  We present a computer-supported approach for the logical analysis and
conceptual explicitation of argumentative discourse. Computational hermeneutics
harnesses recent progresses in automated reasoning for higher-order logics and
aims at formalizing natural-language argumentative discourse using flexible
combinations of expressive non-classical logics. In doing so, it allows us to
render explicit the tacit conceptualizations implicit in argumentative
discursive practices. Our approach operates on networks of structured arguments
and is iterative and two-layered. At one layer we search for logically correct
formalizations for each of the individual arguments. At the next layer we
select among those correct formalizations the ones which honor the argument's
dialectic role, i.e. attacking or supporting other arguments as intended. We
operate at these two layers in parallel and continuously rate sentences'
formalizations by using, primarily, inferential adequacy criteria. An
interpretive, logical theory will thus gradually evolve. This theory is
composed of meaning postulates serving as explications for concepts playing a
role in the analyzed arguments. Such a recursive, iterative approach to
interpretation does justice to the inherent circularity of understanding: the
whole is understood compositionally on the basis of its parts, while each part
is understood only in the context of the whole (hermeneutic circle). We
summarily discuss previous work on exemplary applications of human-in-the-loop
computational hermeneutics in metaphysical discourse. We also discuss some of
the main challenges involved in fully-automating our approach. By sketching
some design ideas and reviewing relevant technologies, we argue for the
technological feasibility of a highly-automated computational hermeneutics.
