高達美詮釋學對柏拉圖、亞里斯多德及黑格爾的期望－與《美的相關性》中的人類學轉向

Anticipations of Gadamer's Hermeneutics in Plato, Aristotle and Hegel, and the Anthropological Turn in The Relevance of the Beautiful

Richard E. Palmer ； 陳俊宇(Chun-Yu Chen)

《哲學與文化》 35卷2期 (2008/02) Pp. 85-107

https://doi.org/10.7065/MRPC.200802.0085

摘要

來自海德格詮釋具有吸引力的力量鼓舞著高達美謹慎而不僅成為一個大師的追隨者。而為了維持此種特別性，他跟隨偉大的古典心理學家：費迪南德學習。他也因此獲得在中學教授傳統心理學的證書，但他真正的動機是不受海德格對古希臘所開展那充滿力量的詮釋之影響。 儘管如此，海德格仍在高達美的經典著作：《真理與方法》維持重要的影響力。高達美成為海德格思想的主要詮釋者，和忠實的朋友。在一些關於兩人的比較後，我轉向介紹三位在海德格以外，對高達美的主要研究有影響的哲學家：柏拉圖、亞里斯多德和黑格爾。 首先我們來看柏拉圖，我認為重點在高達美的交談與對話以及「對話辯證法」的概念。對相對的重視使它成為真的，所以人們一同為真理的疑問而對話。雖然還有許多柏拉圖給高達美的影響，但我以此兩點和使高達美成為一個對話者和嘗試者的天資證明。我舉出三個高達美所使用來自亞里斯多德的概念：明智(phronesis)、摹擬(mimesis)和悲劇。明智是實踐智慧對於前往預測結果的理性，他並不見基於公式那樣能被學習，卻建基於生活經驗。摹擬在亞里斯多德那部僅是複製，且是在生活真理的終極傳播者。最後，悲劇不是僅在亞里斯多德認為有六部分的結構，而是悲憫和恐懼的經驗轉變在觀眾角度的視野，這是高達美在看待觀賞者的經驗之理解與運用，是一種對悲劇行動意義的參與經驗。 高達美受益於黑格爾的歷史性個人意識、黑格爾的辯證法、還有其認識到藝術是感官對現時的接受性。他不同意黑格爾所指「藝術是過去的事物」，也解釋黑格爾怎麼指出這點。我們不久將能看到藝術作品作為神的顯露。我舉一個在海德堡訪問海德格的經驗，在高達美的講座之後，他反對將他自身澄清和隱藏的辯證法與黑格爾的辯證法相連結，因為黑格爾的哲學總結束在抽象知識。 在本講座的第二部分，我轉向分析高達美對藝術的論文《美的相關性》，在此方向可和海德格著名的〈藝術作品的本源〉論文相比。在晚期的著作，海德格表明有別他主要研究的自我獨立和將藝術呈現在大地與世界之間的一種張力。在高達美對藝術的論文中，他跟隨海德格透過建立在希臘文化中藝術的人類學起源對藝術作品本體論的分析。他討論所有文化根源在遊戲(play)，符號的區別和宗教祭典的意義。但他從對形成一個藝術理論的問題來分析，這也澄清了古典藝術和當代抽象藝術。 在這三個元素：遊戲、符號和節慶中，高達美找到一種藝術的結構是在更深層的文化根基。如同在早期希臘的儀式、舞蹈和悲劇演出。

關鍵字

柏拉圖 ； 亞里斯多德 ； 黑格爾 ； 美的相關性

並列摘要

Gadamer's encounter with the magnetic force of Heidegger's interpretations made him cautious not to become simply a follower of the great master. To maintain his independence, he studied with Paul Friedländer, the great classical philologist. He attained certification in classical philology to teach in the secondary schools, but his true motive was to be able to resist the powerful interpretations of Greek philosophy put forward by Heidegger. Nevertheless, Heidegger remained a major leavening influence on Gadamer's classic, Truth and Method, and Gadamer became a major interpreter of Heidegger's thought, and a constant friend. After a few comparisons between them, I turn to three major philosophers other than Heidegger who contributed concepts to Gadamer's masterwork: Plato, Aristotle, and Hegel.
Regarding Plato, I point to the emphasis in Gadamer on dialogue and conversation and the concept of eumeneis elenchoi, the respect the opponent that recognizes that he could be right, so they join together in dialogue in quest of the truth. Although there are many other debts to Plato in Gadamer, I point to these two and testify to Gadamer's gifts as a conversationalist and debater.
I single out three concepts of Aristotle that Gadamer used: phronesis, mimesis, and tragedy. Phronesis is the practical wisdom that goes beyond calculative reason. It is based not on formulas that can be learned but on experience of life. Mimesis in Aristotle is not just copying, but on a recognition that ultimately conveyed truth about life. Finally, tragedy for Aristotle is not just a structure with six parts but an experience of pity and terror that transformed the perspective of the viewer. This was important in the hermeneutics of Gadamer that looked at the viewer's experience of recognition and application, a participatory experience of the meaning of the action of the tragedy.
Gadamer is indebted to Hegel for the historical character of consciousness, the Hegelian dialectic, and the recognition that that art is a sensuous representation of the real. He did not agree with Hegel that art was a thing of the past, and also explained what Hegel meant by this: we no longer saw art as a disclosure of the divine. I mention an experience I had of Heidegger's visit to Heidelberg, where he spoke after Gadamer's lecture rejecting his effort to connect his dialect of clearing and concealing with Hegelian dialectic, because Hegel’s philosophy always ended in absolute knowledge.
For the second major part of the lecture, I turn to an analysis of Gadamer's essay on art, The Relevance of the Beautiful (1977), comparable in a way to Heidegger's famous lectures on The Origin of the Work of Art (1936). In the latter work, Heidegger declares his independence of his masterwork and presents art in terms of the tension between earth and world. In Gadamer's essay on art, he goes beyond the Heideggerian emphasis on the ontology of the artwork by seeking to establish the anthropological roots of art in Greek culture. He discusses the roots of all culture in play, the significance of the symbol, and the meaning of religious festivals. But he begins with an analysis of the problem of formulating a theory of art that does justice both to classical art and contemporary nonrepresentational art.
In all three elements, play, symbol, and festival, Gadamer finds a foundation for art in the deep roots of our culture as found in the ritual, dance, and tragic plays of ancient Greece.

並列關鍵字

Plato ； Aristotle ； Hegel ； The Relevance of the Beautiful

參考文獻

Hans-Georg Gadamer(1989).Heideggers `theologische` Jugendschrift.Dilthey-Jahrbuch.6,228-234.

Jean Grondin,Joel Weinsheimer (translated)(2003).Hans-Georg Gadamer: A Biography.New Haven:Yale University Press.

(1931).Platos dialektische Ethik: Phanomenologische Interpretationen zum Philebos.Leipzig:Felix Meiner.

Robert M. Wallace(translated)(1991).Plato`s Dialectical Ethics: Phenomenological Interpretations Relating to the Philebus.New Haven:Yale University Press.

James Risser,Diane P. MIchelfelder (ed.),Richard E. Palmer(1989).Dialogue and Deconstruction: The Gadamer-Derrida Encounter.Albany:State University of New York Press.