the two extremes in hermeneutics derida and husserl

1、<p>　　The two extremes in Hermeneutics： Derida and Husserl</p><p>　　【Abstract】Through a detailed analysis of the two extremes in hermeneutics， the irrational and rational views of interpretation in the

2、contemporary world， it elucidates that both views of interpretation are affected by hermeticism. The upsurge of deconstructionism has caused the interpretive confusion and crisis； it lays too much stress on linguistic fe

3、atures of text and neglects the coherence and some other important characteristics of text， giving the right to the readers to read the text in an</p><p>　　【Key words】hermeticism，irrationalism，rationalism，Hu

4、sserl，Derida </p><p>　　1.Introduction </p><p>　　Puzzles and disputes about how to characterize interpretation has a long history in Western thought.It is a wonderful thing to discover why and ho

5、w a given text can produce so many good interpretations. As Eco says， to understand how language works does not reduce the pleasure of speaking and of listening to the eternal murmur of texts （Eco， 1992：148） and we are c

6、urious about the semiotic mechanisms of understanding and interpreting the text. Cassirer also remarks that language is metaphorical i</p><p>　　2.Views of Derida </p><p>　　At the same time， Eco

7、also pointed out that most of the so-called post-modern thought will look very pre-antique as many modern irrational theories of text interpretation show relationships with hermetic thought. First， irrationalism expresse

8、s that a text is an open work and interpreters can find endless relationship in it. Second， language reflects the uncertainty of thought. Derrida is a typical person of hermeticism in Eco’s eye. He thought that language

9、and meaning are in an unstable mess， i</p><p>　　According to Derrida， a written text is a machine that produces an indefinite deferral. Being by nature of a “testamentary essence”， a text enjoys， or suffers，

10、 the absence of the subject of writing and of the designated thing or the referent.The meaning of a text is almost always not what it says or tells you. 　　Even though a sign suffers the absence of its author and of its

11、referent， it does not necessarily mean that it has no objective or literal linguistic meaning. But Derrida wants to estab</p><p>　　Paul de Man once remarked on Derrida’s theory： “We should let the text drift

12、 and follow its own inclination. We should endow the text with affluent autonomy on symbols of language. The text should not be put in any mechanism of grades. The text does not act as what Heidegger wishes that it opens

13、 a world； on the contrary， the text has never opened at all. It just plays the game of symbols and entertains itself. The meaning is driven out of the text， so far as that is concerned； the divinity， the </p><

14、p>　　In Derrida’s sense， the meaning of the signifier is subject to uncertainty， becoming the signified of other signifiers. When we ascertain a signified， we will plunge in a process in which a signifier endlessly pro

15、pagates. The same is true that when determining the meaning of a text， we will also fall into the accumulation of more and more texts. For Derrida， the certainty of the text itself， with the independency of its form， is

16、left in the other texts， in other words， endlessly delayed behind a</p><p>　　3. Husserl </p><p>　　Husserl began his philosophical study so as to probe into the basis of mathematics， giving birth

17、 to his early representative work Arithmetical Philosophy （1891）， in which Husserl took up the question of the origin of the plural concept， which is regarded as a category. For him， the basis of mathematics lies in some

18、thing prior to logic. He persisted in exploring the root of the truth of logic. Starting from the inner of logic， he searches for the root of epistemology， swaying his view between the</p><p>　　4. The way ou

19、t for hermeticism </p><p>　　Rational and irrational hermeticism in interpretation， whatever difference there may be between them， they share the same characteristic of being skeptical about the existing mean

20、ing or theory， believing that there must be something behind it， yet to be explored. The scientific community， a special kind of language community， whose task it is to interpret the natural world， will be able to determ

21、ine within its knowledge system which theory is better and hence is to be accepted. It would be sense</p><p>　　Reference： </p><p>　　[1]Eco Umberto.1992. Interpretation and Overinterpretation. Ca

22、mbridage：Cambridage Universtity press. </p><p>　　[2]Eco[艾柯]，2005，《開放的作品》，劉儒庭譯。北京：新星出版社。 </p><p>　　[3]Paul de Man[保羅·德曼]，1998，《解構(gòu)之圖》，李自修譯。北京：中國社會科學出版社。 </p><p>　　[4]Li Pengcheng