Reader and text in the horizon of understanding
methodology: Gadamer and methodological hermeneutics

doi:10.1007/s11466-009-0027-0

Front. Philos. China

2009, Vol. 4

Issue (3) : 417-436 https://doi.org/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

Cite this article:

PAN Derong. Reader and text in the horizon of understanding methodology: Gadamer and methodological hermeneutics[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2009, 4(3): 417-436.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/10.1007/s11466-009-0027-0
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/Y2009/V4/I3/417

[1]	Callisto Searle. The Deaths of One Conceptual Metaphor in Two Languages[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(2): 322-341.
[2]	Thalia Wheatley, Terence Horgan. Philosophy and Science Dialogue: Mental Causation[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 349-360.
[3]	Frank Schalow. A Diltheyan Loop? The Methodological Side of Heidegger’s Kant-Interpretation[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 377-394.
[4]	Welsh Talia. Many Healths: Nietzsche and Phenomenologies of Illness[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 338-357.
[5]	GUO Yi. Research Findings Concerning Excavated Texts and Learning in Early China[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(2): 168-184.
[6]	Franklin Perkins. *The Laozi* and the Cosmogonic Turn in Classical Chinese Philosophy**[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(2): 185-205.
[7]	SU Ching Hui. Counterfactuals and Context-Sensitivity[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(4): 668-682.
[8]	ZANG Fengyu. How to Construct Marxian Thoughts as a Political Philosophy?[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(4): 601-614.
[9]	XU Yingjin. What Can Artificial Intelligence Learn from Wittgenstein’s On Certainty?[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(3): 441-462.
[10]	LIU Xin. The Implication of Rawls’ Approach to Public Reason[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2011, 6(1): 161-169.
[11]	GUO Guichun. The Boundaries of Context and Their Significance[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2010, 5(3): 449-460.
[12]	LI Xiaowu , GUO Xiangyang, . A Logic LU for Understanding[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2010, 5(1): 142-153.
[13]	WAN Junren. Ethics and ethicists in the modern context[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2009, 4(2): 227-237.
[14]	GUO Guichun. The methodological signifi cance of scientific metaphor[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2007, 2(3): 437-453.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed