نقد تاریخ مندی ذاتی فهم با محوریت آیات قرآن

هرمنوتیک فلسفی مدعی است فهم به جهات مختلف زائیده شرایط تاریخی و لزوما متاثر از آن است و با تغییر آن شرایط فهم هم متغیر و متناسب با شرایط جدید شکل می‌گیرد؛ باعتقاد گادامر فهم تابع حیثیت های مختلف تاریخی است، مثل افق معنایی مفسر، پیش‌فرض‌های او، شرایط و سئوالات فعلی او و به گفته هیدگر، تابع پیش‌داشت ها، پیش‌دید‌ها و پیش فهم‌ها است که همه حیث وجودی انسان اند. این حیثیت ها هستند که مشخص می‌کنند انسان چگونه بفهمد؛ اینها قالب اصلی فهم های بعدی هستند و خود نیز حالت سیالیت و تاثر از شرایط و اوضاع و احوال تاریخی را دارند؛ فهم همواره حاصل امتزاج افق‌های تاریخی ودر نتیجه مقتضی تولید معنای جدید است نه بازتولید معنای مراد مولف؛ از همین رو امکان رسیدن به مر مراد مولف وجود ندارد. حیثیت‌های فوق الذکر و عوامل دخالت کننده در فهم خود قابل ملاحظه و مطالعه استقلالی نیستند. در مقاله حاضر سعی بر این است که به این موضوع پرداخته شود. دقت و تدبر در آیات نشان‌گر آن است که دلالت دسته های مختلف آیات مستقلا یا با افزودن برخی ملاحظات عقلی، با دیدگاه تاریخمندی ذاتی فهم توافق ندارد بلکه خلاف آن قابل اصطیاد از آیات است.

criticism of the inherent historicity ofunderstanding centered on the qur'an

introduction: introduction: philosophical hermeneutics claims that understanding is born of historical conditions in various ways and is necessarily affected by it, and with its change, the conditions of understanding change and are formed according to new conditions.according to gadamer, understanding is subject to various historicalconditions, such as the interpreter's semantic horizon, hispresuppositions, and the applicability of understanding. according toheidegger, understanding is subject to fore-having, fore-sight, foreconception,which are all aspects of human existence. dignitydetermines how a person understands; these are the main form ofsubsequent understandings and they are also fluid and influenced byhistorical conditions. understanding is always the result of the fusionof historical horizons and as a result, the production of new meaning,not the reproduction of the author's meaning; therefore, it is notpossible to reach the author's intention. the above-mentioned dignityand the factors involved in self-understanding cannot be consideredand studied independently, because whatever is chosen to beunderstood, it is understood through the channel of these virtues.methodology: this article tries to deal with this issue with the method of inferring the verses of the quran and inferring from themand with a critical view.findings: the findings of the article are summarized below-what is obtained from several verses of the qur'an is not acriticism of historical foundations, because the qur'an has no entranceto these new specialized topics; rather, the denial of the result ofthese foundations means the denial of the inherent historicity ofunderstanding, and when the result is denied, the original foundationsare also questioned. different categories of verses with impliedimplication can the negation of the inherent nature of all the dignity ofunderstanding, which in gadamer's view has caused the inherenthistoricity of understanding.-the verses informing about the occurrence of education, whichcomes along with the mention of education, imply that theunderstanding has been realized in accordance with reality and ispermanent, and it implies with implied implication that theunderstanding of fact has occurred without the interference of thehistorical assumptions of man and his historical horizon; while inphilosophical hermeneutics, all understandings are necessarilyhistorical.-all different categories of verses that indicate the possibility ofknowledge are incompatible with the inherent historicity ofunderstanding.-there are many verses in the qur'an that indicate, contrary to theclaim of philosophical hermeneutics, that man has the ability to lookindependently at himself, his mind, his thoughts and ideas.conclusion: consideration in the verses indicates that the meaningof different categories of verses independently or by adding somerational considerations does not agree with the view of the inherenthistoricity of understanding; rather, the opposite can be inferencefrom the verses.