Dilthey, (1972) proposes that one cannot found a new science on the basis of architectonics and symmetry. That way only ends up constructing “blind windows” through which no one can see. An effective hermeneutics could only develop in a mind where a virtuoso practice of philological interpretation was united with a genuine capacity for philosophical thought. The window, or eye gate to the interpretive mind is merely reworking previous experiences that have left a form of residue upon the psyche of the individual that is attempting to create something new. This then does not give a new perspective, but a false appearance of an old one. Dilthey’s view of personal bias in interpreting written text was that all exegesis of written works is only the systematic working out of that general process of Understanding which stretches throughout our lives and is exercised upon every type of speech or writing (1972). This information would give another look into the religious wars and why those who were poor were not allowed to study the bible as the interpretation of the bible and other works were considered only for the scholars, and scholars were those of the elite society. Therefore, there is no possible way that others that did not fit into the societal norms would be able to experience, interpret and teach the bible or any other literary work simply because it would humanize their life to a point that others would have to forcibly peer into their own lives as this sense perception, which initially takes the form of isolated signs would then, as Dilthey stated would be obliged to translate everything-the raw material, the structure, the most individual traits of such a completion-out of our own sense of life (1972) and what type of life would that be then. Please provide a 150-200 word response to the above question and please use at least 1 reference. Also please cite reference in APA 6th edition format and please provide doi or www info for reference if applicable.