Combining Sterling’s Philosophy with Heidegger’s Hermeneutic Method

Does the combination of Sterling's philosophy with the Heideggarian hermeneutic method of interpretation solve some of the problems with the method?

ChatGPT:

Yes.

Combining Sterling’s philosophy with Heidegger’s hermeneutic method does resolve several of the classic weaknesses of Heideggerian hermeneutics—without compromising its strengths. The two approaches complement each other in ways that produce a more disciplined, coherent interpretive framework.

Below is the precise analysis.

---

I. What Heidegger Lacks

Heidegger’s hermeneutic method has three primary deficits:

1. No criterion of correctness for an interpretation

2. No normative anchor determining what counts as a true or false judgment

3. No epistemic standard for resolving competing interpretations

These deficits create:

circularity problems

projection risks

difficulty distinguishing insight from self-interpretation

a tendency toward poetic ambiguity

These are precisely the areas where Sterling’s framework is strongest.

---

II. What Sterling Provides That Heidegger Does Not

Sterling’s philosophical system—

Substance Dualism, Metaphysical Libertarianism, Ethical Intuitionism, Moral Realism, Foundationalism, Correspondence Theory of Truth—

provides the epistemic discipline Heidegger’s method lacks.

Sterling gives:

1. A criterion for truth

Interpretations must correspond to how things really are, especially concerning moral propositions.

2. A framework for adjudicating conflicts

Competing interpretations can be evaluated by:

foundational moral axioms

rational intuitions

the internal structure of assent

the LSSE propositions

3. A non-arbitrary normative anchor

Interpretations cannot drift into poetic mystification because Sterling ties meaning to:

the reality of the good

the sovereignty of prohairesis

the truth-value of impressions

the moral status of judgments

4. An account of error

Heidegger cannot tell you why an interpretation is wrong.

Sterling can: false assent about externals.

---

III. What Heidegger Contributes That Sterling Lacks

Heidegger provides something crucial Sterling does not attempt:

1. A deep structure of pre-theoretical understanding

Heidegger explains how our background involvement shapes:

impressions

preconceptions

hidden assumptions

the world we “find ourselves in”

Sterling’s system addresses judgment, truth, and moral content, but it does not offer a detailed phenomenology of how the interpretive situation is structured.

2. A method for examining the “fore-structure” of interpretation

Heidegger shows how to uncover:

the background practices

the inherited conceptual frameworks

the tacit meanings

the historical sedimentations

This amplifies Sterling’s focus on impressions by showing how impressions arrive already shaped by a world of significance.

3. A way to investigate the source of impressions

Heidegger provides the ontological context within which impressions appear—

Being-in-the-world, thrownness, concern, significance, disclosure.

Sterling focuses on assent, Heidegger on prior disclosure.

Together they provide a full picture of cognition.

---

IV. The Combined System Solves Heidegger’s Weaknesses

Problem 1: Subjective projection

Solved by Sterling’s moral realism.

Interpretive truth is measured against objective moral and rational reality, not merely “disclosure.”

Problem 2: Lack of criteria for interpretation

Solved by LSSE and the foundationalist structure.

Interpretations must conform to:

the dichotomy of control

the nature of virtue

the moral structure of impressions

Problem 3: Hermeneutic circularity

Solved by rational intuitions as non-derived anchors.

These provide fixed points that stabilize interpretation.

Problem 4: Drift into mystical or poetic ambiguity

Solved by Sterling’s correspondence theory of truth.

Interpretation is tethered to factual accuracy and normative correctness.

---

V. The Combined System Also Improves Sterling

1. Heidegger gives Sterling a phenomenological depth

Sterling describes the logic of impressions, assent, virtue.

Heidegger describes the structure of how impressions appear within a world.

This produces:

a richer account of mistaken impressions

a way to track the preconditions that shape assent

a method for uncovering hidden distortions

2. Heidegger’s hermeneutics enhances training

It enables:

examination of tacit assumptions

recognition of world-disclosures that bias judgment

deeper awareness of how moral propositions appear in lived contexts

This makes Sterling’s Stoic practice more psychologically grounded without becoming therapeutic or empirical.

---

VI. Final Evaluation

Strengths Gained

Objectivity restored

Interpretive discipline enforced

Hermeneutic drift eliminated

Moral insight integrated with phenomenological depth

Impressions analyzed at both the ontological and moral-propositional levels

Weaknesses Eliminated

Heidegger’s method gains a criterion of truth

It gains a normative anchor

It gains a mechanism for distinguishing error

It avoids poetic indeterminacy

It avoids relativistic or constructivist interpretations

---

Conclusion

Yes. Combining Sterling’s philosophy with Heidegger’s hermeneutic method resolves Heidegger’s central methodological weaknesses and strengthens Sterling’s framework by providing a deeper account of how impressions arise within a disclosed world.

This is a philosophically coherent and productive synthesis:

Heidegger supplies the structure of understanding,

Sterling supplies the truth-conditions and moral discipline.