حصار پیش داوری ها و چالش ذهنیت گرایی در هرمنوتیک فلسفی گادامر (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
گادامر، هستی انسان را هستی افکنده شده در تاریخ و سنت میداند که دارای نحوهی دید خاص و پیش داوری است. پیشداوریها ریشه در موقعیت مفسر دارند و در فهم دخیل هستند. به همین دلیل، منتقدینی مانند بتّی (Betti) و هرش (Hirsch)او را متهم به ذهنیتگرایی میکنند. اما گادامر مدعی است که در دام ذهنیت گرایی نمیافتد؛ زیرا بر مبنای مفهومِ پیش دریافتی از تمامیت معتقد است که مفسر همواره پیشداوریهای خود را در مواجه با حقیقت متن مورد ارزیابی و اصلاح قرار میدهد و آنها را بر متن تحمیل نمیکند، ولی خود مفهوم پیشدریافتی از تمامیت در اندیشهی گادامر به سنتگرایی میانجامد بدین معنا که فهم متاثر از تاریخ و سنت است و مفسر دخالتی در آن ندارد. گادامر با استفاده از مفهوم کاربرد که طبق آن، مفسر معنای متن را با موقعیت هرمنوتیکی خودش ربط میدهد از سنتگرایی فاصله میگیرد. اما مفهوم کاربرد دوباره به ذهنیتگرایی میانجامد. به نظر میرسد گادامر در دوری باطل میان ذهنیتگرایی و سنتگرایی گرفتار میشود. در این پژوهش، ضمن توضیح دورِ میان ذهنیتگرایی و سنتگرایی با تمرکز بر ساختار دیالوگی فهم و ابتنای آن بر الگوی سوژه-سوژه نه سوژه-اوبژهی دکارتی نشان خواهیم داد که گادامر از این دور فراتر میرود و فهم هرمنوتیکی، فهمی ذهنی نیست.The Fence of prejudices and The Challenge of subjectivism in Gadamer's Philosophical Hermeneutics
Introduction Philosophical hermeneutics, instead of focusing on methods and rules of interpretation and understanding, pays attention to the phenomenon of understanding itself and examines the foundations of human understanding and cognition, as well as the formation of understanding in human existence and the influential factors involved. Gadamer, as a significant representative of philosophical hermeneutics, does not consider understanding as a method of interpreting texts but as an existential event and phenomenon which are related to human existence. Human existence is historical-based, so always is in a historical context. Therefore, the interpreter cannot detach himself from the concerns and perspectives of the present moment, as a result their mental preconceptions and prejudices become involved in the process of interpretation. The interpreter or subject cannot approach the text or any other object with an empty and impartial mind, always interpreting the object from his own perspective. The object as a silent and passive entity that plays no role in the process of understanding, and understanding is the result of the interaction between the subject's actions and mentality. This interpretation of understanding and interpretation leads to subjectivism.However, Gadamer disagrees with subjectivism and considers it as a consequence of the Cartesian subject-object model in the modern era, in which objects are merely silent and passive entities, and the subject should not impose its own mentality and preconceptions on them, so by using the rules, prevent them from interfering understanding so that a correct understanding of them can be obtained. On the contrary, Gadamer demonstrates that objects or any elements of hermeneutics are not silent and passive objects but have a history and interpretive tradition that have something to say us. Objects or any elements of hermeneutics are like a dialogue partner to whom we either contradict or correct our preconceptions by listening to what he has to say. In Gadamer's thought, the autonomy of objects and listening to their truth apparently means that the subject passively confirms whatever is in interpretive tradition. If we consider the subject entirely passive, which have no contribution to the event of understanding, and understanding is merely the result of history and tradition, then Gadamer becomes a traditionalist philosopher. And if we focus on the concept of application in Gadamer's thought to escape this traditionalism, Gadamer is again accused of subjectivism because the concept of application implies that the interpreter should not ignore himself and his hermeneutic situation, but should understand various subjects based on their historical context and concerns. It seems that Gadamer becomes trapped in a futile cycle between subjectivism and traditionalism. In this study, we demonstrate that this futile cycle does not exist in Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics. By describing the structure of the dialogical understanding, we also find that the interference of preconceptions in understanding and the concept of application do not lead to subjectivism. Research Method To achieve the goal of this research, the descriptive-analytical study was used. Based on research sources, Gadamer's views on subjectivism and its relationship with concepts such as anticipation, application, openness, horizon fusion, and dialogue were described and analyzed. For doing the research, we employed a library method, by which books and articles available in this field were used. It should be mentioned that the information of these books and articles were presented in the bibliography section. ConclusionBy examining the dialogical structure of understanding based on Gadamer's view, it becomes clear that dialogue is a tripartite relationship, not a bipartite one. The third party of the dialogue is the subject of discussion or the object itself that has something to say. If the interlocutors are open and humble, they will listen to the subject’s words by entering the dialogue game and trying to violate and correct their prejudices by looking at the subject itself, so that the subject reveals itself to them. By listening and submission, it does not mean that the interlocutors are completely passive and understanding happens without their activity. In the dialogue game, the effort and activity of the interlocutors are so that, they constantly test their prejudices in the face of the meaning of the subject itself and (if they want) they can violate and nullify them. From Gadamer’s point of view, the constant violation of oneself makes the self-revelation of the object possible, and the object does not reveal itself without the effort of the interlocutors, i.e. the constant violation of their beliefs about it. Therefore, considering the authentic dialogue in the direction of the subject of discussion, it can be shown that in Gadamer’s thought, the subject in the dialogical process of understanding is both active and passive, and his horizon of understanding is not closed and static, so that understanding is completely subject to his mental horizon, but his horizon of understanding changes with the change of his prejudices following the movement of the object itself, and he chooses this change and nullification of prejudices by asking free question.
تبلیغات
