(1011)
|
| 文本與詮釋：論高達美如何理解康德《判斷力批判》 |
| Text and Interpretation:Gadamer's First Reading of the Critique of the Power of Judgment as a Hermeneutics Case Study |
 |
| 作者 |
張鼎國 |
| Author |
Ting-Kuo Chang |
| 關鍵詞 |
康德、
高達美、
《真理與方法》、
《判斷力批判》、
主觀主義、
不可知論、
審美意識、
教化、
趣味、
共同感、
天才、
視域融合、
審美不區分
|
| Keywords |
Kant,
Gadamer,
Truth and Method,
Critique of the Power of Judgment,
subjectivism,
education (Bildung),
taste,
sensus communis,
judgment,
genie,
aesthetic non-differentiation,
fusion of horizon
|
| 摘要 |
本文探討高達美在《真理與方法》中對康德《判斷力批判》的初步解讀和批評，特別指出他對所謂「奠基於康德之上的主觀主義及不可知論」的強烈不滿，究竟從何而來？何以致之？這不但是個《判斷力批判》的效應歷史問題，同時也是對高達美所主張文本詮釋有如對話交談的一個案例檢討。
文章從高達美反對主體性哲學及意識哲學的前定思想為起點，說明他無法接受審美主體說與審美意識說的一貫立場。 隨後針對《真理與方法》裡，他承繼人文主義傳統「教化」理念，重新提出而直接挑戰到康德美學的幾個概念，特別是對其審美「趣味」和「共同感」學說之質疑，所進行的檢討和審視。這兩個概念，在兩者的哲學考當中，甚至必須用到不同的中譯表達。其次包括在內的相關議題，還有「判斷力」、「天才」等重要概念。而分析之後，本文再指出高達美自己基於以藝術品之存有為中心的遊戲說與雙重模仿表現說，如何提出一「審美不區分」的說法，為化解康德「自然美」不同於、卻優過於「藝術美」的趨勢，也是他試圖淡化藝術領域中「天才」創作論與「審美意識」鑑賞說的進一步表達。
因受限於篇幅，本文並未深入高達美七十年代後對康德思考評價的若干改變，但第四節嘗試重回康德文本說話，舉發其說與詮釋學理論可以相互發明之處。這是高達美所說「讓文本說話」的必要過程，況且《判斷力批判》並不停留在美學理論的哲學基礎這個部分。本文最後一節，則點出當代對康德《判斷力批判》詮釋值得繼續努力的方向，實即本篇論文後續欲進行的發展。 |
| Abstract |
This paper investigates Gadamer's reading and interpretation of Kant's Critique of the Power of Judgment in his Truth and Method , with an emphasis on his strongly worded disappointment towards “the subjectivism and agnosticism based on Kant.” It concerns not only the Wirkungsgeschichte for the Kantian aesthetics today, but serves also as an interesting case study in the contemporary dialogical hermeneutics, which sees text interpretation as living dialogues with text.
The paper begins with Gadamer's predominating position against the philosophy of subjectivity and consciousness, hence his reluctance to the tendency of Subjektivierung in aesthetics which takes aesthetic consciousness as starting point. The second section turns to Truth and Method (1960), where we examine once more Gadamer's first questioning of the problem of truth within the field of art. Gadamer employ series of concepts taken out of the humanistic tradition of the education (Bildung) in the first part of this book, such as taste, sensus communis , judgment, and genie , and we could see how comprehensive and vehement Gadamer's initial challenges to a Kantian aesthetics. Their disagreements are so obvious, even that we should go so far as to use different Chinese terms to translate the two concepts of taste (Geschmack) and sensus communis , although they are just the same German and Latin words used by both philosophers.
In section three, this paper explains how and why Gadamer's theory of art could offer a better understanding of art by the theory of play, that is the taking part passively in a game which centers always around the being of certain great work of art, in such a way as questioning and listening what this human made artwork can speak to us as historical being. And to strengthen his criticism of Kantian subjectivism and agnosticism in the field of art, Gadamer coined a new expression “aesthetic non-differentiation” as to challenge the Kantian distinction between natural beauty and artistic beauty, hence the Kantian thesis that natural beauty as free and independent, should take priority over the artistic beauty as adherent and dependent. This notion, which is a major thesis in this paper, could be conceived as an indication in advance to a later theory of the fusion of horizon in Gadamer's Truth and Method .
With rather limited space in a paper, I could not delve into a discussion of Gadamer's change in his evaluation of Kant's thought. However, this paper turns in section four to the text of Critique of the Power of Judgment to see what Kant had said so as to do justice to Kant according to the hermeneutic motto “back to the text and let it speak in itself for us again.” A few but very relevant points are therefore highlighted one by one, which taken together makes a quite positive hermeneutic reading of this philosophical classic showing how much is still plausible in our days, as Gadamer himself would partly also agree late r in the 70 th 's and 80 th 's. |
|
|
|
