On Gadamer's Probe Of Beyond Relativism

Objectivist thought that Gadamer insisted in historicality of understanding, generation of meaning and his theory was lack of objectivity, so Gadamer was a relativist. Was whether Gadamer beyond relativism or not ? Nowadays, no one paid close attention to it, it seemed to be clear conclusion .But the answer of the question related how to understand Gadamer's ideas of tradition effective history % horizon amalgamation and language .As we know, relativism easily leads to Nihilism. In the plural society it easily leads to Anarchism .so the discussion of Gadamer's probe of beyond relativism has both theoretical and real meaning.Relativism is the major clue of the thesis<, The thesis discusses the cause of misunderstanding of Gadamer's theory, how some scholars criticized Gadamer's theory, and what is Gadamer's probe beyond relativism.In addition to the preface, the thesis comprises of three parts. The First part discusses Gadamer's "generated meaning". The philosophical Hemeneneutics had ontological turn, so both understanding and language closely related closely life. The philosophical Hemeneneutics concerned the spirit of life, so Gadamer thought both text and interpreter had their own horizon. The interpretation was not passive but positive action.The second part discusses a scholar criticized Gadamer's theory. Firstly he considered Gadamer's " tradition " was not a clear meaning, so Gadamer's " tradition " was not useful. Secondly he considered Hemeneneutical circle was only a kind of method, and the method had been embodied by Dilthey. At last he thought Gadamer's "meaning" was not clear and lack of objectivity, so Gadamer was a relativist. At the same time I elaborated how he misunderstand Gadamer in this part.The Third part discusses how Gadamer transcened relativism by several valid methods. Gadamer did want to go beyond objectivism, but which didn't mean to cancel objectivity but restrict objectivity. I thought Gadamer had guaranteed the objectivity in the following aspects.The first is tradition. Gadamer thought tradition restricted people's understanding, including the width and depth of it. This was a base of understanding's objectivity.The second is effective history. Gadamer thought the tradition still had an effect on people's consciousness by the principle of effective history..The third is horizon amalgamation , the action of understanding would realize the horizon amalgamation during the course of understanding.The fourth is language. Gadamer thought that what people could understand was language. Language was public on its essence. It was the base of beyond monotonous relativism. Because tradition and language restrained understanding, there was no relativism when we understand text. It also embodied the objectivity.The last is dialogue and subject. Gadamer thought the text of understanding would turn to dialogue. Dialogue embodied intersubjectivity. The logic role of intersubjectivity was to show objectivity. At the same time, the two parts of the dialogue concern the subject, and they were led and restricted by it., which could pledge the objectivity.So tradition effective history > horizon amalgamation, language ^ dialogue and subject could go beyond relativism. I developed my idea in my thesis:Firstly, Gadamer's objectivity of understanding was guaranteed by the way of subject constructing object.Secondly, the major logic role of tradition, effective history , horizon amalgamation N language; dialogue and subject was to pledge the objectivity of understanding.