1、The two extremes in Hermeneutics： Derida and Husserl【Abstract】Through a detailed analysis of the two extremes in hermeneutics， the irrational and rational views of interpretation in the contemporary world， it elucidates that both views of interpretation are affected by hermeticism. The upsurge of de
2、constructionism has caused the interpretive confusion and crisis； it lays too much stress on linguistic features of text and neglects the coherence and some other important characteristics of text， giving the right to the readers to read the text in an unconstrained way. And， in many fields of study
3、， scholars endeavor indefatigably to search the deep structure beneath the complicated superficial phenomena and repeated models， pursuing the essence beneath the essence. 【Key words】hermeticism，irrationalism，rationalism，Husserl，Derida 1.Introduction Puzzles and disputes about how to characterize in
4、terpretation has a long history in Western thought.It is a wonderful thing to discover why and how a given text can produce so many good interpretations. As Eco says， to understand how language works does not reduce the pleasure of speaking and of listening to the eternal murmur of texts （Eco， 1992：
5、148） and we are curious about the semiotic mechanisms of understanding and interpreting the text. Cassirer also remarks that language is metaphorical in essence and it often has recourse to ambiguous words and phrases. Many modern viewpoints of interpretation show connections with hermetic thought o
6、r hermeticism which， according to Eco， has caused over-interpretations. 2.Views of Derida At the same time， Eco also pointed out that most of the so-called post-modern thought will look very pre-antique as many modern irrational theories of text interpretation show relationships with hermetic though
7、t. First， irrationalism expresses that a text is an open work and interpreters can find endless relationship in it. Second， language reflects the uncertainty of thought. Derrida is a typical person of hermeticism in Ecos eye. He thought that language and meaning are in an unstable mess， in the infin
8、ite process of a symbol in extending and differing. Derrida shows his excellent skill in the game of symbols. According to Derrida， a written text is a machine that produces an indefinite deferral. Being by nature of a “testamentary essence”， a text enjoys， or suffers， the absence of the subject of
9、writing and of the designated thing or the referent.The meaning of a text is almost always not what it says or tells you. Even though a sign suffers the absence of its author and of its referent， it does not necessarily mean that it has no objective or literal linguistic meaning. But Derrida wants t
10、o establish a philosophical practice to challenge the idea of a definite， final， and authorized meaning of any text. He wants to challenge an interpretation based on the idea of a final meaning， more than the sense of a text. He tries to show the power of language and its ability to say more than it
11、 literally pretends to say.Every sentence in a text can be interpreted metaphorically； for example， the sentence “Tom eats an apple every day” can be interpreted as “Tom repeats Adams sin every day.” The interpretation like this originates from the imagination of such deconstructionists because “Ada
12、m ate a forbidden fruit”， in the Bible. Paul de Man once remarked on Derridas theory： “We should let the text drift and follow its own inclination. We should endow the text with affluent autonomy on symbols of language. The text should not be put in any mechanism of grades. The text does not act as
13、what Heidegger wishes that it opens a world； on the contrary， the text has never opened at all. It just plays the game of symbols and entertains itself. The meaning is driven out of the text， so far as that is concerned； the divinity， the idea， Logos and essence are all driven away from philosophy，
14、as well.”（Paul de Man， 1998：1） In Derridas sense， the meaning of the signifier is subject to uncertainty， becoming the signified of other signifiers. When we ascertain a signified， we will plunge in a process in which a signifier endlessly propagates. The same is true that when determining the meani
15、ng of a text， we will also fall into the accumulation of more and more texts. For Derrida， the certainty of the text itself， with the independency of its form， is left in the other texts， in other words， endlessly delayed behind a long series of other texts. The shared characteristics of all the tex
16、ts constitute the conception of “textuality” of Derrida. Since the meaning is always delayed behind the endless accumulation of other texts， the absolute meaning does not exist. 3. Husserl Husserl began his philosophical study so as to probe into the basis of mathematics， giving birth to his early r
17、epresentative work Arithmetical Philosophy （1891） ， in which Husserl took up the question of the origin of the plural concept， which is regarded as a category. For him， the basis of mathematics lies in something prior to logic. He persisted in exploring the root of the truth of logic. Starting from
18、the inner of logic， he searches for the root of epistemology， swaying his view between the two extremes of conceptual existence and prior ego. He emphasizes the strictness of philosophy， but in the meanwhile， he remarked that philosophy is a kind of science of the true beginning， the root and the es
19、sence of everything. Its a science that returns to the last origins.For him， the study of language just sees its significance in readiness and only the prior phenomenology which discloses the origin of meaning can become the primary philosophy. He thinks that the products of the early culture are se
20、dimentary deposits， being artifacts rather than substances， which means to understand the thought and meaning beneath the language. Meanings have existed there， therefore， people are able to return to a kind of primary language and construct a strict pedigree， that is， the cultural tradition derives
21、 from that kind of language. He believes that the activity of intention is the origin of the construction of all the meaning. Obviously， Husserl can not settle for the description of the complicated process. He tried persistently to crack the mystery concealing beneath the experiences of consciousne
22、ss. Husserl held the rational view point in meaning and is concerned about the root of the meaning in inherent consciousness. An important characteristic of Husserls phenomenology is to link the description of the outward appearance with essence. The description of phenomenology is a generative one，
23、 of essence， rather than classified description of surface. What it deals with is the connection of essence and the universal structure （Li Pengcheng， 1998：113）. He agrees that only returning to the prime source of intuition and deducing the essence， can we fully apply the great tradition of philoso
24、phy in our conception and issues. Only in this way， can concepts be intuitively clarified， thus， solving the issue in principle. The phenomenology， as a matter of fact， is a kind of study of essence of intuition. Just as Heidegger remarked， phenomenology is concerned with the principles of all spiri
25、tual life and insight into the essence of all that is itself principled. At the same time this means that phenomenological critique， whose positive aim is to see and bring into view the true and genuine origins of spiritual life. Universality of word meanings primarily indicates something original.
26、Such a kind of phenomenology， which strives to explore the root of meaning， also fails to reach the ultimate root and essence， sharing the same characteristic with hermeticism. 4. The way out for hermeticism Rational and irrational hermeticism in interpretation， whatever difference there may be betw
27、een them， they share the same characteristic of being skeptical about the existing meaning or theory， believing that there must be something behind it， yet to be explored. The scientific community， a special kind of language community， whose task it is to interpret the natural world， will be able to
28、 determine within its knowledge system which theory is better and hence is to be accepted. It would be senseless to reject and question Einsteins theory of relativity when in fact it works so well and supplies human beings with endless fruits. Similarly， the task of judging which interpretation of a
29、 text is a better one has to be handed to members of the language communication community， who will do the job through norms or conventions of the language historically or culturally formed and hence it is needless or absurd to ask why that particular interpretation is better by asking why we should
30、 have such and such norms and conventions that make the interpretation better. Reference： 1Eco Umberto.1992. Interpretation and Overinterpretation. Cambridage：Cambridage Universtity press. 2Eco艾柯，2005， 开放的作品 ，刘儒庭译。北京：新星出版社。 3Paul de Man保罗德曼，1998， 解构之图 ，李自修译。北京：中国社会科学出版社。 4Li Pengcheng李鹏程，1998， 胡塞尔传 。石家庄：河北人民出版社。M.
