Western hermeneutics has its origin in the interpretation of oracles and prophesies as well as the elaboration of a universal legal code.
In other words it's fucked in the head and doomed to fail.
Central to this project was the notion of a specifically rationalist Univocity of Being transparently immanent in a Teleological Historicism.
Thus, Relativism and Palingnesia represent a scandal- 'a stumbling block'- of an unprecedented kind for Western thought.
While Europe enjoyed World mastery- relativism could be subsumed under the notion of a hierarchy of Development with the Europeans at the top.
The First World War changed all that. Europe became provincial. Clio, the muse of History, turned out to be a flighty piece. History was no longer what was made in Europe, rather Europe had become History's Twilight home. The owl of Minerva had taken flight with a vengeance.
This did not mean that German professors quit their ambition to be the silliest creatures in Creation and so, with Heidegger, the 'hermeneutic circle', the practice of interpretation, is given a new horizon- that of explicating Being itself in a manner that could be described as caring for Being- becoming, so to speak, its shepherd.
This was at a period where the proposal for a Logic without Ontology, a Scientific Method which simply relegated Metaphysics to the realm of nonsense, appeared utterly compelling.
But there was a further factor at work. A deep disappointment with History itself. Neither the Whig interpretation of History, nor the Germanic telos of Geist, could explain the fact starring everyone in the face-viz. Europe had been eclipsed. The future belonged to vast barbaric nations who had no need for a National 'Bildungsburgertum'- a bourgeoisie of education defined by and dedicated to a (Chauvinist) Spiritualised conception of Culture- rather, the Americans stressed 'know-how', neutral with respect to class, creed or even colour, while the Soviets went a step further dedicating themselves to the Electrification of village communes so as to permit the 'withering away of the State'- the ultimate heresy for not just the Hegelian but even the Weberian. (The nonsense that the State ever had, or can ever have, the monopoly of legitimate violence or coercion is Weberian).
This was a barbarism because it was History without heroes, Technology kicking Poetry to the curb, vast mass movements indifferent to the Passion of both Christ and Kaiser. Not only would modern life no longer have a vantage point from which it could be judged (Weber's complaint) but Being itself, crouched outside the Professors' hermeneutic circle, had turned savage and hostile.
The repair of History, the ransoming of Time- not by the method of Kabbalahistic Tikkun, or the glass bead game of manipulating the Lullian zairja, nor by Rilke's angels or some Madchen's abortions- now hinged on befriending Being, or at least appearing to have done so, for Platonic 'participation' was now a property of the mobs and the masses.
Heidegger, at least, was consistent. He hailed Hitler as the prayed for Hero, genuflected to Holderlin and quietly wrote crap for the rest of his days. He was no fool. At least he spotted that Celan was mentally ill. He didn't do anything about it, of course. Still- the guy wasn't stupid.
It is only in the last thirty years that disciples of Gadamer have started vomiting on Indian hermeneutics. No question, they are smarter and less shite than Lacanian vomitasters and a million times better than our own J.N.U shitheads- still, it might be worth thinking a little about how Heidi could fuck up Hinduism and who might want to aid and abet the process.
Bottom line- Gadamerian hermeneutics is fucked in the head coz only stupid people are attracted to the arrant nonsense of the Phenomenological project (the thing is as dead as Ptolemy) and stupid people say stupid things even about interesting texts.
In any case, they can't do apoorvata- not they aren't saying new stuff, it's just they don't understand the old stuff, so it's like randomly new.
Could you have a meaningful phenomenology- i.e. with apoorvata? No, for the same reason that you can't have a structuralism that says anything interesting. That, at any rate is what is indicated not merely empirically but by 'practical reason'.