文本,经典与诠释——中西方经典诠释比较

Text, Classic and Interpretation:Comparison of Chinese and Western Classical Interpretation

从诠释学关于"文本"、"经典"和"诠释"这三个基本概念的理解出发,阐明文本并非语言学上所谓传达作者意义的完成了的作品,而是不断要诠释和解读的未完成品或中间产品,经典并非属于过去时代的意义固定的卓越作品,而是其意义需要未来不断阐明的历史性和规范性统一的构成物,而诠释也不是一般科学所谓知识论的客观或中立解释,而是主体不断与文本周旋的经验和实践的参与。当西方经典诠释在近代重Klassische在当代的意义生成时,中国经典诠释却仍着重Kanon原有固定化的经义的施教,因而当西方经典诠释强调认识论的客观解释时,中国经典诠释却强调实践的和教化的理解。中西方经典诠释比较不是以西解中,也不是以中解西,而是中西互解,同样,古今中介既不是厚古薄今,也不是厚今薄古,而是古今不断生命沟通和融合。我们是在与经典作品的不断交谈中获取新生,同时,经典作品也正是在这种不断交谈中生生不息。

On the basis of the hermeneutical understanding of the three basic concepts, ＆quot;text＆quot;,＆quot;classic＆quot; and＆quot;interpretation＆quot; , this paper contends that a text is not a so-called linguistically completed work which conveys the author＇s meaning ,but an unfinished product or intermediate product which must be continuously interpreted and elucidated. The paper also argues that a classic is not a piece of excellent work with fixed meaning which belongs to the past,but a historical and normative structure which needs continuous interpretation. The paper also argues that interpretation is not a so-called general scientific objective or neutral explanation, but a kind of participation that is about our experience and practice in dealing with the texts. We also discuss the historical development of Chinese and Western classical interpretations and their differences. While the Western interpretation of classics in modern times focuses on how classical meaning generates its contemporary significance, the Chinese interpretation of classics still focuses on original canons immobilized by the teaching of classics based on textualism. Therefore, while the western classical interpretations emphasize the objective interpretation given rise by the theory of knowledge,the Chinese classical interpretation values the kind of understanding that draws practical meaning and inspiration from the classics. A comparative study of the Chinese-western classical interpretations is not ”interpreting Chinese philosophy in light of its western counterpart”, nor is it ”interpreting western philosophy in light of its Chinese counterpart”, but a study based on mutual interpretations. Similarly, upholding the ancient- modern intermediary does not ”lay more stress on the past than on the present, nor does it lay more stress on the present than on the past”; it is rather a matter of constant communication and integration of the ancient and modern lives. We obtain new life by talking constantly with classical works. The life of classical works also renews itself in this conversation.