Plotinian Methodology and Hermeneutics： Philosophy or History of Philosophy？

The present paper has a double aim： （1） it attempts to present an aspect of Plotinus＇ philosophical and hermeneutical methodology on the basis of relevant remarks in the treatise ＂On Eternity and Time＂; （2） it seeks to connect this attitude with contemporary methodological questions concerning the relation between philosophy and history of philosophy. After an introduction where it is emphasized that the term ＂Neo-Platonism＂ is of recent coinage, I exploit David Sedley＇s remarks regarding the function of ancient philosophical schools： the quest for the ＂correct＂ interpretation of the school＇s founder as a philosophical enterprise in itself is not an exclusively Neoplatonic characteristic. Nonetheless, the example of Plotinus＇ Enneads III.7, owing to the complexity of its theme, shows that Plotinus does not pay attention only to the Platonic teachings regarding eternity and time, but also to all the other philosophical schools＇ theories, including the Epicurean. The aim is the ascertainment of the truth inherent in them and its apt interpretation. Hence, I follow Steven K. Strange （1950-2009）, who relates the Plotinian methodology to Aristotle＇s endoxic method. After a presentation of similarities and differences between the two philosophers, I conclude that the problematic features posed by several philosophical theories are resolved via an innovative Plotinian reading of Plato. Thus, the non-Platonic theories play a role in the more adequate interpretation of Plato, which is identified with the successful answer to the philosophical problems. This fact makes us wonder as to the best characterization of Plotinus＇ enterprise： philosophy or history of philosophy？ Although the question is somehow anachronistic, Plotinus gives an explicit response in his aforementioned tractate： to the extent that he is interested in solving philosophical problems, rather than compiling a ＂catalogue＂ of past philosophical positions, his enterprise is not historical, but philosophical. Two final corollaries stem from this： （i） to a certain extent, the previous enunciation explains the Neoplatonic reading of Plato; （ii） it teaches us that the difference between philosophizing and a historical treatment of philosophy does not lie only on the content, but also on the manner according to which the interpreter approaches past or contemporary philosophers.

Questioning to Hesitation rather than Hesitating to Question： A Pragmatic Hermeneutic Perspective on Educational Inquiry

Utilizing arguments imbedded in the pragmatist and hermeneutic traditions, the conclusion emerges that genuinely understanding opposing points of view requires a penetrating and sustained questioning process that finds relief only when the justificatory background material of the other nibbles at the certainty of one＇s own position. The implications of the edict that one ought to question to hesitation are then explored, namely, that （1） it suggests what kind of questioning is the right kind of qteestioning, （2） it suggests a redefinition of what counts as ＂respect for persons,＂ and （3） it challenges the common assumption that the efficacy of communal inquiry is self-fulfilling and self-regulating, and suggests, by contrast, that facilitators ought to be far more prepared to engage in questioning to hesitation.

SPECIAL ISSUE： A DISCUSSION ON THE SOURCE OF MEANING OF LITERARY WORKS A Brief Discussion of the Generation of Meaning in Literary Works： A Hermeneutic Examination

The sources of meanings of literary works can be reviewed from various angles, one of which should be hermeneutics. Since the mid-20~ century, Western hermeneutics developed two important types of theories： one was the ontological hermeneutics from Martin Heidegger to Hans-Georg Gadamer, orientated towards the reader-centered theory in terms of the view of meanings; the other was the ＂hermeneutics as the general methodology of the Geisteswissenschaften＂ represented by Italian philosopher Emilio Betti, which affirmed that the author （subject） was one of the important sources of meanings of works. Due to intricate reasons, the latter exerted less influence, and Gadamer＇s ontological hermeneutics firmly stuck to a mainstay position in European and American academia. Since the 1990s, the circle of literature in China has also been greatly influenced by the hermeneutic theories from Heidegger and Gadamer to reception aesthetics, and Betti＇s impact almost can be neglected. Consequently, the view of meanings of literary works from the perspective of the reader-centered theory has been widely accepted, and the role of the author to endow initial meanings to his works was belittled and even denied. Since Zhang Jiang advanced the theory of ＂imposed interpretation＂ in 2014, academia has begun to reflect upon the one-sidedness of the reader-centered theory （relativism and subjectivism）, and pick up the significance, which cannot be denied, of the author＇s meaning in the generation of meanings of literary works. In reference to Betti＇s hermeneutic train of thought and methodology, this essay, based on the practice of literary creation, concludes that the meaning of a literary work is created by the author and readers together in their interaction, and constantly generated in the dynamic process of the three factors of author, literary texts and readers, rather than by the author alone, or by readers solely.