نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری، دینپژوهی، دانشگاه ادیان و مذاهب، قم، ایران
2 دانشیار، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
One perspective worthy of deep consideration regarding the interpretation of religious texts is the theory of textual polysemy (ta‘addud ma‘ānī), which eliminates the dichotomy of correct/incorrect understanding from the hermeneutic process. By accepting all divergent interpretations of a text, this theory advocates pluralism in textual comprehension. Undoubtedly, one of the most influential works in this field—whose analysis significantly clarifies this perspective—is Truth and Method, the renowned work by Hans-Georg Gadamer. Framed within a philosophical context and grounded in his philosophical hermeneutics, Gadamer posits the polysemic nature of texts. In examining Gadamer’s theory, its reliance on the “non-intentionality” (‘adam qaṣdiyyat) of texts and the re-creation of meaning (baz khalq ma‘nā) during reading becomes evident. This paper briefly introduces Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics and explores its implications to present his viewpoint. Gadamer’s hermeneutics appears profoundly influenced by the ideas of Heidegger and Hegel, articulated within a declarative (i‘lānī) philosophical framework. Beyond its weakness in providing substantiated arguments and its lack of firm epistemological foundations, Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics leads to problematic implications (lawāzim), including the suspension of rational understanding (ta‘ṭīl fahm), the obstruction of dialogue, and the rejection of authorial intent (naqd qaṣd mu’allif). It prioritizes meaning production over authorial intent retrieval, ultimately affirming textual polysemy. Based on these principles, philosophical hermeneutics dismisses all criteria for evaluating the validity of interpretations, embracing interpretive pluralism. These implications, coupled with the theory’s weak foundational premises, have prompted numerous scholars to critique Gadamer’s views. Key criticisms include relativism (nisbiyyat), lack of argumentative coherence (‘adam insijām), self-contradiction (tanāquḍ), disregard for axiomatic principles of human understanding, ambiguities regarding the nature of understanding and its linguistic dependency, and the outright rejection of methodological rigor. Such critiques challenge the viability of Gadamer’s hermeneutical project.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)