Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 21


Brent Madison
Saulius Geniusas
New School University
De!rt"ent o# $hilosohy
Gr!%&!te '!c&lty o# $olitic!l !n% Soci!l Sciences
New (or) N( *+++,
-el.: /0*01 002 37 +7
'!4: /0*01 5+7 *6 62
Altho&7h G!%!"er8s her"ene&tics h!s s&##ere% !tt!c)s #ro" ! n&"9er o#
hilosohic!l ersectives: the ro#&sion o# criticis"s sel%o" constit&tes new ch!llen7es
!n% #or the "ost !rt is ! reiter!tion o# two see"in7ly oosite cl!i"s. On the one h!n%:
we o#ten he!r th!t G!%!"er8s her"ene&tics is "erely ! %is7&ise% 9r!n% o# the
;hilosohy o# the s&9<ect= which &n%er the rete4t o# oenness re%&ces the Other to the
sel#. On the other h!n%: it is <&st !s o#ten cl!i"e% th!t G!%!"er8s writin7s #!ll into the
c!te7ory o# the ;her"ene&tics o# the #&n%!"ent!l >&estions= !n% there#ore they c!nnot
!cco&nt #or the sel#hoo% o# the sel#. -!)in7 !s its #oc&s the the"e o# the oneness o# the
her"ene&tic!l hori?on/s1: this !er !r7&es th!t this the"e c!rries no he7e"onic or
essenti!list connot!tions. @!ther: ! c!re#&l !n!lysis: which !ccent&!tes the ne7!tive !n%
the %i!lectic!l ele"ents o# the oneness o# hori?ons !n% the #!ct th!t this the"e is #or
G!%!"er 9oth ! res&osition !n% !n !chieve"ent: reve!ls the shortco"in7s o# 9oth
criti>&es. In the #in!l !n!lysis: the oneness o# the hori?on/s1 is the %i!lo7&e th!t we
o&rselves !re. Seci!l !ttention is 7r!nte% to @ich!r% Ke!rney8s criti>&e o# G!%!"er: to
G!%!"er8s criti>&e o# the inco""ens&r!9ilist st!nce: !n% to the relev!nce o# G!%!"er8s
her"ene&tics in the conte4t o# to%!y8s socioAolitic!l concerns.
KB( WO@DS: c&lt&r!l inco""ens&r!9ility: %i!lo7&e: #&sion o# hori?ons:
her"ene&tic circle: history o# e##ect: iseity/!lterity: oenness: >&estion/!nswer lo7ic:
tyes o# her"ene&tics.
From the very first page of -r&th !n% Metho% onwards, Gadamer speaks of the
heno"enon o# &n%erst!n%in7 as the her"ene&tic!l ro9le", while in one of its best-
known definitions, understanding is said to be the fusion of the horizons supposedly
existing by themselves
!t is therefore hard to overestimate the signifi"an"e of the
fusion of the horizons for Gadamer#s hermeneuti"s, sin"e it gives an answer to the heart
of the hermeneuti"al problem
% the &uestion "on"erning the relationship between the
parti"ular and the universal 'hile !lic!tion of the universal to the parti"ular is said to
be the centr!l her"ene&tic!l ro9le", understanding is "hara"terized as a spe"ial "ase of
applying something universal to a parti"ular situation
)lthough Gadamer repeatedly
tells us that appli"ation is never to be taken in a te"hni"al and hegemoni" sense, that it is
essentially dialogi"al and open-ended, his hermeneuti"al analysis of universality and
parti"ularity has led to a number of misunderstandings and mispla"ed "riti"isms
Gadamer#s hermeneuti"s is often "hara"terized as hegemoni" and often "riti"ized
for being in"apable of a""ounting for genuine alterity !t is often "laimed that the
sublation of the other, whi"h the fusion of the horizons a"hieves, does not preserve but
rather eradi"ates otherness* that in the "ontext of "ontemporary so"ial "on"erns the
hermeneuti" model is not "apable of hearing what the other a"tually says +hus, ,obert
-ernas"oni "riti"izes Gadamer for not being able to offer an a""ount of a "ommon
experien"e, whi"h "an be summarized in the following phrase. /ou "annot be yourself
and understand me +his is what women say to men, the poor to the ri"h, the vi"tim to
the oppressor, the target of ra"ism to the ra"ist
)""ording to -ernas"oni, this is the
so"iopoliti"al framework that Gadamer prefers to ignore 1oreover, these are the
obsta"les that "annot be over"ome by Gadamer#s hermeneuti"al strategy
G)2)13,, 4ans-Georg -r&th !n% Metho% +rans by 5oel 'einsheimer and 2onald G
1arshall 6ew /ork, $77(, p (78
G)2)13,, footnote 1, p (1$
G)2)13,, footnote 1, p (1$
9ee -3,6)9:;6!, ,obert </ou 2o 6ot =now 'hat ! )m +alking )bout#. )lterity and the
4ermeneuti"al !deal !n -he Secter o# @el!tivis": -r&th: Di!lo7&e: !n% $hronesis in $hilosohic!l
Cer"ene&tics 3d by >awren"e 9"hmidt 3vanston, 1??@, p 1AB%1?@
-ut on what basis is one to "laim that the often-en"ountered indifferen"e to the
other Cand to the selfD reveals a concet&!l i"ossi9ility of genuine "onta"t between
ipseity and alterityE 'ho is this ! myself, devoid of any ossi9le "hange and any
genuine "onta"t with othersE 'ho is this you yourself, who 9y %e#inition "an never
understand meE )re the implied "on"eptions of selfhood and otherness by -ernas"oni
not, as Gadamer would argue, a kind of ,obinson :rusoe dreamE
+o distan"e the other
from the self by abolishing any "onta"t between them % does this path lead us to an
a""urate understanding of genuine othernessE
/ou "annot be yourself and understand me % "ontra -ernas"oni, it is pre"isely
within this "ontext that one experien"es the full signifi"an"e of Gadamer#s hermeneuti"s
;ne "annot rest "ontent with the "ommon so"iopoliti"al experien"es of not being heard,
of ignoring the other#s "laim, or of overpowering the other under the pretext of openness
Gadamer#s unveiling of the presuppositions whi"h underlie the in"ommensurabilist
stan"e and the normative for"e of his emphasis on openness in our "onta"t with the other
gain their full for"e in these and similar experien"es 4en"e the ne"essity to dis"over the
self in the other and the other in the self, whi"h the fusion of the horizons aims to
Gadamer#s fusion of the horizons reveals a distin"t stan"e in regard to the relation
between ipseity and alterity 4owever, the very fa"t that this fusion is des"ribed in su"h
an ambiguous manner % as the fusion of horizons s&ose%ly e4istin7 9y the"selves % has
made it easy to miss the "ru"ial features of his position 'hy does Gadamer
simultaneously speak of the oneness and the multipli"ity of horizonsE 'hy is he relu"tant
to tell us whether there are many horizons or Fust oneE )nd if the latter is the "ase, are we
still Fustified in "alling his hermeneuti"s dialogi"alE
'ith these &uestions in mind, ! want to address ,i"hard =earney#s "riti&ue of
Gadamer, whi"h he unfolds while a""entuating the spe"ifi"ity of Gaul ,i"oeur#s
1aking -r&th !n% Metho% vulnerable to those dangers whi"h =earney
sees present in Gadamer#s dis"ussion of the fusion of the horizons will "onstitute the
9ee G)2)13,, footnote 1, p (70
9ee =3),63/, ,i"hard -etween ;neself and )nother. Gaul ,i"oeur#s 2ia"riti"al
4ermeneuti"s !n Detween S&sicion !n% Sy"!thy: $!&l @icoe&r8s Unst!9le B>&ili9ri&" 3d by )ndrzeF
'ier"inski +oronto, $77(, p 10?%181
detour and the "onfrontation through whi"h ! aim to unfold the relevan"e and the limits of
the oneness of the hermeneuti"al horizonCsD
!n -etween ;neself and )nother. Gaul ,i"oeur#s 2ia"riti"al 4ermeneuti"s,
,i"hard =earney presents the relation between self and other as the "entral hermeneuti"al
problem )""ording to =earney, there are three paradigmati" ways for the relation
between ipseity and alterity to be dealt with and therefore hermeneuti"s itself "an be
divided into three types. ro"!ntic, r!%ic!l, and %i!critic!l 9"hleierma"her, 2ilthey, and,
surprisingly, Gadamer are said to be the "entral figures of romanti" hermeneuti"s,
"hara"terized by the attempt to unite the self and the other in the event of appropriation
)t the other extreme, :aputo#s radi"al hermeneuti"s reFe"ts the model of appropriation
and addresses the unmediated and sublime nature of alterity, invoking an irredu"ible
dissymmetry between self and other !n between these positions lies dia"riti"al
hermeneuti"s, inspired by ,i"oeur, whi"h obviates both the "ongenial "ommunion of
fused horizons and the apo"alypti" rupture of non-"ommunion
, while exploring the
inter-"ommunion of distin"t but not in"omparable selves
'ithin this typology, one en"ounters the spe"ifi"ity of ,i"oeur#s hermeneuti"s in
how it deals with what =earney terms today#s "hallenge % that of a"knowledging a
differen"e between self and other while avoiding a s"hismati" division whi"h would not
allow any relation between them !n "ontrast to the mainstream metaphysi"al tradition
whi"h largely ignores the &uestion of the ;ther, and in "ontrast to some postmodern
thinkers who externalize alterity to the point that there "an be no "ommuni"ation between
self and other, the "entral task of ,i"oeur#s hermeneuti"s is that of building paths
between the worlds of !&tos and heteros=, of "harting a "ourse between the extremes of
tautology and heterology
2ia"riti"al hermeneuti"s dis"overs the other in the self and
the self in the other* it supplements the "riti&ue of the self with the "riti&ue of the other*
its task is that of making the foreign more familiar and the familiar more foreign !t
distinguishes between different kinds of selves and others C6ot all <selves# are evil and
not all <others# are angeli"
D, while refusing to a""ept the ex"esses of mainstream
=3),63/, footnote 8, p 1@@
=3),63/, footnote 8, p 1@7
=3),63/, footnote 8, p 1@7
metaphysi"s and postmodernism +hus, ,i"oeur#s works are not representative of
modern philosophi"al refle"tion, whi"h has been "entered on the subFe"t* nor does it
share the postmodern fixation on ;therness ,i"oeur#s hermeneuti"s offers new ways
of interpreting oneself in terms of otherness
6o matter how sket"hy =earney#s "riti&ue of Gadamer is, let us attend to it in
more detail Gadamer is grouped together with 9"hleierma"her and 2ilthey be"ause the
purpose of all three is to unite the "ons"iousness of one subFe"t with that of the other

=earney labels this approa"h hermeneuti"s of appropriation while emphasizing the

meaning of the German Anei7n&n7 % be"oming one with 9in"e be"oming one
presupposes a more original differen"e, =earney is "riti"al of this style of hermeneuti"s
be"ause, supposedly, it ignores what it presupposes % the otherness of the other % as it
re"overs some lost original "ons"iousness by way of rendering what is past
"ontemporaneous with the present
+his is how =earney interprets Gadamer#s
re"on"iliation of our own understanding and that of strangers in the fusion of the
1y analysis of this "riti&ue will follow three steps First, ! shall show how distant
=earney#s dissatisfa"tion with Gadamer is from Gadamer#s hermeneuti"s 4owever, even
though this distan"e is apparent to anyone who has listened to what Gadamer a"tually had
to say, the true "hallenge of =earney#s "riti&ue lies in the fa"t that it finds textual support
+hus, se"ondly, ! will bring to light the textual basis of =earney#s position and in this way
point to "ertain ambiguities present in -r&th !n% Metho% Finally, it will remain for me to
address these ambiguities dire"tly, showing how Gadamer#s text is "apable of
over"oming them
6either =earney#s "laim that Gadamer is a proponent of romanti" hermeneuti"s,
nor the way he presents Gadamer#s position as a hermeneuti"s of appropriation fits
Gadamer#s texts +he "laim that Gadamer#s hermeneuti"s is a ,omanti" proFe"t ignores
two "entral features whi"h distan"e Gadamer from both 9"hleierma"her and 2ilthey
Gadamer#s hermeneuti"s springs out of the reFe"tion of two distin"tive elements of
,omanti" hermeneuti"s % of a "ertain sycholo7is" and o9<ectivis", whi"h Gadamer
finds present in both 9"hleierma"her and 2ilthey $sycholo7is" "an be "hara"terized by
=3),63/, footnote 8, p 1@0%1@@
=3),63/, footnote 8, p 1@@
two interrelated "laims. C1D the goal of interpretation is to tra"e the path from the textual
expression to that originary experien"e whi"h "an "hara"terize the inner life of the author*
C$D the meaning of the text is fixed by the intention of the author O9<ectivis" "an be
"hara"terized by two interrelated "laims as well. C1D the intention of the author provides
the text with a #i4e% obFe"t whi"h serves as a "ondition of possibility of interpretation#s
o9<ectivity* C$D interpretation must follow "ertain rules so that it "an be rigorously
methodologi"al, and therefore obFe"tive Gadamer embra"es two themes whi"h were of
"entral signifi"an"e to both 9"hleierma"her and 2ilthey % the universality of the
hermeneuti" problem and the hermeneuti" "ir"le 4owever, he does not a""ept these
themes blindly, but rather offers their reinterpretation
+hus, even though Gadamer#s
reFe"tion of psy"hologism and obFe"tivism does not mean a single-handed reFe"tion of the
prin"iples and "on"erns of romanti" hermeneuti"s, it does signify a "ru"ial distan"e
between Gadamer and the ,omanti"s, whi"h dire"tly "ontradi"ts and "hallenges
=earney#s assertions
=earney#s des"ription of Gadamer#s hermeneuti"s as a hermeneuti"s of
appropriation is surprising in respe"t to -r&th !n% Metho%, sin"e this a""usation dire"tly
e"hoes Gadamer#s "riti&ue of 4egel -eing fully aware that 4egel#s "on"erns overlap
with those of hermeneuti"s % both are "on"erned with the fusion of the present and
history % Gadamer distan"es himself from 4egel by "laiming that the basis of
hermeneuti"s is not an absolute mediation of history and truth* that the fusion of the
horizons is not a fusion of the whole past in the present* that understanding is not an
abolition of finiteness in the infinity of knowledge :ontra =earney, Gadamer#s
hermeneuti"s does not signify the abolition of otherness in the fusion of the horizons, for
even though Gadamer a"knowledges 4egel#s logi"al superiority over his "riti"s, the
arguments of refle"tive philosophy "annot ultimately obs"ure the fa"t that there is some
truth in the "riti&ue of spe"ulative thought based on the standpoint of finite human
+he ultimate truth of the "riti"s of spe"ulative thought lies in the
realization that otherness is never abolished in the hermeneuti" fusion of the horizons. )s
For an elegant overview of those themes whi"h link the twentieth-"entury hermeneuti"s to the
romanti" hermeneuti"s and those elements whi"h distan"e them from ea"h other, see '39+G4)>, 1erold
4ermeneuti"al Finitude from 9"hleierma"her to 2errida !n Detween the C&"!n !n% the Divine:
$hilosohic!l !n% -heolo7ic!l Cer"ene&tics +oronto, $77$, p @7%88
G)2)13,, footnote 1, p (00
Gadamer provo"atively tells us, we understand only if we understand differently +he
worry about the abolition of otherness is Fust as signifi"ant to Gadamer as it is to
=earney +hus, Gadamer writes that there "onstantly arises the danger of <appropriating#
the other person in one#s own understanding and thereby failing to re"ognize his or her
* !t is "onstantly ne"essary to guard against overhastily assimilating the past
to our own expe"tations of meaning
!n short, =earney#s labeling of Gadamer#s
hermeneuti"s as hermeneuti"s of appropriation is Fust as unFustified in the fa"e of
Gadamer#s work as is his "laim that Gadamer#s hermeneuti"s is a ,omanti" proFe"t
1oreover, =earney#s typology of hermeneuti" styles, by introdu"ing a la"una
between Gadamer and ,i"oeur, is hardly Fustified not only in regard to Gadamer#s, but
also in regard to ,i"oeur#s works !n his "on"lusion to Interret!tion -heory, ,i"oeur
addresses some mis"on"eptions of what he terms hermeneuti" appropriation, "hief
among whi"h are the assertions that C1D appropriation is a return to the ,omanti"ist "laim
to a "ongenial "oin"iden"e with the genius of the author, and C$D the hermeneuti" task
is the understanding of the original addressee of the text ,i"oeur turns for support to
Gadamer while addressing these mis"on"eptions ,i"oeur "laims that Gadamer has
already shown why the se"ond mis"on"eption is flawed. the letters of Gaul are no less
addressed to me than to the ,omans, the Galatians, the :orinthians, and the 3phesians

,i"oeur#s repudiation of the first mis"on"eption is more signifi"ant in the present "ontext.
appropriation has nothing to do with any kind of person to person appeal !t is instead
"lose to what Gadamer "alls a fusion of horizons. the world horizon of the reader is fused
with the world horizon of the writer )nd the ideality of the text is the mediating link in
this pro"ess of horizon fusing

=earney#s "riti&ue of Gadamer does not a""ount for how ,i"oeur#s hermeneuti"s
is related to Gadamer#s -ut more importantly, this "riti&ue violates -r&th !n% Metho% so
strongly, that it is hard to see the reasons that motivate =earney#s a""usations 4owever,
only if these reasons are re"onstru"ted "an =earney#s text "onstitute a true "hallenge and
provoke one to revisit some tensions in -r&th !n% Metho%
G)2)13,, footnote 1, p $??
G)2)13,, footnote 1, p (7@
,!:;3H,, Gaul Interret!tion -heory: Disco&rse !n% the S&rl&s o# Me!nin7 Fort 'orth,
1?A8, p ?(
,!:;3H,, footnote 18, p ?(
=earney#s position seems less surprising in the fa"e of the following passage from
-r&th !n% Metho%.
4istori"al "ons"iousness is aware of its own otherness and hen"e foregrounds the
horizon of the past from its own ;n the other hand, it is itselfIonly something
superimposed upon "ontinuing tradition, and hen"e it immediately re"ombines
with what it has foregrounded itself from in order to be"ome one with itself again
in the unity of the histori"al horizon that it thus a"&uires

+his a""ounts or, as will soon be"ome apparent, this !sect of the fusions of the
horizons strengthens =earney#s a""usations !f the otherness of the other is proFe"ted only
so that it "an be immediately re"on&uered in the unity of the horizon, are we dealing with
true othernessE )s Gadamer goes on to tell us, !n the pro"ess of understanding, a real
fusing of horizons o""urs % whi"h means that as the histori"al horizon is proFe"ted, it is
simulaneously superseded
!f the otherness appears only so that it "an be superseded,
ie, !9olishe%, and moreover, if -r&th !n% Metho% invites us to a"knowledge that this
abolition should be i""e%i!te, is one Fustified in "alling Gadamer#s hermeneuti"s the
hermeneuti"s of openessE !t seems that the very se"ond one a"&uires the "onditions for
the appearan"e of otherness, Gadamer eradi"ates them in the true fusion of the
horizons -ut if this is the "ase, what at the outset seemed to be a philosophy of
openness, now manifests itself as a hermeneuti"s of violen"e ;r so =earney#s "riti&ue of
Gadamer seems to suggest
+hese are the impli"ations of =earney#s "riti&ue. 'hat at the outset appears to be
a fusion of sameness and otherness, in truth is a proFe"tion of sameness* what at the
outset appears to be openess to the other, in truth is a suppression of otherness =earney#s
a""usations dire"ted at Gadamer e"ho in the "ontext of today#s widespread and rapidly
growing "on"ern that so"ial and politi"al intera"tions only hide behind the rhetori" of
openness the suppression and even abolition of otherness =earney#s a""usations, if
"orre"t, would render Gadamer#s hermeneuti"s impotent in the "ontext of today#s so"ial
and politi"al dangers -ut do the problems that a""ompany the unpre"edented intera"tion
G)2)13,, footnote 1, p (78
G)2)13,, footnote 1, p (7A
on a global s"ale point to the powerlessness of Gadamer#s hermeneuti"s, or do they, on
the "ontrary, reveal the strength of his stan"eE
>et us ask. 'hat enables Gadamer to speak of overtaking the past "ons"iousness
in the present horizon of understanding
, of immediately re"ombining with otherness
and of superseding the proFe"ted histori"al horizonE
+he re"on"iliation that the fusion of
the horizons brings forth presupposes the oneness !n% &nity o# the hori?on as the
possibility of the hermeneuti" intera"tion )lthough it might seem that the fusion of the
horizons presupposes an original differen"e between them, Gadamer repeatedly insists
that a non-diale"ti"al understanding of differen"e does not do Fusti"e to the hermeneuti"
phenomenon 4e writes.
'hen our histori"al "ons"iousness transposes itself into histori"al horizons, this does
not entail passing into alien worlds un"onne"ted in any way with our own* instead,
they together "onstitute the one great horizon that moves from within

Hnderstanding is always the fusion of the horizons supposedly existing by themselves


+his is the ultimate provo"ation that =earney offers. we are to a""ount for the
oneness of the horizon =earney#s "hallenge boils down to two interrelated &uestions. C1D
'hy does Gadamer speak of the oneness of the horizonE C$D 4ow is this oneness to be
understood in the "ontext of -r&th !n% Metho%E
+wo interrelated &ualifi"ations render =earney#s "riti&ue &uestionable. C1D in
Gadamer, the meaning of the oneness of the horizons is essentially ne7!tive* C$D
Gadamer#s a""ount of oneness is %i!lectic!l !f nothing linked the horizons of ipseity and
alterity, understanding would involve an empatheti" transposition from the self to the
other 1overover, a suspension of all our presuppositions and an abandonment of all our
truths and beliefs would be a ne"essary re&uirement for understanding otherness +his,
however, is exa"tly the position whi"h is relentlessly "riti"ized by Gadamer )s he
repeatedly tells us, transposing ourselves "onsists neither in the empathy of one
individual for another nor in subordinating another person to our own standards* rather, it
9ee G)2)13,, footnote 1, p (7A
9ee G)2)13,, footnote 1, p (78
9ee G)2)13,, footnote 1, p (7A
G)2)13,, footnote 1, p (70
G)2)13,, footnote 1, p (78
always involves rising to a higher universality that over"omes not only our own
parti"ularity but also that of the other
-here !re no close% hori?ons % su"h is the
minimal re&uirement of Gadamer#s a""ount of understanding +he oneness of the horizon
is the expression Gadamer "hooses to make this re&uirement expli"it +herefore,
Gadamer#s a""ount of the oneness of the horizon is essentially ne7!tive, sin"e all it says
about the relation between self and other is that they are never so distant that they "annot
enter into dialogue with ea"h other !n short, no self and no other is in prin"iple beyond
dialogue, beyond understanding
+his negative &ualifi"ation is "losely linked to Gadamer#s %i!lectic!l a""ount of
the oneness of the horizon Gadamer des"ribes understanding as the fusion of horizons
whi"h s&ose%ly e4ist 9y the"selves 4e is relu"tant to tell us whether there is one or
many horizons, sin"e it is one of the leading ambitions of his hermeneuti"s to over"ome
what he sees as a false opposition between oneness and multipli"ity Gadamer#s
interpretation of the fusion of the horizons is diale"ti"al through and through, for it aims
to show that the one is ultimately multiple, and that multipli"ity is ultimately one +his is
the 4egelian ba"kground of Gadamer#s fusions of the horizons
4egel#s diale"ti"al a""ount of identity and differen"e mo"ks the proponents of
pure identity. if someone promises to tea"h me what God is, he wrote, but only informs
me that God is God, my expe"tations are "heated !n 4egel#s time, the over"oming of
abstra"t identity was, arguably, more signifi"ant than the abandoment of pure differen"e,
or so the "riti"s of modernity#s obsession with the subFe"t persistently suggest ;ur age
seems to suffer from the other extreme. !t is obsessed with s"hismati"ally separating the
other from the self, with, as =earney has it, externalizing the "ategory of alterity to the
point that any "onta"t with the self sma"ks of betrayal or "ontamination
Following in
the footsteps of 4egel, Gadamer#s hermeneuti"s reveals the fi"tionality of the
in"ommensurable differen"e.
)re there su"h things as "losed horizonsEI;r is this a romanti" refra"tion, a kind of
,obinson :rusoe dream of histori"al enlightenment, the fi"tion of an unattainable
island, as artifi"ial as :rusoe himselfE 5ust as the individual is never simply an
G)2)13,, footnote 1, p (7@
=3),63/, footnote 8, p 10?
individual be"ause he is always in understanding with others, so too the "losed
horizon that is supposed to en"lose a "ulture is an abstra"tion

) diale"ti" of oneness and differen"e is one of the "entral hermeneuti"

pre"onditions, sin"e it reveals the meaning of the hermeneuti" belonging, of the
"ommonality of the enabling preFudi"es 4ermeneuti"s starts from the presupposition that
a bond links the interpreter to the interpreted +his presupposition does not signify the
abolition of the other ;n the "ontrary, it is the "ondition of possibility for the appearan"e
of otherness +hus hermeneuti"s is based on a polarity of familiarity and strangenessI
J+he tensionK is in the play between the traditionary text#s strangeness and familiarity to
usI -he tr&e loc&s o# her"ene&tics is this inA9etween

9u"h, then, is the meaning of Gadamer#s negative and diale"ti"al a""ount of the
oneness of the horizon. 6o horizons are in"ommensurable, sin"e dialogue, in prin"iple,
has no limitations )lthough ea"h and every dialogue runs the risk of not rea"hing out to
the other and beyond the rhetori" of openness merely subordinating otherness to the
interpreter#s "laim, it is always possibile to re"ognize these limitations Gadamer#s open-
ended diale"ti" is "on"erned with making these limitations expli"it, as his "riti&ue of
4egel shows 1oreover, the very fa"t that, while being "riti"al of 4egel, Gadamer does
not share the anti-4egelian sentiment and does not distan"e otherness from the self to the
point that there is no "ommuni"ation between them, indi"ates not the weakness, but the
strength of his hermeneuti"s in the "ontext of the present so"ial "on"erns For if =earney
is right in "hara"terizing today#s "hallenge as that of respe"ting the spe"ifi"ity of the other
while not s"hismati"ally dividing the other from the self, Gadamer#s hermeneuti"s, as the
next se"tion will show, offers the ne"essary resour"es to address this "hallenge seriously
Gadamer#s hermeneuti"s over"omes the short"omings of the in"ommensurabilist
stan"e, seen often as the only tolerant and respe"ful attitude in regard to the ;ther -y not
a"knowledging any bond between different "ultures, languages, or subFe"tivities, no
matter how nameless this bond "an be, this stan"e, Gadamer#s hermeneuti"s suggests,
hides behind the surfa"e an in%i##erence to otherness ;nly if there is a bond between the
other and the self, only if the fusion of the horizons presupposes a "ertain unity, "an the
G)2)13,, footnote 1, p (70
G)2)13,, footnote 1, p $?@
other make a "laim upon me +he oneness of the horizon does not mean a suppression of
otherness, but rather points to the fa"t that, as 5ames ,isser has it, Gadamer#s
hermeneuti"s is "on"erned with the opening of shared life in whi"h one is able to hear the
voi"e of the other
+he very fa"t that Gadamer is most "autious in not providing this
bond with mu"h "ontent is revealing. !t indi"ates his "on"ern that this link remains only a
"ondition for hearing the other and does not overpower and ignore her uni&ueness +hus
in +he >imitation of the 3xpert Gadamer writes. 'hat we truly have in "ommon and
what unites us remainsIwithout a voi"e Grobably we are harvesting the fruits of a long
training in the per"eption of differen"es and in the sensibility demanded by it

!n fa"e of today#s so"ial and politi"al "hallenges, it is simply not suffi"ient to

"laim that the only way to retain otherness is to grant it su"h a distant status that any
"onta"t with the self would sma"k of betrayal )s Gary 1adison suggests, here one
en"ounters of the greatest merits of Gadamer#s hermeneuti"s.
+he overriding &uestion today is, as -assam +ibi formulates it. J4Kow "an we
"ombine the need for "ommon rules and norms in international so"iety with the
reality of enormous "ultural diversityE ;ne thing that is "lear is that any viable
global ethi" "apable of providing an alternative to a global "lash of "ivilizations must
provide for "ommon rules and norms, ie, values that are themselves global
6othing like this is to be expe"ted from the "ultural in"ommensurabilistsI
+ibi#s "on"ern is so "losely linked to what =earney "alls today#s "hallenge that
they both "an be seen as two formulations of the same problem Gadamer#s hermeneuti"s
answers them both in showing that the relation between the universal and the parti"ular is
not that of logi"al subsumption, but rather of "o-determination 9in"e for Gadamer the
relation between universality and parti"ularity is not verti"al or hierar"hi"al, but rather
lateral and "ir"ular, his universalism is nonessentialist and nonhegemoni", yet of a
normative kind, allowing for the possibility of a philosophi"al "riti&ue of existing
+he oneness of the horizon renders this "ir"ularity non-te"hni"al and therefore
non-violent, for it reveals that the universal is not to be imposed on the parti"ular, but
,!993,, 5ames 9hared >ife !n Sy"osi&", Lol 8, 6o $, p 18A
G)2)13,, 4ans-Georg +he >imitations of the 3xpert !n C!nsAGeor7 G!%!"er on
B%&c!tion: $oetry: !n% Cistory 3d by 2ieter 1isgeld and Graeme 6i"holson )lbany, 1?B$, p 1?$
1)2!9;6, Gary -rent Gadamer#s >ega"y !n Sy"osi&", Lol 8, 6o $, p 1(?
9ee 1)2!9;6, footnote (1, p 107
rather that the parti"ular finds its way to the universal on its own -ut even this language
is misleading, for it "arries the "onnotation of a universal whi"h is set in stone, of the
universal in-itself, as if all that remained for us to do was to apply it to different
"ultures and individuals in a me"hani"al way Gadamer#s appropriation and
reinterrpetation of hronesis shows that prin"iples "an be adopted only in a "ontext-
sensitive way, that, as 1adison has it, there is no universal formula for the
implementation of universal values
)doption of universal prin"iples and laws always
involves a "reative adaptation of them +he hermeneuti"al "o-determination of the
universal and the parti"ular means that, as the parti"ular approa"hes the universal, it is
both "hanged by and itself "hanges the universal Gre"isely therefore it does not make
sense to ask whether the self overpowers the other or the other overpowers the self in the
fusion of the horizons, for a "ru"ial aim of Gadamer#s hermeneuti"s is to unfold a "ertain
oneness, a "ertain medium, or the shared life, within whi"h both the self and the other
"onstantly gain new meanings and determinations 4ere we find an implied respe"t for
parti"ularity of the other whi"h is for Gadamer of a potentially de"isive nature. 'e may
perhaps survive as a humanity if we would be able to learn that we may not simply
exploit our means of power and effe"tive possibilities, but must learn toIrespe"t the
other as an other, whether it is nature or the grown "ultures of peoples and nations, and if
we would be able to learn to experien"e the other and the others, as the other of our self,
in order to parti"ipate with one another

+he ethi"al impli"ations of the oneness of the horizon "learly show that for
Gadamer the oneness is both a res&osition and an !chieve"ent, that Gadamer uses the
term both %escritively, to reveal the "onditions of understanding, and that the term
"arries a nor"!tive #orce, sin"e it is a task and a goal to be a"hieved in the fa"e of so"ial
and politi"al dangers !n both "ases, oneness is a""ompanied by otherness !n "ase of
oneness as a presupposition of understanding, otherness manifests itself as the "ondition
of interpretation#s obFe"tivity. without otherness, no obFe"t of interpretation would be
possible, for ea"h and every interpretation would be merely of a nar"issisti" nature -ut
oneness is also an a"hievement. +he task of interpretation is, while being guided by the
1)2!9;6, footnote (1, p 101
G)2)13,, 4ans-Georg ,efle"tions on 1y Ghilosophi"al 5ourney !n -he $hilosohy o#
C!nsAGeor7 G!%!"er +he >ibrary of >iving Ghilosophers 3d by >ewis 4ahn :hi"ago, 1?AA, p 01
text, to reveal its "ontinuing signifi"an"e, to bring it out of the past into the living present
+his is a"hieved not by over"oming the temporal distan"e that separates us from the
original text, but rather by revealing distan"e itself as a positive and a produ"tive
"ondition whi"h enables understanding
4ere lies the reason why to understand is
always to understand differently. +emporal distan"e does not separate us from the
meaning of the text, but rather links us to it in a genuine way, revealing the signifi"an"e
of the hermeneuti"al belonging
4ere one en"ounters an answer to =earney#s "laim that Gadamer#s fusion of
horizons abolishes otherness in the event of appropriation Gadamer retains a differen"e
between understanding and otherness, be it that of a text, a "ulture, or an individual )s is
most "learly manifested in Gadamer#s a""ount of play, ea"h and every work trans"ends
itself as an original "reation in the event of interpretation. ) pie"e of musi" be"omes
a"tual when being performed* a novel a"hieves its a"tualization in the a"tivity of reading
+he meaning of a text or a text-analog "annot be redu"ed either to the intentions of the
author, or to any parti"ular interpretation of it -ut if no single interpretation has the
means of exhausting the interpreted obFe"t, =earney#s "riti&ue loses its basis 9in"e the
hermeneuti"al re"on&uering, or as Gadamer sometimes even says, of re"ontru"tion, is not
to be understood in a psy"hologi"al sense, the task of Gadamer#s hermeneuti"s "annot be
seen as the abolition of otherness in the event of understanding, be"ause that would
ignore a "lear separation not only between the individuality of the text#s author and the
text#s meaning, but also between the parti"ularity of a single interpretation and the
overflow of the text#s "apabilities 4en"e, the normative "hara"ter of the oneness of the
horizon shows why =earney#s "riti&ue of Gadamer is mispla"ed ;n the one hand,
otherness is not exhausted in appropriation ;n the other hand, the a"t of appropriation is
not to be understood as the subFe"tion of the other to the self, but as the rising of the other
and of the self to a higher universality
+he signifi"an"e of the oneness of the horizon manifests itself in the "ontext of
Gadamer#s reinterpretation of understanding as a her"ene&tic circle and in the "ontext of
his reinterpretation of the history o# the e##ect )""ording to Gadamer, 4eidegger#s
9ee G)2)13,, footnote 1, p $?A
superiority over 9"hleierma"her lies in the abandonment of formalism and psy"hologism
as the "hara"teristi" traits of the romanti" interpretation of the hermeneuti" "ir"le +he
"ir"le is neither subFe"tive nor obFe"tive, be"ause the anti"ipation of meaning whi"h
governs the understanding of a text is not an a"t of subFe"tivity, but pro"eeds from the
"ommonality that binds us to the tradition
9in"e for Gadamer, it is not ourselves as
"losed subFe"tivities but rather the tradition itself whi"h is the ultimate origin of the
anti"ipation of meaning, the "ir"le is not psy"hologi"al but is, rather, ontologi"al
Gre"isely be"ause our anti"ipatory preFudi"es have an ontologi"al status, understanding
possesses an ontologi"al stru"ture +hus in this "ontext, the oneness of the horizon % ie,
the "ommonality, anti"ipation, tradition % plays the role of the ne"essary "ondition whi"h
Fustifies the ontologi"al a""ount of the hermeneuti" "ir"le -ut how is this ontology of
understanding to be understoodE 4ow is one to a""ount for the anti"ipation as the bond
with traditionE :an one speak of the ideology of fundamental &uestioning into whi"h
we inevitably fallE ! shall return to these &uestions in the following se"tion
!n a similar way, the oneness of the horizon is implied in Gadamer#s des"ription
of the history of effe"t !n all understanding, whether we are expressily aware of it or
not, the effi"a"y of history is at work
+he effe"t of history does not depend on being
re"ognized, nor is it a supplement to histori"al in&uiry* it is, rather, an intrinsi" element in
all understanding 'hile it is in"umbent upon us to be"ome aware of it, sin"e on this
awareness our knowledge of the subFe"t matter and of ourselves largely rests, the expli"it
awareness of the history of effe"t is as hybrid a statement as when 4egel speaks of
absolute knowledge
+he very fa"t that we "an never expli"itly know the full effe"t of
history shows how signifi"ant the oneness of the horizon is for Gadamer -eing an
element of understanding, it is effe"tual already in finding the right &uestions to ask

+he hermeneuti" "ir"le and the history of effe"t, as far as they are expli"ations of
the oneness of the horizon, are so "losely tied together, that one "an even say that they are
two formulations of the same phenomenon 'hile the a""ount of the hermeneuti" "ir"le
unfolds the subFe"tive side of the oneness of the horizon Cthat of our enabling preFudi"esD,
the history of effe"t reveals the obFe"tive side of the same phenomenon Cthat of history
G)2)13,, footnote 1, p $?(
G)2)13,, footnote 1, p (71
G)2)13,, footnote 1, p (71
G)2)13,, footnote 1, p (71
and traditionD 1oreover, while unfolding the signifi"an"e of the oneness of the horizon,
both themes lead dire"tly to Gadamer#s analysis of the &uestionManswer diale"ti"
true signifi"an"e, Gadamer tells us, is to be witnessed in #in%in7 the ri7ht >&estions to
!s) -ut if this is the ultimate meaning of the oneness of the horizon, is one Fustified in
speaking of a merely negative role that this oneness playsE !n pla"e of a "on"lusion, !
want to address the following possibility. 'hat if the problemati" "hara"ter of Gadamer#s
hermeneuti"s lies not in overlooking the other, as =earney suggests, but rather in
overlooking the self, for does not the e&uation between the &uestion of the interpreter and
the &uestion of the tradition lead one to the &uasi-4eideggerian hermeneuti"s of the
Fundamental Nuestion thereby implying the disappearan"e of the subFe"tE
;ne is tempted to argue. Gadamer#s hermeneuti"s overlooks the &uestion of the
self, for it e&uates the &uestion of the interpreter with the &uestion of the tradition,
thereby abolishing the individuality of the self +he self in Gadamer loses its originality
and its freedom, for it be"omes merely a tool in the hands of some anonymous power,
whi"h determines the &uestions that the interpreter asks 'hy not say then, "ontra
9ee G)2)13,, footnote 1, p (8?%(B1
!n its original version, this arti"le was divided into two parts !n the first part ! addressed
=earney#s "riti&ue of Gadamer, while the se"ond part "onfronted ;livier )bel#s Gaul ,i"oeur#s
4ermeneuti"s. From :riti&ue to Goeti"s C9ee Detween S&sicion !n% Sy"!thy: $!&l @icoe&r8s Unst!9le
B>&ili9ri&" 3d by )ndrzeF 'ier"inski +oronto, $77(, p 11%$$D 'hile =earney approa"hes Gadamer as
a romanti", )bel labels Gadamer#s position hermeneuti"s of belonging and in this way distinguishes it
from romanti" hermeneuti"s % the hermeneuti"s of distan"e )bel is "riti"al of Gadamer#s hermeneuti"s
be"ause from the very beginning it stresses belonging and ignores the histori" and linguisti" distan"e
introdu"ed by time and "ontextual differen"es -oth )bel and =earney agree that Gadamer#s hermeneuti"s
does not suffi"iently address the &uestion of alterity !t simply "annot address this issue seriously, )bel
suggests, sin"e that re&uires the hermeneuti"s of the long route whi"h "hooses the longest detours, the
most diverse methods, in this way marking out the diversity of distan"es and of alterities 'hile =earney
sees the superiority of ,i"oeur#s hermeneuti"s as being grounded in its opposition to Gadamer,
9"hleierma"her and 2ilthey, )bel sees ,i"oeur as a master of the diale"ti", who managed to in"orporate
both hermeneuti" styles in his work -ut the full signifi"an"e of )bel#s "riti&ue lies in the following. 9in"e
Gadamer does not mark out the diversity of alterities, his hermeneuti"s not only ignores the &uestion of the
other, but it also overlooks the &uestion of the self +his seems to be inevitably impli"ated in )bel, sin"e,
following ,i"oeur, he is willing to state that the self is born out of the diale"ti" between the ego and the
text, ie, between the ego and the other +hus, "ontra =earney, the weakness of Gadamer#s hermeneuti"s
lies not in the subFe"tion of the other to the self, but rather in the subFe"tion of both the other and the self to
the vagaries of fundamental &uestioning !n short, the hermeneuti"s of belonging is the abandonment of
both the self and the other to the oneness of the horizon -ut despite these important differen"es between
=earney#s and )bel#s readings of Gadamer, ! was drawn to the "on"lusion that they do not re&uire separate
analyses ! am indebted to ,i"hard 5 -ernstein, who pointed out to me that the "riti&ue of Gadamer whi"h
"laims that his hermeneuti"s overlooks the &uestion of the self is only a variation of that position, a""ording
to whi"h Gadamer#s hermeneuti"s is not "apable of a""ounting for genuine alterity
=earney, that the weakness of Gadamer#s hermeneuti"s lies not in the subFe"tion of the
other to the self, but rather in the subFe"tion of both the other and the self to the vagaries
of Fundamental NuestioningE 'hy not say that the hermeneuti"s of belonging is the
abandonment of both the self and the other to the oneness of the horizonE
) detailed analysis would "ertainly show that Gadamer#s &uestionManswer logi"
does not lend itself to su"h a reading !t is, however, not my purpose to undertake su"h an
analysis 9uffi"e it to mention that Gadamer#s hermeneuti"s is most suspi"ious of
permanent problems, or the history of problems. 4istory of problems would truly be
history only if it a"knowledged that the identity of the problem is an empty abstra"tion
and permitted itself to be transformed into &uestioning
;nly if one a"knowledges that
every fundamental &uestion is to be asked differently ea"h time, "an one speak of
fundamental &uestions in the "ontext of Gadamer#s hermeneuti"s Gadamer#s
&uestionManswer logi" does not lead to a "ertain set of fundamental &uestions, whi"h
underlie a multipli"ity of texts, but rather to a multipli"ity of &uestions whi"h one and the
same text "an address to us +he &uestionManswer logi" is an a""ount of the hermeneuti"al
fa"t that one and the same text "annot be redu"ed to a "olle"tion of spe"ifi" statements,
that a text has the potential of revealing a different signifi"an"e in different times and
pla"es +he &uestionManswer logi" develops the oneness of the horizon not in the dire"tion
of the abolishment of the differen"e between the past and the present, but rather in the
dire"tion of the a"knowledgment that the past still speaks and that it speaks differently
from how it spoke before
+hus the oneness of the horizonCsD is not a re"overy of some lost original
"ons"iousness by rendering the past "ontemporaneous with the present 4aving taken the
detour of &uestion and answer, the fusion of horizons appears as a notion whi"h explodes
the subFe"tMobFe"t di"hotomy by rendering the &uestion who thinks whom meaningless
+he interpreter alters the text, the text "hanges the interpreter and it does not make sense
to ask who thinks whom, for ea"h is simultaneously in play +he fusion of horizons seems
inevitably linked to the "onfusion of voi"es in whi"h the interpreter and the text are so
"losely linked that no "lear-"ut distin"tion between them is possible +his, however, does
G)2)13,, footnote 1, p (A@
not mean that the fusion of horizons abolishes the individuality of the self, but that
Gadamer#s hermeneuti"s unfolds a non-foundational "on"eption of subFe"tivity
+he &uestionManswer logi" reveals that the self in Gadamer is not a primary
prin"iple or an unalterable presen"e +he bond between the interpreter and the interpreted
is not based on the self and the other as pre-existing entities ,ather, we always already
find ourselves within this bond and our identities are "ontinuously enri"hed by it +he text
addresses &uestions to the reader and only in response to these &uestions the reader starts
&uestioning the text 'hat "ould this mean if not that the subFe"t is never the ultimate
origin of meaning, but that sMhe responds to the proposals of meaning made possible by
the oneness of the hermeneuti"al horizonCsDE +he oneness of the horizon both liberates
the text from its alienation by bringing it into the living present and "onstitutes the
identity of the interpreter, for it is by approa"hing the text, by letting oneself be
&uestioned by it, that the interpreter#s preFudi"es are tested

!nsofar as this oneness is a ne"essary presupposition of interpretation, it does not

merely se"ure the grounds of interpretation#s obFe"tivity* it is not merely a word, whi"h,
by over"oming the short"omings of psy"hologism, a""ounts for the referential "hara"ter
of interpretation -eing always already there, the oneness of the horizon is that whi"h
renders the text plurivo"al. 'hat the text says is revealed in the interplay of &uestions and
answers, whi"h unfold in the dialogue between the interpreter and the text 'hile the
bond that links the interpreter to the interpreted is to be a"knowledged, at the same time it
is to remain nameless, for by linking the text to anyone who "omplies with the text#s
inFun"tion, the oneness of the horizon extends in a plurality of dire"tions, thereby
remaining fuzzy and vague, indeterminate and open-ended 4en"e the oneness of the
horizon is essentially diale"ti"al. the meaning of the oneness lies in the elu"idation and
en"ouragement of a l&r!lity of fusions of horizons
'ithin the oneness of the horizon, interpretation "annot be approa"hed as
something added to the original text, as if the latter were a set of fixed statements, but
rather manifests itself in un"overing the impli"it meaning o# the te4t itsel# +his, however,
does not exhaust the presuppositional "hara"ter of the oneness of the horizon 5ust as the
)ll understanding is ultimately self understanding CG)2)13,, footnote 1, p $87D* !t is true
in every "ase that a person who understands, understands himself, proFe"ting himself upon his possibilities
CG)2)13,, footnote 1, p $87D
oneness of the horizon reveals the short"omings of the in"ommensurabilist stan"e by
showing the abstra"tness of non-dialogi"al differen"e, so likewise the &uestionManswer
logi" simultaneously reveals the abstra"tness of the non-dialogi"al self +he self-
understanding of the interpreter is "onstituted within the oneness of the horizon* the self
is a partner in dialogue and is invited to respond to the proposals of meaning stemming
from the text in su"h a way as to rea"h a better understanding of him- or herself 4en"e
the self in Gadamer#s hermeneuti"s does not play a merely passive role and the oneness
of the horizon is not, therefore, merely a presupposition but also an a"hievement +he
meaning of the text and the self-understanding of the interpreter are "onstituted in the
interplay of &uestions and answers provided by both the reader and the text +he
&uestionManswer logi" renders the en"ounter with the text truly dialogi"al !t is not enough
merely to hear the &uestions of the text !t is ne"essary to respond, to "onstitute the
text#s meaning, thereby a"hieving a more thorough understanding of oneself
+he &uestionManswer logi", as the "ulmination of Gadamer#s a""ount of the
oneness of the horizon, shows that the oneness, no matter how indeterminate it is, is
nothing less than the "onversation that we ourselves are
+he oneness of the horizon
reveals the "orrelative nature of ipseity and alterity. Gadamer#s a""ount of the self and
the other goes hand-in-hand with his a""ount of the other in the self and the self in the
other 5ust as there is no text without interpretation, so also there is no interpretation
without the text -y extension, Fust as there is no self without the other, so also there is no
other without the self )nd yet, the very fa"t that Gadamer#s diale"ti" is open-ended % that
human understanding is essentially finite % means that there are new others to be
dis"overed and new forms of self-understanding to be rea"hed +hus the open-ended
oneness of the horizon liberates both the other and the self from their anonymity by re-
turning them to the infinity of dialogue
Saulu! "#$u!a!
6ew 9"hool universitetas
GolitiniO ir so"ialiniO mokslO fakultetas
G)2)13,, footnote 1, p (AB
)G!3 43,1363H+!6!P 4;,!Q;6+P L!36H1R
6ors Gadamerio hermeneutika susilaukS nemaTai kritikos Uvairiais filosofiniais
aspektais, taViau kritikos gausa vargu ar suteikS impulsW nauFiems poTiXriams, kadangi Fi
buvo ne kas kita kaip dvieFO prieYingO poTiXriO pakartoFimas !Y vienos pusSs, mes daTnai
girdime, Fog Gadamerio hermeneutika yra tik paslSptas ,,subFekto filosofiFos porXYis 5i
pasinaudodama atvirumu redukuoFa =itW U save =ita vertus, daTnai teigiama, Fog
Gadamerio darbai priklauso ,,fundamentaliO klausimO hermeneutikos kategoriFai, ir
todSl negali paaiYkinti savo savumo Gasirinkus hermeneutiniO horizontO temW kaip darbo
obFektW, Yiame straipsnyFe teigiama, Fog Yi tema nesukuria hegemoniniO ar esmingumo
konota"iFO GrieYingai, gili analizS, ak"entuoFanti horizontO vienumo neigiamus ir
dialektinius elementus ir faktW, Fog Yi tema Gadameriui yra ir prielaida, ir pasiekimas,
atskleidTia abieFO kritikO trXkumus GalutinSFe analizSFe horizontO vienumas yra dialogas,
kurio dalimi mes esame /patingas dSmesys skirtas ,i"hard =earney#io Gadamerio
kritikai, Gadamerio nebendramaVio poTiXrio kritikai ir Gadamerio hermeneutikos
relevantiYkumui Yiuolaikiniame so"ialiniO-politiniO interesO kontekste
@BIKEMINIAI FODFIAI: kultXrinis nebendramatiYkumas, dialogas, horizontO
susilieFimas, hermeneutinis ratas, efekto istoriFa, kintamumas, atvirumas,
klausimoMatsakymo logika, hermeneutikos tipai
Saulu! "#$u!a!
6ew 9"hool Hniversity
'ydziaZ 6auk Golity"zny"h i 9poZe"zny"h
; 5326;[:! 4;,/Q;6+\' 43,1363H+/:Q6/:4
1imo i] hermeneutyka Gadamera spotkaZa si^ z du]W krytykW, doty"zW"W r_]ny"h
aspekt_w filozofi"zny"h, to FeF wielo`a ra"zeF nie wpZyn^Za na rozw_F nowy"h poglWd_w,
gdy] byZa ni"zym innym Fak powt_rzeniem dw_"h prze"iwstawny"h punkt_w widzenia
Q FedneF strony, "z^sto sZyszymy, ]e hermeneutyka Gadamera Fest tylko zawoalowanW
odmianW ,,filozofii podmiotu, kt_ra za pomo"W otwarto`"i redukuFe !nnego do wZasneF
osoby Q drugieF strony, "z^sto si^ twierdzi, ]e pra"e Gadamera nale]W do kategorii
,,hermeneutyki fundamentalny"h pytab, i dlatego nie mogW wytZuma"zya swoFeF istoty
6a podstawie przeprowadzoneF w ninieFszym artykule analizy nale]y stwierdzia, ]e temat
horyzont_w hermeneuty"zny"h nie tworzy hegemoni"zny"h "zy istotny"h konota"Fi
Grze"iwnie, gZ^boka analiza, ak"entuFW"a elementy negatywne oraz dialekty"zne Fedno`"i
horyzont_w oraz fakt, ]e temat ten Fest dla Gadamera i przesZankW, i wnioskiem, uFawnia
niedo"iWgni^"ia obu krytyk ' kob"oweF analizie Fedno`a horyzont_w Fest dialogiem,
kt_rego "z^`"iW Feste`my 9z"zeg_lnW uwag^ po`wi^"ono kryty"e Gadamera przez
,i"harda =earneya, kryty"e niewsp_Zmiernego poglWdu Gadamera oraz doniosZo`"i
hermeneutyki Gadamera w kontek`"ie wsp_Z"zesny"h interes_w spoZe"zno-polity"zny"h
SGOWA KLUCHB: niewsp_Zmierno`a kulturowa, dialog, zbie]no`a horyzont_w,
koZo hermeneuty"zne, historia efektu, zmienno`a, otwarto`a, logika pytaniaModpowiedzi,
typy hermeneutyki
Gauta $770 7B 7B
Griimta publikuoti $770 7B 17