toward truth.
11. Dialogical Approach
Mikhail Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination – Defined texts as dialogic entities; meaning emerges from interaction among voices.
Martin Buber, I and Thou – Emphasised the relational, ethical dimension of meaning formed through encounter.
Thomas Nagel, The View from Nowhere – Advocated for integrating subjective and objective viewpoints in pursuit of impartial understanding.
Bruno Latour, We Have Never Been Modern – Argued that truth is co-produced by social actors, practices, and networks, not simply discovered.
12. Causal and Structural Analysis
Aristotle, Metaphysics; Physics – Introduced the four causes (material, formal, efficient, and final), offering a foundational framework for causal reasoning still relevant in structural analysis.
Émile Durkheim, The Rules of Sociological Method –Advocated for explaining social phenomena through underlying structures and collective causes rather than individual intentions.
Claude Lévi-Strauss, The Savage Mind – Applied structuralism to culture and myth, arguing that human understanding operates through binary oppositions and unconscious structures.
Jon Elster, Explaining Social Behaviour –Emphasised causal mechanisms in the social sciences, linking individual behaviour to structural and institutional constraints.
Meta-Critical Supplement: Contemporary Realists and Social Constructionists
Ray Monk, Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius – Clarified Wittgenstein’s views on context-sensitive language without abandoning philosophical seriousness.
John Searle, The Construction of Social Reality – Distinguished between brute facts and institutional facts; defended objectivity in constructed domains.
Roger Scruton, The Soul of the World – Advocated for metaphysical realism and the preservation of tradition as sources of objective value.
Raymond Tallis, Aping Mankind; Of Time and Lamentation – Rejected neuro-reductionism and defended rational agency and human uniqueness.
Ian Hacking, The Social Construction of What?; Making Up People – Argued how classification practices would shape subjectivities, while retaining respect for empirical grounding.
Lorraine Daston, Objectivity (with Peter Galison) – Explored how scientific objectivity evolved, exposing its cultural and historical embeddedness.
Thank you for your time and interest.
Please join us by subscribing to our Blog. Posts are occasional and written as thoughts come.
Please leave your comment at the bottom of this page to continue the reflection on this post.
If you are looking for a reliable, independent professional consultancy to assist you in getting through the mist and the storm and cutting through an often artificial complexity, please do get in touch with us for an informal discussion, or write to contact @ reasonmakesense .com (please remove spaces)
Get in touch to discuss freely; reason will Make Sense, with you and for you.
A few words about Reason
reason supports Shareholders, Board, C-Suite Executives and Senior Management Team in achieving Business Excellence and Sustainability through our Praxis unique approach.
We Make Sense with you and for you.
We work and think with integrity, are independent and fed by a very broad spectrum of robust information sources, which is certainly one of the rarest and best qualities a consultancy can offer demanding decision-makers willing to overcome challenges and reach impactful, tangible and measurable Business Excellence.
We follow reason, facts, best practices, common sense and proper scientific approaches. This is our definition of professionalism. It brings reliability, confidence and peace of mind.
Please check our offering, subscribe directly on this page, write to contact @ reasonmakesense .com (without the spaces) or click on our logo below to get redirected to our contact form.
Thank you for reading!
Reason Praxis | Make Sense
Excellence & Sustainability
www.reasonmakesense.com
There is nothing wrong in doing things right, first time.
Share this post
