Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Philosophy in China

ISSN 1673-3436

ISSN 1673-355X(Online)

CN 11-5743/B

Postal Subscription Code 80-983

Front. Philos. China    2009, Vol. 4 Issue (3) : 417-436     DOI: 10.1007/s11466-009-0027-0
Research articles |
Reader and text in the horizon of understanding methodology: Gadamer and methodological hermeneutics
PAN Derong ,
Department of Philosophy, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200241, China;
Download: PDF(268 KB)  
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract  Judging Gadamer’s theoretical stance is a complicated matter, and his ontological hermeneutics is usually regarded as a text-centered theory of understanding. Through an analysis of the phenomenological premises from which his theories take off, however, we can clearly see his reader-centric stance. On the basis of this stance some cease to seek for the original intention of the author or the original meaning of the text, which ineluctably leads to the ignorance of an understanding methodology. As far as people’s intentional understanding is concerned, however, the important as well as essential task is still that of striving for a certain kind of understanding that is relatively correct, with universally effective methodology as its necessary prerequisite. What is more, herein lies the significance of the epistemology of hermeneutics. This article aims to re-insert a sense of methodology after hermeneutics went through a period of ontological reflection, and hence clarify that it is of necessity that hermeneutics resumes its text-centric methodological stance.
Keywords Gadamer      Methodology Hermeneutics      understanding      text      
Issue Date: 05 September 2009
URL:     OR
[1] Welsh Talia. Many Healths: Nietzsche and Phenomenologies of Illness[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 338-357.
[2] Frank Schalow. A Diltheyan Loop? The Methodological Side of Heidegger’s Kant-Interpretation[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 377-394.
[3] GUO Yi. Research Findings Concerning Excavated Texts and Learning in Early China[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(2): 168-184.
[4] Franklin Perkins. The Laozi and the Cosmogonic Turn in Classical Chinese Philosophy[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(2): 185-205.
[5] SU Ching Hui. Counterfactuals and Context-Sensitivity[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(4): 668-682.
[6] ZANG Fengyu. How to Construct Marxian Thoughts as a Political Philosophy?[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(4): 601-614.
[7] XU Yingjin. What Can Artificial Intelligence Learn from Wittgenstein’s On Certainty?[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(3): 441-462.
[8] LIU Xin. The Implication of Rawls’ Approach to Public Reason[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2011, 6(1): 161-169.
[9] GUO Guichun. The Boundaries of Context and Their Significance[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2010, 5(3): 449-460.
[10] LI Xiaowu , GUO Xiangyang, . A Logic LU for Understanding[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2010, 5(1): 142-153.
[11] WAN Junren. Ethics and ethicists in the modern context[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2009, 4(2): 227-237.
[12] GUO Guichun. The methodological signifi cance of scientific metaphor[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2007, 2(3): 437-453.
Full text