解决当代诠释学的挑战

IF 0.1 Q4 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
George H. Taylor
{"title":"解决当代诠释学的挑战","authors":"George H. Taylor","doi":"10.5195/ERRS.2021.531","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Hermeneutics encounters three current challenges: by more quantitative orientations, by stances that reject pluralism, and by criticism that the hermeneutic field is elitist and esoteric.  The article offers a response through Ricœur. The hermeneutic “choice in favor of meaning” insists upon the ontological value of the human condition. It shows the insufficiency of the quantitative approach, the remaining value of pluralistic consideration of what human meaning entails, and the real world consequences of interpretation. Examples in Ricœur show how a hermeneutic choice in favor of meaning is not passive but instead reads texts with a particular orientation even when the text seems engaged in another project. The article’s final part undertakes an internal critique, raising the adequacy of Ricœur’s emphasis on meaning as an affirmation of “being.” The example of Buddhist insistence on “emptiness” is offered as one counterexample. The article concludes by arguing that in our contentious times hermeneutics confirms its contemporary vitality through its choice in favor of meaning even as it retains pluralistic consideration of what that meaning entails.","PeriodicalId":51981,"journal":{"name":"Etudes Ricoeuriennes-Ricoeur Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Addressing Contemporary Challenges to Hermeneutics\",\"authors\":\"George H. Taylor\",\"doi\":\"10.5195/ERRS.2021.531\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Hermeneutics encounters three current challenges: by more quantitative orientations, by stances that reject pluralism, and by criticism that the hermeneutic field is elitist and esoteric.  The article offers a response through Ricœur. The hermeneutic “choice in favor of meaning” insists upon the ontological value of the human condition. It shows the insufficiency of the quantitative approach, the remaining value of pluralistic consideration of what human meaning entails, and the real world consequences of interpretation. Examples in Ricœur show how a hermeneutic choice in favor of meaning is not passive but instead reads texts with a particular orientation even when the text seems engaged in another project. The article’s final part undertakes an internal critique, raising the adequacy of Ricœur’s emphasis on meaning as an affirmation of “being.” The example of Buddhist insistence on “emptiness” is offered as one counterexample. The article concludes by arguing that in our contentious times hermeneutics confirms its contemporary vitality through its choice in favor of meaning even as it retains pluralistic consideration of what that meaning entails.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51981,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Etudes Ricoeuriennes-Ricoeur Studies\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Etudes Ricoeuriennes-Ricoeur Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5195/ERRS.2021.531\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Etudes Ricoeuriennes-Ricoeur Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/ERRS.2021.531","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

解释学目前面临三个挑战:更多的定量取向,拒绝多元主义的立场,以及对解释学领域是精英主义和深奥主义的批评。本文通过Ricœur提供了答案。解释学的“选择有利于意义”坚持人类处境的本体论价值。它显示了定量方法的不足,对人类意义所需要的多元考虑的剩余价值,以及解释的现实世界后果。Ricœur中的例子表明,一个有利于意义的解释学选择不是被动的,而是以特定的方向阅读文本,即使文本似乎参与了另一个项目。文章的最后一部分进行了内部批判,提出Ricœur强调意义作为对“存在”的肯定的充分性。佛教坚持“空”的例子是一个反例。文章的结论是,在我们这个充满争议的时代,解释学通过选择支持意义来确认其当代活力,即使它保留了对意义所包含的多元考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Addressing Contemporary Challenges to Hermeneutics
Hermeneutics encounters three current challenges: by more quantitative orientations, by stances that reject pluralism, and by criticism that the hermeneutic field is elitist and esoteric.  The article offers a response through Ricœur. The hermeneutic “choice in favor of meaning” insists upon the ontological value of the human condition. It shows the insufficiency of the quantitative approach, the remaining value of pluralistic consideration of what human meaning entails, and the real world consequences of interpretation. Examples in Ricœur show how a hermeneutic choice in favor of meaning is not passive but instead reads texts with a particular orientation even when the text seems engaged in another project. The article’s final part undertakes an internal critique, raising the adequacy of Ricœur’s emphasis on meaning as an affirmation of “being.” The example of Buddhist insistence on “emptiness” is offered as one counterexample. The article concludes by arguing that in our contentious times hermeneutics confirms its contemporary vitality through its choice in favor of meaning even as it retains pluralistic consideration of what that meaning entails.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Etudes Ricoeuriennes-Ricoeur Studies
Etudes Ricoeuriennes-Ricoeur Studies SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
12 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:481959085
Book学术官方微信