查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- 理解的普遍過程：高達美詮釋學中的七個關鍵字
- 適當的回應病人：從言談技巧改善醫病關係
- 躍入邏格斯：高達美思想中的三個柏拉圖
- 臺獨之根在日本的一次大暴露-- 評《臺灣論》事件
- COILとCLILを融合した授業実践に関する考察--学術的な対話力の学習成果を中心に
- Conversation Analysis of Taiwanese Senior High School Students' Casual Talk and Class Discussion: A Focus on Gendered Differences
- Using Prose-based Dialogues to Develop Critical Literacy
- 與高齡者互動的溝通策略：以臺灣老年社會語言學研究為例
- "To Be a Woman Is Extremely Bothersome!": How Young Chinese Women Talk About Their Predicaments
- 美國對南海周邊國家歷史性水域主張之反應 (上)
頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 理解的普遍過程：高達美詮釋學中的七個關鍵字=The Universal Process of Understanding: Seven Key Terms in Gadamer's Hermeneutics |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 何佳瑞; | 書刊名 | 哲學與文化 |
| 卷 期 | 35:2=405 2008.02[民97.02] |
| 頁 次 | 頁121-144 |
| 專 輯 | 高達美詮釋學與當代發展專題 |
| 分類號 | 147.79 |
| 關鍵詞 | 語言學; 歷史性; 受歷史作用的意識; 詮釋學的循環和成見; 權威與傳統; 視域的融合; 對話; Linguisticality; Historicity; The historically effected consciousness; Prejudice and hermeneutical circle; Authority and tradition; Fusion of horizons; Conversation; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
| 中文摘要 | 介紹的文字說明了這堂課將呈現七個關鍵字，它們代表了理解的普遍過程的七個面向。需要提及的是，本作者以中文出版的講稿－題名「高達美哲學中的七個關鍵字」－與這次的內容是不相同的。事實上，只有一個在那場演講的使用關鍵詞在此提及，而四個關鍵詞會在下一篇文章中使用到。 1.語言學(Sprachlichkeit) 如同高達美在《真理與方法》一書最後三分之一的內容中所指明的，語言是「詮釋經驗的普遍媒介」。正是在這個媒介中，事物被瞭解，理解與詮釋得以發生。它是根本的並且先於一切事物，它使事物成為可能，沒有它，理解絕不可能發生。正是在這媒介中，真理出現， 雖然對真理的發生而言並不僅止於這個媒介。Sprachlichkeit 是高達美用以命名語言的普遍先在性(universal priority)的一個專有名詞。 2.歷史性(Geschichtlichkeit) 如同語言，歷史也是一個普遍的媒介，而且歷史性也上升成為「一個詮釋學的原則」。要瞭解歷史性，必須回溯到海德格《存有與時間》中的第六部份，標題為「時間性與歷史性」。這一題名已經正確地啟示出，歷史性是此有的存有學結構的一個結果，此有作為與過去與現在同在的一種存有，它也通過籌畫著可能的存有而將自身伸展到未來當中。 海德格受惠於狄爾泰關於歷史性這一詞彙及其意義，但是在狄爾泰那裡，基本的進程是生命，而在海德格，基本的進程則是在世存有在過去與未來的視域之中。它是一個存有學的進程而非生命的進程，是存有的進程而非生命哲學中生機論的進程。而高達美則以狄爾泰與海德格對於歷史性的分析為前提。 3.受歷史作用的意識(das wirkungsgeschichtliche Bewusstsein) 在高達美，這個關鍵字從不曾出現在施萊爾馬赫、狄爾泰或者海德格那裡。但海德格有一次向作者談到，這個詞所代表的概念是直接從狄爾泰而來。確實，這個詞和「視域融合」兩者都受惠於黑格爾和狄爾泰，勝過了海德格的影響。但同時，對於恢復與文本相遇時的歷史直接性的這種努力，則喚回了海德格與齊克果。高達美表明，它的本質即是「存在的結構」。這是說，它通常與從傳統而來的文本一道，粉碎了現前的視域。 4.詮釋學的循環和成見(Hermeneutische Zirkel and Vorurteil) 在理解的前結構與詮釋學的循環之間，有一個親密的連結。詮釋學的循環論及這樣一個概念，一個人不僅從整體來理解部分，也從部分來理解整體。這是一個邏輯的矛盾，但是它描繪出了理解作品的那種往復不已的方式。這和成見(Vorurteile)有什麼關係呢？高達美使用此字同於前理解之義，一個人在他可以瞭解任何文本與情境的部份之前，必定已有一種前理解。 當施萊爾馬赫對於詮釋學的循環採取一個較形式主義的觀點時，他也同時參看客觀與主觀的面向。高達美則否決了主觀的面向，並且他說明，在理解文本時，我們理解的不是一個人而是一種意義，而這個意義歸屬於一種情境與一個主題事件(subject-matter)。 海德格將詮釋學循環置於對自身與世界的理解的脈絡中，而世界是時間的與存在的世界，以此徹底改造了詮釋學循環的意義。它存在於時間之中並且預期著未來，它是一個人存在於世界中的所有可能性的一種個人的意義。 高達美超越海德格再向前跨一步，他把詮釋學的循環定義為傳統的運動和詮釋者的運動之間的一種交互作用。傳統在海德格的傑作裡並不重要，但是傳統與詮釋者對於文本的關係，在高達美的分析中扮演了重要角色。在高達美，討論帶入了「完成的期望」這關鍵概念，它是受歷史作用的意識的運作核心。在這個部份對於內容目錄回顧的呈現，是要藉此展現出一些主要的關聯。 5.權威與傳統(Autorität und Tradition) 高達美關於權威與傳統的看法是從他的前理解和詮釋學循環的概念中發展出來。啟蒙運動對於懷疑一切權威所做的努力在高達美看來是片面的，因為權威是自然地符合於在某個領域中的博士、裁判、教授與專家等。承認這些人對於某一主題所知甚於你是自然的而且是恰當的。所以高達美談論合法的權威與不合法的權威，而權威作為一個概念看來是適當的。同樣的，傳統居於我們的理解之中，而且我們應該探索一個與我們的傳統更深層的關係。傳統的德文字是Űberlieferung，即被傳承下去(handed down)。再一次，作為一種未經對話與公平裁決的不合法成見，高達美反對這種啟蒙運動反傳統的看法。 6.視域的融合(Horizontverschmelzung) 視域的融合是高達美哲學的另一個標誌，是別處找不到的。基本上，與文本的相遇牽涉了一個視域的融合，文本的視域與詮釋者的視域。而一個人自身的意識也是一個帶著傳統的視域融合的產物。「即便是要獲得一個人自身的視域，也需要一種帶著傳統的視域融合。」每一次對話也牽涉了一個視域的融合。它可說是一個萬用的專有名詞。 7.對話(Gespräch) 對話是高達美詮釋哲學的主導主題，一個他生活倚靠的理想，一個他以此例示的開放性。施萊爾馬赫如同高達美一般，是一個有天分的交談者。但是，一個成果豐碩的對話需要對他人的觀點開放，以及需要承認他或她有可能是正確的。在一個真正的對話中，兩方都想要更接近所談論主題的真理，這比獲勝更為重要。最後，對話是一個基本的詮釋學工具，一個達到理解的手段，所以，我們用問題來接近主題，但是隨時準備好改變我們的觀點。 |
| 英文摘要 | An introductory section explains that the lecture will present seven key terms, representing seven aspects of the universal process of understanding. It is noted that a published lecture in Chinese by this author under the title ”Seven Key Terms in the Philosophy of Hans-Georg Gadamer” is not the same as this, and indeed only one of the terms in that lecture is used in this one, although four of them are used in tomorrow's lecture. An introductory section explains that the lecture will present seven key terms, representing seven aspects of the universal process of understanding. It is noted that a published lecture in Chinese by this author under the title ”Seven Key Terms in the Philosophy of Hans-Georg Gadamer” is not the same as this, and indeed only one of the terms in that lecture is used in this one, although four of them are used in tomorrow's lecture. 1. Sprachlichkeit-Linguisticality As Gadamer notes in the final third of Truth and Method, language is the ”universal medium of hermeneutical experience.” It is the medium in which things are understood, the medium in which understanding and interpretation take place. It is fundamental and prior to everything. It makes things possible, and without it understanding cannot take place at all. It is the medium in which truth happens, although there is more than this to the happening of truth. Sprachlichkeit is the term Gadamer uses to name the ”universal priority” of language. 2. Geschichtlichkeit-Historicity Like language, history is a universal medium, and historicity is raised to the status of ”a hermeneutical principle.” To understand historicity, one has to go back to the six sections of Heidegger's Being and Time that carry the heading ”Temporality and Historicity.” Already this title correctly suggests that historicity is a consequence of the ontological structure of Dasein as a being that lives with a past and a present, and also extends itself into the future through projecting possible being. Heidegger is indebted to Dilthey for the term and sense of historicity, but in Dilthey the basic process is life, whereas in Heidegger, the basic process is being-in-the-world in horizons of past and future. It is an ontological process rather than a life process, a process of being rather than the vitalism of life in life-philosophy. Gadamer presupposes Dilthey's and Heidegger's analysis of Geschichtlichkeit. 3. das wirkungsgeschichtliche Bewusstsein-the Historically Effected Consciousness This is a key term in Gadamer that does not appear in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, or Heidegger. Heidegger once remarked to the author that the idea that this term represents is straight out of Dilthey. Certainly it and the ”fusion of horizons” are more indebted to Hegel and Dilthey than to Heidegger. At the same time, the effort to restore the historical immediacy of encounter with a text recalls Heidegger and Kierkegaard. Gadamer argues that the essence of it is ”the structure of experience.” That is to say, it shatters the present horizon, usually with a text from tradition. 4. Hermeneutische Zirkel and Vorurteil-Prejudice and the Hermeneutical Circle There is an intimate connection between the fore-structure of understanding and the hermeneutical circle. The hermeneutical circle refers to the idea that one understands the part from the whole, but also the whole from the parts. This is a logical contradiction, but it describes the back and forth way that understanding works. What has this to do with prejudices(Vorurteile)? Gadamer uses this word as synonymous with pre-understanding, and one has to have a prior understanding before one can understand any part of a text or situation. While Schleiermacher took a more formalistic view of the hermeneutical circle, he also looked at the objective and subjective sides. Gadamer rejects the subjective side and explains that in understanding a text we are not understanding a person but a meaning that resides in a situation and a subject-matter. Heidegger revolutionized the meaning of the hermeneutical circle by placing it in the context of an understanding of self and world that is temporal and existential. It exists in time and anticipates a future, and it is the personal sense of one's possibilities for being in the world. Gadamer took a step beyond Heidegger by defining the hermeneutical circle as the interplay between the movement of tradition and that of the interpreter. Tradition plays little role in Heidegger's masterwork, but it and the interpreter's relation to the text loom large in Gadamer's analysis. The discussion brings in the key concept in Gadamer of the ”anticipation of completion” which is central to the working of historically effected consciousness. A review of the table of contents for the section is presented to show some of the major relationships. 5. Autorität und Tradition-Authority and Tradition Gadamer's views with regard to authority and tradition grow out of his concepts of preunderstanding and the hermeneutical circle. The effort by the Enlightenment to discredit all authority seemed one-sided to Gadamer because authority is naturally accorded to doctors, judges, professors, and other experts in a field. To acknowledge that they know more about a subject than you do is natural and appropriate. So Gadamer speaks of legitimate authority and illegitimate authority, but authority as a concept seems appropriate. Likewise, tradition inhabits our understanding, and we should seek an ever deeper relationship to our tradition. The German word for tradition is Űberlieferung, that which is handed down. Again, Gadamer takes up arms against the Enlightenment prejudice against tradition as illegitimate without dialogue or a fair trial. 6. Horizontverschmelzung-Fusion of Horizons The ”fusion of horizons” is another trademark of Gadamerian philosophy. It is not found elsewhere. Basically, the encounter with the text involves a fusion of horizons, that of the text and that of the interpreter. Also one's own consciousness is a product of a fusion of horizons with the tradition. ”Even to acquire one's own horizon requires a fusion of horizons with the tradition.” Every conversation, too, involves a fusion of horizons. It is an all-purpose term. 7. Conversation Conversation is a leitmotif of Gadamer's hermeneutical philosophy, an ideal he lived by, an openness he exemplified. Schleiermacher was a gifted conversationalist, as was Gadamer. But a fruitful conversation requires openness to the viewpoint of the other person, and the acknowledgement that he or she could be right. In a true conversation both partners want to come closer to the truth about a matter, and that is more important than winning. Ultimately, conversation is a basic hermeneutical tool, a means of reaching understanding, so we approach a subject with questions, but ready to change our point of view. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。