This section shows some selected questions from the comments, more can be found in the comment area.

---

Question from Ishani Argi: Do you believe that it is possible to have an apolitical perspective of the Second Amendment?

Answered by Nehal Bhaidas: Thank You for your question. While it’s ideal to approach topics like the Second Amendment objectively, it’s hard to completely separate from political influence. The nature of constitutional rights inherently involves political perspectives. if you would like to get more insight, please feel free to reach out and we will be happy to answer.

---

Question from Shankar Ramesh: હું બ્લોગમાં ઘણું સમજી શકતો નથી, પરંતુ મને વધુ જાણવાનું ગમશે. શું તમને લાગે છે કે બીજા સુધારાના અર્થઘટનને રાજકીય વિચારધારાઓ દ્વારા અથવા ઉદ્દેશ્ય તથ્યો દ્વારા વધુ આકાર આપવામાં આવે છે?

Answered by Nehal Bhaidas: Thank you for your questions. From an analytical perspective, the influence of power dynamics in society manifests in the interpretation of laws like the Constitution. Understanding this subject, with its examples and facts, along with the impact of political opinions and ideologies, can be challenging. However, it is essential to seek out fresh and comprehensive information and consider the diverse circumstances to make informed and just decisions.

---

Question from Shakuntala Atri: यह लगता है कि आपके समूह ने बहुत मेहनत की है, और पूरे ब्लॉग को अच्छी तरह से मिला दिया है। मैं एक सवाल पूछना चाहता हूँ, क्या मैं पूछ सकता हूँ, संवैधानिक अधिकारों के बारे में राजनीतिक बहसें, जैसे कि बंदूक नियंत्रण, शक्ति की संघर्ष और विचारशील अंतर को कैसे प्रकट करती हैं?

Answered by Nehal Bhadias: Thank you for your greetings! Our team has worked hard, and we value your recognition. Your question is very important! The impact of power dynamics in society on understanding various provisions of our legal documents, such as the Constitution, inspires us to think. Feel free to contact us for any questions related to the blog; we would be happy to assist you.

---

Question from Bharat Yadav: *<3 I loved reading the blog! Could I ask you guys to summarise what the overall message of the blog is in a nutshell? Also, could you expand more on the second sense? I’m finding it hard to understand, so if you could explain it in a simpler way, that would be great!

Answered by Leila Uddin: The blog applies theories surrounding the ethics and politics of interpretation to the circumstances of the discourse surrounding the Second Amendment. Second sense - The importance of ethics for hermeneutics can be formulated in two different strands, the 2nd and 3rd Sense- The 2nd sense examines what moral consequences could arise from certain actions- in a simpler sense, we are asking ourselves to evaluate whether a certain action leads to something good or harmful.

Michael L. Frazer (2019), in his essay The Ethics of Interpretation in Political Theory and Intellectual History, provides a Habermasian-style of definition on ethics: “ (Ethics) is a realm of discourse in which any of us may be called to offer justifications of our activity in terms of values that we expect our interlocutors to share.” This definition expands the domain of ethics from an individual to a social level compared to the classical Platonic view on ethics. The ancient Greek view in general claims that ethics is based on one’s moral excellence, his ability to behave in line with his rationality. (Parry and Thorsrud, 2021) The involvement of politics is the predominant factor that distinguishes the two perspectives on ethics. The term ‘discourse’ that Frazer adopted is the key to understand such a difference. For example, in the recent Israel-Palestine conflict, both parties in the conflict have solid ethical justification for their violent behaviour in their own discourses that can find support in their sacred texts. The example of Israel-Palestine conflict illustrates the importance of the ethics of interpretation in politics because the ‘imaginative’ interpretation can lead to practical consequence of suffering for both parties in the conflict.

Interpretation, in the political sphere, can be understood equally as narratives under a particular discourse. Hence, the main subject of study for academia is how narratives arises, in other words, why people from a particular community interpret things in their particular way. Additionally, there is also debate in the academia about how scholars should interpret classic political texts. On the construction and circulation of narratives, Jerome Bruner (1987) argues that narratives operate unconsciously at serval levels: daily activities, national strategies, and scholarly methodologies, it is a form of projection of the ‘societal will’. In an alternative linguistic view, Ferdinand de Saussure (2011) innovatively pointed out that language are rules and conventions of a signifying system, meaning-making is the social practice of particular speech-communities. Saussure’s view provokes later scholars to study the linguistic structure, especially its vocabulary system in daily usage, to investigate the source of narratives. In the academic sphere, Frazer (abid.) concludes three mainstreams of methodologies that scholars adopt in interpreting past political texts: 1) the historians, who treats political sciences fundamentally as a branch of history, 2) the ahistorians, who believes that political science is essentially ahistorical and 3) the presentists, which defies the historical-ahistorical bifurcation. Furthermore, Frazer posits that the choice of methodology for an individual scholar is essentially ethical because the validity of academic interpretation requires an interpersonally acceptable justification, hence the scholars bears interpersonal obligation in their studies.

This introduction provides the readers of this blog a theoretical starting point of our summative group creative portfolio, which applies theories surrounding the ethics and politics of interpretation to the circumstances of the 2nd Amendment of the American constitution. Along with this introduction, there will be two aspects within the blog: a video presentation exploring the Second Amendment, with a specific focus at the political and the apolitical perspectives of hermeneutics. The second aspect will be an infographic detailing how ethics and hermeneutics align, delving deeper into the importance of interpretation for ethical discourse. This blog utilises theories and arguments in order to apply them in the context of one of America’s most fundamental entitlements.

Notes:

Bruner, J. (1987) ‘Life as Narrative’, Social Research, 54(1), pp. 11–32. doi:https://www.jstor.org/stable/40970444.

Frazer, M.L. (2019) ‘The ethics of interpretation in political theory and intellectual history’, The Review of Politics, 81(1), pp. 77–99. doi:10.1017/s0034670518000967

Parry, R. and Thorsrud, H. (2021) Ancient ethical theory, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-ancient/ (Accessed: 02 April 2024).

Saussure, F. de (2011) Course in general linguistics. New York: Columbia University Press.