Wirkungsgeschichte and Background Metaphorics: A Reading of the Gadamer-Blumenberg Debate about Secularization

M. Ruta
{"title":"Wirkungsgeschichte and Background Metaphorics: A Reading of the Gadamer-Blumenberg Debate about Secularization","authors":"M. Ruta","doi":"10.25180/lj.v24i1.278","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this paper is twofold: firstly, it aims to analyze the philosophical debate between Gadamer and Blumenberg concerning the notion of secularization, which, in the author's view, has received less attention than it deserves; secondly, it intends thereby to shed light on an ontological ambiguity in Gadamer's hermeneutics, unintentionally detected by Blumenberg in his reply to Gadamer's review of The Legitimacy of the Modern Age. The importance of the paper is both historical-philosophical and theoretical: it spells out different aspects of a philosophical discussion whose relevance concern not only the secularization debate, but more generally the philosophy of history and the role of metaphors in understanding. The most relevant original contribution consists in the usage of Blumenberg's notion of background metaphorics as a tool for interpreting the role of the notion of history of effects in Gadamer's hermeneutics.","PeriodicalId":32193,"journal":{"name":"Labyrinth An International Journal for Philosophy Value Theory and Sociocultural Hermeneutics","volume":"43 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Labyrinth An International Journal for Philosophy Value Theory and Sociocultural Hermeneutics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25180/lj.v24i1.278","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is twofold: firstly, it aims to analyze the philosophical debate between Gadamer and Blumenberg concerning the notion of secularization, which, in the author's view, has received less attention than it deserves; secondly, it intends thereby to shed light on an ontological ambiguity in Gadamer's hermeneutics, unintentionally detected by Blumenberg in his reply to Gadamer's review of The Legitimacy of the Modern Age. The importance of the paper is both historical-philosophical and theoretical: it spells out different aspects of a philosophical discussion whose relevance concern not only the secularization debate, but more generally the philosophy of history and the role of metaphors in understanding. The most relevant original contribution consists in the usage of Blumenberg's notion of background metaphorics as a tool for interpreting the role of the notion of history of effects in Gadamer's hermeneutics.
本文的目的有两个:第一,分析伽达默尔和布鲁门伯格之间关于世俗化概念的哲学争论,在作者看来,这一争论没有得到应有的重视;其次,它打算借此阐明伽达默尔解释学中的本体论歧义,这是布卢门伯格在回答伽达默尔对《现代的合法性》的评论时无意中发现的。这篇论文的重要性既是历史哲学的,也是理论的:它阐明了哲学讨论的不同方面,其相关性不仅涉及世俗化辩论,而且更广泛地涉及历史哲学和隐喻在理解中的作用。最相关的原创性贡献在于使用布鲁门伯格的背景隐喻概念作为解释伽达默尔解释学中影响史概念的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
19 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书