In the Phenomenology of Spirit, chapter IV, Hegel attempts to show how consciousness becomes self-consciousness. Self-consciousness manifests itself both as the ground on which it makes its object opposite to itself, and as a higher truth by demolishing the otherness of its object in order to preserve it for self-consciousness. Since it presupposes itself as the inner truth (or ground) it realizes itself both as the origin and the aim of desire. In other words, by virtue of presupposing its identity (...) in its dissolution, self-consciousness desires to re-constitute the unity with itself. Therefore, it grasps everything else as a negative object of desire in advance. That is to say, its appearance seems to be an ‘obstacle’ before its satisfaction. However, through experience of negating, self-consciousness learns that its object is also a ‘means’ (i.e., has truth or positive aspect) for its end point. It realizes this latter aspect of its object especially when it is faced with another self-consciousness. At this level, self-consciousness comes to see that there is a counter-balance of opposing powers between itself and the other self-consciousness. This counter-balance leads both self-consciousness to a mutual recognition and, then satisfaction of mutual desires. Therefore, since both the origin and the aim of desire is self-consciousness itself, it (self-consciousness) grasps itself as the positive (real) object of desire and then discerns in the mutual recognition the positive aspect of another which was taken as a negative element before. The satisfaction of desire begins with realizing this positive aspect of another self-consciousness. (shrink)

After the publication of Wahrheit und Methode in 1960, Hans-Georg Gadamer, a celebrated student of Martin Heidegger, received rapidly a worldwide response for his intellectual genius by fusing different philosophical horizons into a coherent and rational perspective which he calls ‘philosophical hermeneutics.’ In his attempt to construct philosophical hermeneutics, Gadamer criticizes historicism, romantic hermeneutics and modern subjectivism since they disregard ontological structure of historical understanding. By claiming that prejudgment (or fore-understanding) is the basis for a genuine understanding, he contends that (...) we can overcome false prejudgment only by having recourse to the subject matter of the texts and by understanding texts on the model of dialogue which happens between the partners questioning themselves on the basis of a subject (sache). For him, understanding oneself and others happens as an event of dialogue simply because understanding takes place within the world of language. Language gets concretized and temporalized by the give and take of words. In other words, language is not a mere system of signs, but rather is uncoveredness of beings and the way within which human Dasein realizes himself. Since historical tradition which supports every event of understanding discloses itself only within language and language is a matter of sharing and participating, understanding is historical and temporal. Here the words “historicity” and “temporality” do not refer merely to “being in the history and time.” This is to approach the event of understanding from chronological and universal notion of time. Historicity and temporality are basically the distinctiveness of disclosedness of beings. Philosophical thoughts, scientific theses, trends which effect the course of history constitute the historicity of understanding by creating a sort of discontinuity in the continuity of history. Hence historicity is the basis for the formation of fore understanding and prejudgment. Philosophical hermeneutics tries to show how the continuity of history and traditions occurs through discontinuity (historicity) of understanding. (shrink)

Globalization process through which our individual and societal relations turn out to be parts of world-wide network of power relations has transformed the meaning of the notion ‘dialogue’ dramatically. For discerning better this dramatic transformation, we should focus on the historical meanings of the notion ‘dialogue’. In ancient philosophical texts, such as Plato’s works, dialogue appears to have two different dimensions: 1) conversation of human soul with itself; 2) conversation between human beings toward a common purpose. In each case, this (...) notion refers basically to incompleteness and shortcomings of human knowledge and intellect regarding universal truth. Upon this basis, it signifies that ‘having a purposeful conversation with others’ is being on the way toward universal truth. (shrink)

The dissertation shows that the arguments advanced by E. D. Hirsch for authorial intention as the criterion of interpretation do not provide a basis for validity in interpretation because the subject-object ontology underlying those arguments is incompatible with the idea of the identity of a text's meaning. The dissertation argues that, inasmuch as Hirsch's model of interpretation presupposes the total separation of meaning and significance and restricts the meaning of the text to the author's intention, it establishes an insurmountable gap (...) between text and interpreter. This dissertation will attempt to show that H.-G. Gadamer's approach to interpretation succeeds where Hirsch's fails in providing a basis for a legitimate and true interpretation. ;For Gadamer, we can only understand a text by assuming that we share a common linguistic horizon. The horizon itself, however, is grounded in the ontological features of the subject-matter of the text. These ontological features, he maintains, manifest themselves in the dialogical character of language and provide a transcendental ground for the possibility of giving a true interpretation of a text. The meaning of a text thus retains an identity, in Gadamer's view, but it is also capable of assuming an indefinite variety of finite expressions for its content. Gadamer accordingly argues that the meaning of a text cannot be legitimately equated with the intentions of its author. ;In Chapter One, the problem of relativity and objectivity in interpretation is presented. In this context, the problem of method and subject-object ontology is discussed. Chapter Two turns to the problem of the identification of meaning with authorial intention. The intentionalist approaches of Knapp, Michaels, Juhl, and Hirsch are criticized. It also delineates Gadamer's approach to the identification of the author. In Chapter Three, the problem of textual identity is discussed in terms of Hirsch's and E. Betti's distinction between meaning and significance. After presenting the dynamic identity of the text in Gadamer, it is argued that textual identity reveals itself in the truth-claim of the text. Chapter Four attempts to articulate how the ontological characteristics of textual meaning can, as Gadamer argues, provide a basis for truthfulness in interpretation. (shrink)