Criticism On The Interpretative Validity Of Gadamer's Hermeneutic

Effective history is core idea of Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics, it is also expressed as effective historical consciousness most of the time. It is called as the most important achievement that Gadamer thought about the foundation of human sciences by Paul Ricoeur. And it is the element of interpretation. Gadamer thought that the interpretation is effective when it is guided by the effective historical consciousness. Effective history is quite complex, it contains different factors such as hermeneutic circle, fore-understanding, authority, fusion of horizons and so forth. Fore-understanding is a productive factor that is provided by history. It is the beginning of the interpretation because it can provide horizon for readers. When one reader is interpreting, he has to enlarge his horizon and fuse it with other's horizon. At last, the interpretation becomes the fusion of horizons. Of course, the interpretation goes along with the dialectic of question and answer. We can understand the text when we get the horizon by dialectic of question and answer. At the end of the interpretation, the reader must connect the interpretation with his own situation and unite the understanding, interpretation and application together. As soon as Gadamer advanced the interpretative validity, it brought attention and criticism from western philosophers. Betti and Hirsch argued that Gadamer's thought is a kind of relativism by the objectivism. Derrida, the representative for deconstructivism, criticize Gadamer too. He argued that Gadamer still at the age of metaphysics. Against two different kinds of criticism, Gadamer debated bravely for protecting the interpretative validity of his hermeneutic thought.