INTERPRETATION, UNDERSTANDING, VIRTUE: THE HERMENEUTIC ASPECTS OF K.-O. APEL’S DISCURSIVE ETHICS

Abstract

The rapid development of the modern world multiplies the debate on ethical issues. Since the twentieth century, disputes over the choice between ethical “universalism” and “situational” ethics have been active. Thus, practical philosophy is one area that needs serious theoretical work to solve its problems. In this regard, it becomes necessary to combine ethical research with other philosophical directions (including hermeneutics). However, today it is also necessary to look for theoretical and methodological models within which traditional hermeneutics would find a reliable theoretical foundation. This is necessary because traditional hermeneutics must sustain the pace of modern scientific development and at the same time maintain its own disciplinary specificity. This requirement is fully met the theory of K.-O. Apel. In difficult modern historical conditions, the discursive ethics of K.-O. Apel is unique and effective due to the fact that it provides universal ethical guidelines based on reasonable principles of mutual understanding and dialogue. In the course of our research, it was shown that the philosophical development of discursive problematics in Germany mainly takes the form of a “hermeneutic-linguistic” study of cognitive processes. Therefore, the presence of elements of hermeneutical knowledge in the framework of the K.-O. Apel’s philosophy is an objective fact. We also found out that transcendental pragmatics is called upon to resolve the issue of the normative structure of discourse, that is, the underlying principles of the functioning of a common communicative-language field. We found that inside his own theory, K-O. Apel skillfully combines various theoretical and methodological approaches. We also showed that discursive ethics, based on the principles of transcendental pragmatics, incorporates certain hermeneutic “elements”. We found out that K.-O. Apel defines his own approach as “transcendental-hermeneutic” and retains a place for interpretative practice at two “levels” of the communicative act. The analysis showed that the interpretation is present in the language interaction, firstly, as the perception and evaluation of the addressee’s “communicative position” of the utterance (we are talking about taking into account the possible communicative competencies of the interlocutor). Secondly, the interpretation is “built-in” in the process of obtaining and “deciphering” the interlocutor’s linguistic expression (meaning the consideration of possible communicative competencies of the interlocutor and an assessment of the context of the utterance). At the same time, we found that, in the opinion of K.-O. Apel, the need for this “transcendental-pragmatic” interpretative work is due to the game (or “transcendental-game”) nature of language interaction. That is, this interaction requires from the subjects of communication active and creative appeal to the context in which this communication takes place.