【作者】 王冠；

【导师】 傅永军；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 外国哲学， 2021， 博士

【摘要】 本论文主要研究艾柯的“过度诠释”思想,致力于阐论艾柯“过度诠释”概念的内涵、文本阐释中“过度诠释”现象生成的原因及其对意义理解所造成的危害。通过讨论围绕艾柯“过度诠释”思想发生的学术论辩,厘定艾柯“过度诠释”思想提出的诠释学语境,揭示其“过度诠释”思想的本质意涵,为其在复杂的诠释学家族谱系中寻找准确定位,以便能够将其置于不同的现代诠释学范式中进行检视,与之展开对话,最终基于哲学诠释学立场对艾柯“过度诠释”思想给出一个学术判断,回答文本阐释中是否存在“过度诠释”问题,哲学诠释学所坚持的“理解始终指向不同的理解”观点是否会导致诠释的相对主义等问题。从论文的问题意识和研究目标出发,本论文对艾柯“过度诠释”思想的研究必然要在对话与比较视域中进行。一方面,论文对艾柯“过度诠释”概念及其相关思想的讨论,以艾柯1990年丹纳讲座中题为“诠释与过度诠释”演讲为中心,结合艾柯的其他论著展开,但这种对艾柯“过度诠释”思想的阐释,离不开讨论艾柯与其他学者之间有关“过度诠释”问题的对话,也唯有借助他们之间有关“过度诠释”的一问一答的逻辑,才能将艾柯思想的实质和全貌揭示出来。另一方面,揭示艾柯“过度诠释”思想的实质和全貌固然重要,但更重要的是对其思想是否合理展开有理有据的讨论。这种讨论对于证成哲学诠释学的理解观以及回应对哲学诠释学的相对主义指责尤为关键。为此,必须回应艾柯“过度诠释”思想所提出的挑战。对艾柯的回应,只有在现代诠释学发展视域中才能完成。因为,只有通过对现代诠释学复杂家族谱系中不同诠释学范式在文本意义与诠释关系问题上的立场差异的充分揭明,才能准确为艾柯的“过度诠释”思想定位,解决其思想的诠释学范式归属问题,从而有理有据对其思想展开分析讨论,最终回应艾柯“过度诠释”思想所带来的挑战。基于对话与比较的逻辑,本论文研究将主要从四个具有相互关联、内在推进逻辑的分论题中逐步展开。第一个分论题(第一章)主要讨论艾柯“过度诠释”思想的提出。通过对艾柯相关文本的分析,特别结合丹纳讲座的演讲,析取出艾柯对读者权利过度重视观点,并检视了艾柯给出的原因分析:读者对文本意义的解读离开了希腊的理性主义模式,而陷入神秘主义模式。艾柯将其称之为“文本诺斯替主义”,其将意义诠释及文本诠释方法建立在“天人之间、宏观宇宙和微观宇宙之间具有相互感应的基础之上”,诠释追索隐藏着的或显而易见的“相似性”联系,表现为诉诸于作者对文本的感应和直接把握的“符指论”。这种“符指论”给予读者任意解读文本之权利,文本意义被任意扩大,势必会造成“过度诠释”,带来诠释的相对主义。第二个分论题(第二章)重点考察艾柯“过度诠释”思想所引发的争论,通过讨论艾柯与理查德·罗蒂、乔纳森·卡勒等人有关“过度诠释”问题的论证,进一步揭示艾柯“过度诠释”思想的深层意蕴。这种阐论方式也符合艾柯思想发展的实际。严格说来,艾柯有关“过度诠释”的思想并不算一种严密论证的思想系统,而是在论战中不断澄清与发展的思想。在这个分论题中,通过引入艾柯对文本意图概念的论述,讨论了艾柯为防止“过度诠释”现象发生而提出的合理诠,释标准以及对文本活动进行限制的思想。针对罗蒂所提出的诠释文本就是“使用文本”,好的诠释就是对诠释者有用的诠释的批评意见,以及针对卡勒指责其观点过于保守,坚持对文本的过度解读将会产生新的理解之主张,艾柯分别提出“文本意图”、“模范作者”“模范读者”等观点来回应,这大大拓展了艾柯“过度诠释”思想的意涵,也使得艾柯“过度诠释”的诠释学归属变得明晰起来。第三个分论题(第三章)重在讨论艾柯“过度诠释”思想的诠释学范式定位问题,显然,对这个问题的讨论必须在现代诠释学的观念历史之中展开。通过分析施莱尔马赫和狄尔泰普遍诠释学、赫施的“诠释有效性”理论、贝蒂“作为精神科学的一般方法论的诠释学”和保罗·利科的“文本诠释学”以及伽达默尔“哲学诠释学”有关文本诠释与意义理解的相关思想,并将它们与艾柯的“过度诠释”思想进行比较剖解,不仅解决了艾柯“过度诠释”思想的诠释学范式归属问题,而且回答了在现代诠释学视域中,如何理解“过度诠释”现象,它究竟是一个什么样的问题等研究难题。更为重要的是,通过比较研究,明了这样一个事实:“过度诠释”是在方法论诠释学视域或坚持意义的实在论立场的诠释学中存在的、一种基于亚里士多德实体论诠释观而发生的现象。这个认知为从哲学诠释学立场批评艾柯的“过度诠释”思想提供了合法性前提。第四个分论题(第四章)将研究视域转移至哲学诠释学立场,在对话与论辩中回应艾柯“过度诠释”思想的挑战。根据上面的研究,“过度诠释”现象是在方法论诠释学或坚持意义的实在论立场的诠释学中必然存在的现象,因为这种范式的诠释学或坚持文本意义的“作者意图论”,或坚持文本意义的独立存在,即文本虽由作者创作出来之后,但文本已经创造完成,就成为一个有着自为意义的独立个体。哲学诠释学在文本意义问题上坚持现象学立场,文本诠释的真理被解释为一种发生事件,不是由一种方法程序所控制的主体行为的认知结果。也就是说,文本的意义被理解为在诠释者的历史语境中视域融合地生成,是诠释活动所造成的效果历史之产物。就此而言,理解在生成被理解的文本同时,也生成对文本意义的理解。在这里,文本意义生成的第一原则是诠释学的历史性原则,在这原则支配下,没有更好的理解,只有不同的理解。所以,伽达默尔对此作出了评价:“真正的历史对象根本就不是对象,而是自己和他者的统一体,是一种关系,在这种历史关系中同时存在着历史的实在和历史理解的实在。”这样,哲学诠释学就消解了“过度诠释”问题,为文本诠释和意义理解,特别是解决诠释的相对主义提供了一条值得期待的新思路。更多还原

【Abstract】 This dissertation studies Eco’s "overinterpretation" thought,which is dedicated to explaining the connotation of Eco’s "overinteipretation" concept,the reason for"overinterpretation" in text interpretation and the harm it causes to the understanding of meanings.Through discussion,this paper defines the context of hermeneutics proposed by Eco’s "overinterpretation" thought in accordance with the academic debate on the emergence of Eco’s "overinterpretation" thought,reveals the essential meaning of the"overinterpretation" thought and finds the accurate positioning in the complex family pedigree of hermeneutics.In this way,the paper can be examined in different modern hermeneutics paradigms,can be a carrier for readers to carry out a dialogue with it,and finally can be an academic article through which an academic judgment can be given on Eco’s "overinterpretation" thought based on the philosophical hermeneutics standpoint.This paper answers whether there is any "overinterpretation" in the text interpretation,whether the view that "understanding always points to a different understanding",that is insisted by philosophical hermeneutics will result in issues such as relativism in interpretation.Starting from the problem consciousness and research goals of the thesis,the research on Eco’s "overinterpretation" thought must be carried out in the perspective of dialogue and comparison.On the one hand,the thesis discusses Eco’s concept of"overinterpretation" and related thoughts,centered on Eco’s 1990 Dana lecture entitled"Interpretation and Overinterpretation",combined with Eco’s other works,but this This interpretation of Eco’s "overinterpretation" thought is inseparable from the discussion about the issue of "overinterpretation" between Eco and other scholars,and it can only rely on their questions and answers about "overinterpretation".Logic can reveal the essence and full picture of Eco’s thought.On the other hand,it is important to reveal the essence and overall picture of Eco’s "overinterpretation" thought,but it is more important to have a reasonable discussion on whether his thought is reasonable.This kind of discussion is particularly critical for the understanding of justified philosophical hermeneutics and for responding to the relativistic accusations of philosophical hermeneutics.To this end,it is necessary to respond to the challenge posed by Eco’s"overinterpretation" thought.The response to Eco can only be completed in the developmental perspective of modern hermeneutics.Because only by fully exposing the differences in the position of different hermeneutics paradigms in the complex family pedigree of modern hermeneutics on the relationship between textual meaning and interpretation,can we accurately locate Eco’s "overinterpretation" thinking and solve its interpretation of thoughts.Study the paradigm attribution problem,so that it is reasonable and evidence to analyze and discuss his thoughts,and finally respond to the challenge brought by Eco’s "overinterpretation" thought.Based on the logic of dialogue and comparison,this paper conducted the research from four interrelated as well as four sub-topics with inherent evolutionary logic.The first sub-topic(Chapter1)mainly discusses the proposal of Eco’s"overinterpretation" thought.Through the analysis of Eco’s texts,especially in combination with Danner’s lectures,Eco’s thoughts on readers’ rights and over-emphasis were extracted.Chapterl also examined Eco’s reason analysis:readers’interpretation of the text’s meaning has been disconnected from the Greek rationality and fallen into a mysticism mode.Eco calls it "Textual Gnosticism",which bases the interpretation of meaning as well as the textual interpretation on the "mutual induction between man and nature and between the macrocosm and the microcosm",thereby interpreting the hidden or obvious "similarity" connection.The textual Gnosticism is shown in the "semiotics theory" which appeals to the author’s induction and the direct grasp of the text.The "semiotics theory" gives readers the right to interpret the text arbitrarily,so the meaning of the text is arbitrarily expanded,which will inevitably result in "overinterpretation" as well as interpretive relativism.The second sub-topic(Chapter 2)focuses on the high spot reviews of controversy resulted from Eco’s "overinterpretation" thought.Through the discussion of Eco,Richard Rorty,Jonathan Kahler and others about the issue of "overinterpretation",the chapter2 further reveals the in-depth meaning of Eco’s "overinterpretation" thought.Such way of interpretation is also in line with the actual development of Eco’s thoughts.Strictly speaking,Eco’s thought of "overinterpretation" can’t be considered as a rigorously argued thought system but as a thought which is constantly clarified and developed in the debate.In this sub-topic,through introducing Eco’s discussion on the concept of textual intention,Eco’s reasonable interpretation standard which aims to prevent the occurrence of "overinterpretation" and the idea of restricting text activities were discussed.The interpretive text proposed by Rorty is to "use text" and a good interpretation is the criticism of the interpreter’s useful interpretation and the too conservative viewpoint about Kahler’s accusation.The insisting overinterpretation of a text will result in new understandings.In response to this idea,Eco separately put forward the viewpoints of "textual intention","model author" and "model reader",which have greatly expanded the meaning of Eco’s "overinterpretation" thought and also made the hermeneutical attribution of Eco’s "overinterpretation" interpretation become clear.The third sub-topic(Chapter3)attaches emphasis on the positioning of the hermeneutics paradigm of Eco’s "overinterpretation" thought.Obviously,the discussion on this matter must be conducted in the conceptual history of modern hermeneutics.Through the analysis of Schleiermacher and Dilthey’s universal hermeneutics,Betty’s"Hermeneutics of General Methodology as a Spiritual Science",Paul Rico’s "Text Hermeneutics" and relevant thoughts on text interpretation and meaning understanding in Gadamer’s "Philosophical Hermeneutics",and through comparing them with Eco’s"overinterpretation" thought,chapter3 not only solves the problem of the attribution of the normal form of the hermeneutics of Eco’s "overinterpretation" thought,and answers how to understand the phenomenon of "overinterpretation" to the perspective of modern hermeneutics and what kind of problem it is.More importantly,through comparative research,the fact is clear that "overinterpretation" exists in the perspective of methodological hermeneutics or the hermeneutics that insists on the realist standpoint of meaning,which is a kind of substantive theory based on Aristotle Interpretation of the phenomenon that occurs.This cognition provides a legitimacy prerequisite for criticizing Eco’s "overinterpretation" thought from the standpoint of philosophical hermeneutics.The fourth sub-topic(Chapter4)shifts the research perspective to the philosophical hermeneutics standpoint,which responds to the challenge of Eco’s "overinterpretation"thought in both dialogue and debate.In accordance with the above research,"overinterpretation," is a phenomenon which must exist in methodological hermeneutics or the hermeneutics that insist on the realist position of meaning,because such paradigm of hermeneutics or the "author’s intention theory" which insists on the meaning of the text,or the meaning of the text independently exists,that is to say,after the text is created by the author,the text has been created,which has become an independent individual with its own meaning.Philosophical hermeneutics insists on the phenomenological standpoint on the issue of textual meaning.The meaning of a text is considered to be formed by a fusion of horizons generated in the historical context of the interpreter,which is the result of the historical product of the interpretive activity.In this regard,understanding a text that can be understood can generate an understanding of the meaning of the text.Here,the first principle of generation of textual meaning is the historical principle of hermeneutics.Under such principle,there will be only different understandings without a better understanding.Thus,Hans-Georg Gadamer said:"The real historical object is not an object at all.Instead,it is a unity of oneself and the other and a relationship in which historical reality and historical understanding exist at the same time".In this way,philosophical hermeneutics resolves the problem of"overinterpretation",providing a new way of thinking for text interpretation as well as meaning understanding,especially the relativism of interpretation.更多还原