Hermeneutics and Field Environmental Philosophy: Integrating Ecological Sciences and Ethics into Earth Stewardship - Earth Stewardship: Linking Ecology and Ethics in Theory and Practice - page 238

necessary to take into account two dimensions: the habitat (including the biophysical
dimension as well as traditions, history and language) and the interpreter who is a
co-inhabitant (cfr. Rozzi 2013 ).
The habitat guides the way we see, think, and act in the biosphere, and generates
the habits that establish and unite with tradition. The interpreters or co-inhabitants,
maintain their habits while remaining immersed in their traditions. If these two
dimensions are not explicitly taken into account, then the interpreting subjects will
be blind to the perception from which they have the opportunity to recognize them-
selves while perceiving.
By assuming a historical perspective, different historical contexts can be distin-
guished and understood (Gadamer 2000 , p. 267). This is a necessary hermeneutical
distance to separate ourselves from prejudices, without pretending to delink the
interlocutor from their own particular historical contexts. Without assuming the his-
torical perspective, the speakers fall into a monologue; that is, into a trap that pre-
vents their paying attention to their own way of viewing reality.
The true meaning of things can only be found with hindsight and historical per-
spective. Thanks to this hindsight and historical perspective it is possible to “solve
the real critical issue of hermeneutics, to distinguish the true prejudices [or precon-
ceptions] under which we understand , from the false prejudices that cause misun-
derstandings” (Gadamer 2000 , p. 369). That is, true prejudices are nothing but an
anticipated way in which we intend to understand the world. It is thanks to this
categorization that we know in truth. In contrast, false prejudices are anticipations
that distort the data that we get from reality. Awareness of these anticipations, not
the prejudices themselves, allows the evolution from pre-understanding toward
understanding. In this way, tradition is highlighted as a worldview and not as an
ultimate criterion of truth. That is, the habit of understanding the world is visualized
as if it were the habit of another self -another co-inhabitant, in the terms of biocul-
tural ethics (cfr. Rozzi 2013 ). As a consequence, the dialoguing partners of various
worldviews will discover that when they talk among themselves or confront each
other, they are not facing a foreign situation, but are all immersed in it. Only then
will the conditions for the fusion of horizons exist.

15.3.3 The Fusion of Horizons of Meaning

The fusion of horizons of meaning assumes (reorders and limits) identity from
difference . This last step implies that humans who exploit the “Earth” in the utilitarian
sense now accept that they are part of the biosphere in the ecological sense, and that
they and the biosphere are equals. From the perspective of FEP and the biocultural
ethic the biosphere is understood as a community of co-inhabitants. From this
understanding the implications for respect, restraint and conservation are derived.
Persons are more responsible for others than for themselves when they take
historical distance from themselves and perceive their way of understanding the
biosphere and the links to the other. And that greater responsibility for the other