英文摘要 |
In this paper I study retrospectively the debate between philosophical hermeneutics of Hans-Georg Gadamer on the one hand and the critique of ideology or critical theory on the other hand. As regard to a new approach in the methodology of social sciences, Karl-Otto Apel and Jürgen Habermas, who are two most important representatives of the latter camp, take a different way from that of hermeneutics. Although this debate happened in the later 60s and early 70s, its effects last till the whole 80s, and even the philosophical discussions today are still under its inspirations. In Gadamer's hermeneutics, the great traditions are revitalized again through our interpretive participation, which serves itself as a part of traditions and even uphold actively in their continuation. Gadamer tends to keep the good things going on for us rather than to put them under severe examination. The traditional values could be transmitted and conveyed into the present in living dialogues, with respect to the continuity of history in this way. But the critical theorists of younger generation appreciate this conservative approach very little. Their early attacks on Gadamer show their further development toward a intersubjectively more interactive communication theory, which steps progressively on a post-conventional level, and can therefore fulfill their social task better and more confidently. In the final part, I introduce the French philosopher Paul Ricoeur as a very qualified mediator between the two parties, although his own thought counts as a new version of hermeneutics too. His critique of Gadamer's 'hermeneutics of recollection' makes some convincing points from the side of critique of ideology on Gadamer even more acceptable. Ricoeur concludes that the cultural tradition and the critique of ideology are not to be treated separately. A conclusion that Gadamer will finally agree, either. |