語境與典範－論John Pocock之方法論中的一些問題

Abstract

John Pocock, by reference to contemporary philosophy of science and linguistics, argues that the meaning of texts is determined by the outside context. If texts are seen as the media of communication between the authers and the readers, the full command of context is the precondtion of understanding what the authers really want to say. Mark Bevir, using Donald Davidson's theory in the philosophy of language, contends that the overemphasis on context in Pocock's methodology will commit the fallacy of ”hermeneutic circle”, that is, context is only relavent to the semantic meaning rather than the hermeneutic meaning of text, which is what the auther really what to communicate. Hence he concludes that Pocock's contextualism does not provide any ”logics of discovery” of the real meaning of texts, since context is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition in determining the meanings of texts. This article will try to show that Bevir's argument sill insufficient to beat Pocock's methodology. Since language is a necessary means to recover auther's intention, context will still play some role when restoring the original meaning of texts.