It is generally accepted that reader can better understand the work of its author while Hans-Georg Gadamer claims in his historical distance theory that reader can get more objective understanding of the meaning of history than the author. But in the author of this paper's opinion there is something wrong in it, for it neglects the author's feeling and experience, thus it neglects or even negates the meaning of its emotional existence and then brings danger to the value and dignity of individual existence. The relationship between reader and author is virtually the relationship of body and cognition, in which the former is the course of existence which is original while the latter is the understanding of the course of existence which is derivative. Thus it can be drawn that the author has the priority. The author's text restricts the reader's field of vision, and if it exceeds that of the text, it is not the understanding of the text itself. So, it is clear that the accepted view really acts on eliminating the body but it should be restricted, and if it won't be restricted, the bodyis eliminated completely, and then there will be a danger that holism exists while individuality is negated.%有一种流行的说法,认为读者比作者更理解他的作品;还有伽达默尔的历史距离说,认为后来者比当事人能够更客观地理解历史的意义.笔者认为,这种观点存在着学理上的谬误,并且存在着忽视当事人感受和体验,从而忽视甚至否定其感性存在意义以至于个体存在价值和尊严的危险.作者与读者的关系,实质上是本体与认识的关系,前者是存在过程,是本源性的,后者则是对于存在过程的理解,是次生的,因而作者是具有优先性的:作者的文本限定了读者的视域,规定了理解的根本方向;若超出文本的视域,便不再是对于该文本的理解.前述流行的观点诚然具有消解主体性的作用,但这种消解应当是有限度的;若是没有限度,彻底消解了主体性,那么就有走向整体主义,从而否定个体性的危险.
展开▼
