چکیده:
Methodology and determining the appropriate method or methods for solving problems in the humanities is a subject of intense challenge and controversy. Various methods for these sciences have been proposed by thinkers in this field. Proponents of the interpretive school in the West consider the goal of the humanities to be achieving an understanding of human behaviors. While rejecting the causal explanation method used in the empirical sciences, they consider the interpretive method to be the only valid method in the humanities for achieving an understanding of the meaning of human volitional behaviors. The goal of this research is to explain and critically review the efficiency of the interpretive method in the humanities through rational analysis. The interpretive method is a way for empathy and an attempt to enter within the human being and look from their perspective to understand the meaning of human volitional behaviors. The hypotheses obtained from this method, in addition to internal coherence and harmony, must be confirmed by empirical evidence. The interpretive method is specific to descriptive humanities. Examining the nature of the interpretive method leads us to the conclusion that this method only addresses a limited portion of descriptive humanities topics and, due to the impossibility of achieving certainty in understanding human volitional phenomena on one hand, and the inability to provide general and common laws on the other, it leads to cultural relativism. The interpretive method, despite its ability to pose new questions in the humanities and its influential role in implementing the recommendations of prescriptive humanities, is inefficient on its own in solving the problems of the humanities and can only play a role as a specific method alongside valid methods in the humanities.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Investigating the nature of the Verstehen method leads us to the conclusion that this method only deals with a limited portion of descriptive human science topics and, due to the impossibility of attaining certainty in understanding human voluntary phenomena on one hand, and the inability to provide general and common laws on the other, it ends in cultural relativity.
The Nature of the Understanding Method With the clarification of the interpretive school's view regarding the human sciences, this important question arises: with what method can one find a way into the inner world of the human mind and then, based on their cognitive and ideological backgrounds, perceive the meaning of human actions and make them understandable?
Therefore, the understanding method means finding a way into the inner world of a human being or a society through empathy; in other words, a social science scientist cannot merely be an external observer of human actions; rather, they must practically enter the individual or social life of the human being and, through active participation via empathy, reach the depth of the insights and values governing the individual or society, so that they can grasp the purposes and meanings of human behaviors and make them understandable (see: Eftekhari, 2009, p.
For this reason, the proponents of the interpretive school, who accept only the understanding method in human sciences, not only acknowledge this matter but also consider cultural relativism and the rejection of any value judgment as part of their foundations.
(
, 
, 
)
