- 期刊
《真理與方法》的原始目的以及從狄爾泰、海德格到高達美的哲學詮釋學發展
The Original Purpose of Truth and Method and the Development of a Philosophical Hermeneutics from Dilthey through Heidegger to Gadamer
摘要
在回顧第一到五講的內容後，我們回到高達美在撰寫《真理與方法》時所面臨的議題：科學的研究方法在一般觀念中優於人文的研究方法；以及人文學在學術上的低位階。我們首先考量狄爾泰與海德格如何處理上述議題。 Ⅰ.自然科學與人文科學方法的爭辯 狄爾泰試圖表達人文學解釋有一種獨立但同樣有效的方法論基礎。在德文中，Geisteswissenschaften（人文科學）的範圍從藝術廣及社會學。狄爾泰在他興起詮釋學的著名論文中，意味深重地開始與荷馬(Homer)這位希臘解釋者穿越過希臘與羅馬時代。雖然如此，狄爾泰仍尋求達致「普遍有效(universally valid)」的結果，這使得他轉向至科學的方法。 海德格的老師，胡塞爾(Husserl)，具有數學而不是人文學的背景，要用現象學(phenomenology)使哲學成為一門「嚴格的科學(rigorous science)」。相反地，海德格具有神學和哲學（特別是希臘哲學）的人文學背景。這使得海德格對狄爾泰和他的詮釋學產生興趣。 海德格是一位對科學客觀性的批判者，甚至曾評論說：「科學家不思考」（在Was heist Denken?一文中）。他追尋現代性問題的根源至笛卡兒(Descartes)身上，因笛卡兒將世界視為是一種主觀性的投射。 Ⅱ.高達美渴望恢復對人文研究的尊重高達美渴望恢復對人文科學的尊重，但他發現關鍵步驟不在狄爾泰，而是在海德格的〈藝術作品的本源(The Origin of the Work of Art)〉。 Ⅲ.高達美對康德之後西方美學的批判 高達美運用他對於藝術真理的新洞察去批判康德之後的美學發展。這是《真理與方法》第一節的重要元素。 Ⅳ.海德格在〈藝術作品的本源〉中的突破 海德格對藝術的演講，提供高達美恢復重視人文學的規劃所需之突破。 Ⅴ.方法的存有論詮釋學(Ontological Hermeneutics)的意涵 高達美的新哲學詮釋學可視為一種對理解的分析，使他置身於批判科學和人文學兩種方法的本質中。 Ⅵ.詮釋學的普遍性高達美在《真理與方法》後出版的一篇論文中主張，他所分析的理解普遍性，可應用在科學及人文學的訓練中。 這個導論提供我們一些背景去探究《真理與方法》中的14個關鍵概念，這些概念將在第七、八講中呈現。
並列摘要
After reviewing the content of Lectures 1-5, we turn to the issue that Gadamer was confronting when he wrote Truth and Method: the general sense of the superiority of scientific methods of research over humanistic methods, and the lower status of the humanities in academe. We first consider this issue in Dilthey and Heidegger. Section Ⅰ: The Contest over Methods in the Natural and Human Sciences Dilthey attempted to articulate a separate but equally valid methodological basis for interpretation in the humanities. In Germany, the range of the Geisteswissenschaften was wide, from art to sociology. In his famous essay on the rise of hermeneutics, Dilthey started, significantly, with the Greek interpreters of Homer and moved up through Greek and Roman times. Nevertheless, Dilthey was still seeking to achieve ”universally valid” results, which moved him in the direction of scientific methods. Heidegger's teacher, Husserl, had a background in mathematics rather than the humanities and wanted to use phenomenology to make philosophy into a ”rigorous science.” Heidegger, in contrast, had a humanistic background in theology and philosophy and especially Greek philosophy. This caused him to be interested in Dilthey and his hermeneutics. Heidegger was a critic of scientific objectivity and once even remarked, ”The scientist does not think.” (in Was heisst Denken?) He traced the problems of modernity back to Descartes, who saw the world as a projection of his subjectivity. Section Ⅱ. Gadamer's Desire to Restore Respect to the Human Studies Gadamer desired to restore re spect to the human sciences, but he found the decisive step for doing so not in Dilthey but in Heidegger's The Origin of the Work of Art. Section Ⅲ: Gadamer's critique of Western aesthetics since Kant Gadamer used his new insight into the truth of art to criticize the development of aesthetics since Kant. This is a major element in the first section of Truth and Method. Section Ⅳ: Heidegger's Breakthrough in ”The Origin of the Artwork” Heidegger's lectures on art offered Gadamer the breakthrough he needed in his project of restoring respect to the humanities. Section Ⅴ: The Implications of an Ontological Hermeneutics for Method Gadamer's new philosophical hermeneutics as an analysis of understanding put him in a position to criticize method per se in both the sciences and humanities. Section Ⅵ: The Universality of Hermeneutics In an essay published after Truth and Method Gadamer moved toward asserting the universality of his analysis of understanding as applying both to scientific disciplines and to the humanities. Understanding here was understanding universally, in general, in all respects. With this introduction we have some background for exploring the fourteen key concepts in Truth and Method itself that will be presented in lectures 7 and 8.