1981年4月,在巴黎歌德学院举行了“本文与解释”的专题讨论会。出席者中既有德国当代解释学宗师伽达默尔,又有法国后结构主义解构学派巨擘德里达。由于当代在世的哲学大家(尤其是分析哲学以外的哲学家)进行真正学术意义上的面对面“交锋”似乎还是一个不成文的禁忌;由于解释学和解构哲学已成为西方在分析哲学之后影响日渐扩大的两门“显学”;由于这两支同源于欧洲大陆哲学传统而又俨然成为对立的潮流在许多立场上既迥然有别,又相互纠缠,人们对这两位哲学家的第一次学术“对话”怀有特殊的期望和兴趣。伽达默尔在会上作的长篇演讲中,将法国当代哲学思潮称作对自己的“真正挑战”,他提出了与德里达针锋相对的海德格尔解读,并声称德里达将解释学置诸形而上学范畴之下其实是一个错误,哲学解释学并不依赖于任何“出场(现时)的哲学”。德里达在后来的讨论中,则对伽达默尔视为理解之先决条件的立场(即每一对话的参与者都怀有乐于理解对方发言的“善良意志”)并提出质疑,坚持自己对解释学是一种形而上学的批评,并阐述了解构哲学的独特主张。德里达的质询与伽达默尔的答复围绕解释与本文问题上双方的一系列对立如理解——非理解、内在——外在、连续——中断、真理——非真理等而展开。问题还不仅仅在于对话的内容,同时也在于这一形式本身就是一个关于对话、理解与解释的复杂个案,它同样给了我们许多与理解和主体间交流有关的提示,譬如最根本的,一种分别出自解构和解释学立场的真正相互交流是否可能。所以,诚如有的西方学者所指出的,这次对话的重要性不仅在于已说出的那些方面,还在于那些未曾说出的和未曾发生的方面。大标题为译者所加。 In April 1981, a symposium “Thesis and Interpretation” was held at the Goethe-Institut in Paris. Attendees included both German contemporary hermeneutist Gadamer and Derrida, the post-structuralist deconstructionist guru in France. It seems an unwritten taboos because of the truly academic face-to-face “confrontation” between contemporary living philosophers (especially philosophers other than analytic philosophy); as the philosophy of hermeneutics and deconstruction has become increasingly influential in the West after analytic philosophy The two schools of “significant learning”; because these two originated from the philosophical traditions of European continent and seems to be the opposite trend in many positions are both very different and entangled each other, the first of these two philosophers academic Dialogue has special expectations and interests. In his long speech at the conference, Gadamer referred to the “real challenge” of contemporary French philosophical thought to himself and proposed Heidegger’s interpretation opposite to Derrida and claimed that Derrida would interpret the study Under metaphysical category is actually a mistake, philosophical hermeneutics does not rely on any “appearance (current) philosophy.” In a subsequent discussion, Derrida argued against Gadamer’s position as a prerequisite for understanding (that is, participants in each dialogue had “goodwill” willing to understand each other’s speeches) Hermeneutics is a metaphysical critique and expounds the unique ideas of deconstruction philosophy. Derrida’s question and Gadamer’s response revolve around explaining a series of antagonisms between the two sides on this issue, such as understanding, internalization, externality, continuity-interruption, truth-non-truth. The problem lies not only in the content of the dialogue, but also in the fact that the form itself is a complicated case of dialogue, understanding and interpretation. It also gives us many hints about understanding and communication between subjects, such as the most fundamental one It is possible that genuine mutual exchanges, from the standpoint of deconstruction and hermeneutics, respectively. So, as some Western scholars have pointed out, the importance of this dialogue lies not only in those aspects that have been said, but also in those aspects that have not been spoken or have not happened. The headline for the translator added.