چکیده :
تعین معنا در تفسیر، مفهوم مرکزی هرمنوتیک کلاسیک است و این نحلۀ فکری با چنین ایده‌ای، ابزاری مناسب برای فهم قصد مؤلف در متون مقدس فراهم می‌کرد.
با ظهور هرمنوتیک فلسفی و طرح مباحثی چون تولید معنا با دیالوگ میان مفسر و متن، هرمنوتیک کلاسیک و مفاهیم مرکزی آن به چالش کشیده شد.
نتیجۀ چنین باوری، حذف ایدۀ «کشف قصد مؤلف» از فرایند تفسیر و حتی خلق ایدۀ «مرگ مؤلف» بوده است؛ اما توجه‌نداشتن به قصد مؤلف و درنتیجه، باور به عدم تعین معنا مشکلاتی چون «بی‌معیاری» و درنهایت «نسبیت‌باوری» را در پی داشت و به همین سبب انتقاداتی را به سوی خود روانه ساخت.
هرمنوتیک انتقادی اریک هرش با ایده‌محوری «بازآفرینی قصد مؤلف» در چنین فضایی ظهور کرد.
در تحقیق حاضر، در گام اول، آرای اریک هرش در نقد هرمنوتیک فلسفی، نقد و بررسی و در گام بعدی به امکان و حتی ضرورت بازآفرینی قصد مؤلف در آرای او پرداخته می‌شود تا از این رهگذر بار دیگر علم هرمنوتیک به‌مثابۀ ابزاری کارآمد برای فهم متون مقدس معرفی شود.
despite being used in different branches of humanistic science such as literature, theology, and especially philosophy during the last two to three centuries, hermeneutics has not yet been defined clearly.
the literal meaning of hermeneutics in dictionaries has been affected by its traditional meaning as an interpretation of the holy book.
although hermeneutic roots can be found in ancient greece, its serious presence is connected closely by understanding the holy books.
levels of meanings and metaphorical aspects alongside the absent author are of the characteristics of holy books which make their understanding with a problem.
that was why a means for “understanding the primary meaning of holy text “was needed and hermeneutics proposed this means.
determining the meaning was, therefore, the assumption of classical hermeneutic, and “achieving the author’s intention” was the philosophy of hermeneutical science.
during the different eras, hermeneutics has been defined differently from “achieving the author’s intention” to “creating meaning by interpreter” or even “the death of the author”.
from gadamer's point of view, hermeneutics tries to understand the text.
he, however, emphasizes that assumptions have great dominance on the interpreter, and, therefore, discovering the intention of the author is not possible.
such an idea strengthens relativism in the field of epistemology and is criticized by some scholars like hersch in the school of critical hermeneutics.
eric hersch is one of the great theoreticians believing in the intention of the author.
he is known for reviving the classical hermeneutics.
although his ideas are greatly following schleiermacher and dilthey (romantic hermeneutic), he gets distance from the romantic hermeneutics as well as philosophical hermeneutics by referring to the fundamentals of classical hermeneutics and restricting the meaning of intention of the author.
by defending from the “intention of the author”, he tried to criticize philosophical hermeneutics so his hermeneutics is known as new hermeneutic.
he believes that even though discovering the intention of the author is so difficult, the chief job of an interpreter is to reveal the interpreter’s logic, interests, intellectual input, and, generally, the word of the author.
one of hersch’s ways to revive the “intention of the author” is to classify between the types of interaction with any text.
he believes that four-functions are possible for every text,” understanding”, “interpretation”, “judgment”, and “criticism”.
to distinguish between these functions, he proposes two fundamental separations as “separation between “subtilitus explicandi” and “subtilitas inteligendi”.
hersch believes that the main mistake of gadamer and heidegger was not paying attention to this big difference in understanding.
using a method like a reverse argument, hersch proves the incorrect consequences of denying the author and dependence of meaning of the text which is doubtfulness and ignoring determine and demands incorrectness to any kind of reasoning of a theory of independence of meaning.
separation of text from the thought of the author, hence, causes the plurality of meaning rather than a single meaning; however, it extirpates not only the author’s thought but also the essence of the meaning.
emphasizing that there is a big difference between the validity of interpretation and creativity of interpretation, hersch points out that creativity in interpretation does not lead to the validity of interpretation.
he believes validity refers to an accommodation with the meaning of the text.
in this way norms like “sensitivity”, “acceptability”, “power”, and “attractiveness” are not so important.
because what the text says maybe is none of them.
the aim of interpretation, therefore, from the internationalists’ perspective is the validity of interpretation which its necessity is a limitation.
hersch, hence, emphasizes that the validity of interpretation which refers to the accommodation of a meaning that text presents is not necessarily creativity in interpretation.
opposed to all internationalists who believe in the theory of independence, hersch considers meaning a sort of awareness, not words.
this departure of words from meanings makes serious problems for him which made him present some rules named as the rules of confirming interpretation in four functions.
by making use of these rules, it is more probable to achieve the intention of the author and reach a valid interpretation, especially in holy books in which the author is absent.
these rules are “legitimacy”, “correspondence”, “gendered appropriateness” and “coherence”.