존재론적 해석학과 비판적 해석학의 비교연구(3): 역사관과 사회관을 중심으로

Abstract

In this article, I compares the historical and social views of the ontological hermeneutics centered on Heidegger and Gadamer and of the critical rationalism centered on Popper and Hans Albert. The modern era saw the rise of the Enlightenment, which emphasized the universal rational capacity of human beings, but also the rise of historical relativism with the development of history and social sciences such as anthropology and folklore. Today, we can’t go back to the pre-Enlightenment era. However, we can’t completely ignore historical relativism while still honoring the ideals of the Enlightenment. The challenge we face is to combine the spirit of Enlightenment which appeals to the universal reason of human beings, with historical relativism which advocates human historicity, relativity, and cultural pluralism. This task appears at first glance to be an irresolvable contradictoty task. I see Heidegger’s and Gadamer’s ontological hermeneutics as an attempt to address these challenges. On the other hand, critical rationalism, as represented by Popper and Albert, takes a decidedly modern Enlightenment stance. From this position, Albert criticizes Heidegger and Gadamer for emphasizing the historicity of human beings while ignoring the universal nature of all human beings, thus falling into historical relativism. Furthermore, Albert argues that Heidegger and Gadamer are retreating to the pre-Enlightenment era, a time of obscurity dominated by fictionalized myths and religions. This paper examines Albert’s critique of ontological hermeneutics and compares the historical and social views of ontological hermeneutics and critical rationalism. However, since the two views of history and society are based on the views of human beings, this paper first compares the two views of human beings.