作为“实践”的“理解”——基于维特根斯坦和伽达默尔的比较

“Understanding”as“Practice”—Based on the Comparison between Wittgenstein and Gadamer

维特根斯坦和伽达默尔都认为“理解”是实践性的。二者都将理解奠基于语言,并且通过“共同体”和“语言游戏”概念,指出语言没有形式上的本质而应当来源于生活,从而将理解落实于人们的生活实践和社会交往;这也为理解划出了界限,人们总是在当下处境中“理解”。作为理解的途径,“综览法”帮助人们看到语言在当下的实际用法,诠释学“对话”则试图发现“真理”在具体情况中的应用,二者都具有辩证法的特征,结果是在实践中创造新的“共同体”和“语言游戏”。两位哲学家都将“理解”置于实践与理论之间,认为真正的理解是沟通普遍性与特殊性的桥梁;无论是唯科学主义的“实践惰性”还是“反哲学”的“唯实践”都不是正确的出路,应当放弃实践和理论的对立,发挥理解的创造性,基于当下处境来运用普遍性的理论。

Both Wittgenstein and Gadamer believed that“understanding”was practical.Both base un⁃derstanding on language,and through the concepts of“community”and“language game”,they pointed out that language has no formal essence but should come from life,so as to implement understanding in people’s life practice and social interaction.This also draws the line for understanding,and people al⁃ways“understand”in the present situation.As a means of understanding,“overview”helps people see the actual use of language in the present,and hermeneutic“dialogue”seeks to discover the application of“truth”in specific situations,both of which have the characteristics of dialectics,resulting in the cre⁃ation of new“communities”and“language games”in practice.They placed“understanding”between practice and theory,believing that true understanding is the bridge between universality and particulari⁃ty.Whether it is the“practical inertia”of scientism or the“practice-only”of“anti-philosophy”,it is not the right way out,and we should abandon the opposition between practice and theory,give play to the creativity of understanding,and apply universal theory based on the current situation.