چکیده:
The purpose of this paper is to look at four important aspects of Vandevelde’s criticisms of Gadamer. First is his position on Gadamer’s claim that his hermeneutics is a “philosophical hermeneutics” and not a methodology. Second is Vandevelde’s view of interpretation as necessarily going back to the author’s intention، and the status of the “mental state” of the author. Is it relevant to interpretation? Is it really accessible? Gadamer، because of his roots in Heidegger، offers a hermeneutics altogether free of intentionality. Third، while Vandevelde sees interpretation as an act of man، Gadamer sees understanding as an event that happens to the interpreter in which he or she participates. Finally، we shall consider the fundamentally different views of language in the two thinkers and the effect of this on their two views of interpretation. In this we find the basis for the many contrasts between the approaches of Vandevelde and Gadamer to interpretation.1
خلاصه ماشینی:
"By saying that, "Gadamer is the best example of a theoretician who takes interpretation exclusively as an event and declares the absurdity of a single right interpretation of a text," Vandevelde, as a matter of fact, wants to argue that not only Gadamer’s hermeneutics has no practical applications, no objective consequences, but also he 22.
"30 On the contrary, Gadamer asserts that, "The purpose of my investigation is not to offer a general theory of interpretation and a differential account of its methods (which Emilio Betti had done so well) but to discover what is 31 common to all modes of understanding.
Taking note of the key elements of Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics—mainly, the fusion of horizons, the dialectic of questioning and answering, and the play—shows that it is neither the interpreter who by using his/her particular method imposes to his/her prior category on the text nor the subjectivity of the author engraved on his/her text which are essential to grasp the meaning of a text, but it is the text that seizes and overpowers the reader, and in being read transforms him.
Like Betti and Hirsch, Vandevelde also considers language as a medium or a sophisticated means both for the author to manifest his intention and for the interpreter to recover the author’s intention.
When we consider Vandevelde and Gadamer, we are dealing with a person who sees the world in an old, subjectivistic modern way, and a person who is thinking in a new way about language, truth, texts, works of art, and finally about understanding and interpretation."