【作者】 李凯；

【导师】 颜炳罡；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 中国哲学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 在蔚为显学的西方诠释学的刺激下,“中国诠释学”的建构工作也广泛开展起来。数年以来,有关“中国诠释学”的研究进行得如火如荼,其中尤以傅伟勋教授、成中英教授、黄俊杰教授和汤一介教授的工作最为代表。傅伟勋教授的“创造的诠释学”把诠释活动划分为“实谓”、“意谓”、“蕴谓”、“当谓”和“必谓”五个层次,兼容了还原性诠释方法与创造性诠释方法,可惜他对“当谓”、“必谓”两层次的解说不够明晰,这便弱化了其诠释方法的可操作性。成中英教授在精心整合中西哲学的基础上创造出他的“本体诠释学”,因为设计了实体与体系的互动,“本体诠释学”就从一定程度上超越了蕴含着相对主义缺陷的哲学诠释学,但由于他取消了本的确定性,这使其“本体诠释学”仍旧难逃相对主义的责难。黄俊杰教授以《孟子》为中心的“经典诠释学”通过考察历代儒者对《孟子》一书的诠释,指出孟子学的研究者可以被划分为两大阵营和三种基本形态。黄教授的研究解决了孟学诠释史中的许多问题,只是对于孟子学里存在的历史性与超越性之间的紧张,他却未能化解。汤一介教授在1998年提出了创建“中国解释学”的构想。他认为,要创建“中国解释学”,一要立足中国传统的经典注释资源,二要参照西方诠释学中的部分内容。可是,由于汤教授的计划过于庞大,将中国两千年的注经传统熔于一炉的做法未必切实可行。前人的摸索为我们积累了可贵的经验,特别值得记取的一条是“中国诠释学”的成立与否很大程度上取决于中国哲学研究学者能否成功地将传统的诠释思想转活于现代,而绝不可作架空之论。另外,已有的几种“中国诠释学”的体系中也暴露出许多应予关注的问题。譬如,“中国诠释学”的构建不能只在方法论层面上下功夫,还须进行本体论层面的梳理;对西方诠释学特别是以“视域融合”为核心概念的哲学诠释学的借鉴应当有所选择,无区别的移植只会损害“中国诠释学”应有的特质。总结上述经验教训有助于为“中国诠释学”的未来发展理清思路、明确方向。能否选准典型性较强的问题域作为切入点是能否成功构建“中国诠释学”的关键,孟子对《诗》、《书》及诸子的诠释无疑就是这样一个适当的突破口。《孟子》一书中蕴藏着丰富的诠释思想。历代的注释家们从不同的方向上对《孟子》书中的“以意逆志”、“知人论世”、“不以文害辞,不以辞害志”以及“知言”等诠释方法做出过批注。不过,迄今为止还没有人将孟子的诠释思想作为一个整体进行系统、深入的阐发。上世纪九十年代至今,孟子学的研究出现了空前繁荣的景象,一大批优秀学术著作相继问世。可惜的是,孟子诠释思想方面的著述甚稀,纵然偶有论及者,也是新意乏陈、深度尚浅。所以,进一步阐发孟子的诠释思想很有必要。阐发孟子的诠释思想首先应当深入挖掘其丰厚的本体论意蕴。西方哲学中的本体论诠释学实质上是生存论诠释学,它在人的理解活动与人类的基本生存状态间建立起了本质的关联。因此,孟子的本体论诠释思想就包含了如下两方面的意义:其一,孟子的诠释活动不是为诠释而诠释,而是关涉生命的,换言之,他的诠释活动中糅合进了他深厚的人生体验;其二,孟子的人生历程即其存在是以诠释或理解的方式呈现出来的,换言之,他的人生感悟贯穿于其一生的学术活动及政治活动之中。另外,孟子诠释思想里所蕴含的本体论或者生存论也涵盖了这样两个层次的内容,即孟子对人自身存在的领悟及其对其他存在者存在的开显,前者体现在孟子对“仁义”的阐扬和践行上,后者则体现在孟子“万物皆备于我”的直觉体验中。与西方的本体论诠释学相比,孟子的诠释思想由于有了本体的规范或制约,从而避免了陷入相对主义的误区。孟子思想体系里的本体是一种特殊的精神状态,在描述“浩然之气”时,孟子具体揭示了这一精神状态的内涵。孟子的本体虽是超越的,但并非隔绝的,这就是说,那种特殊的精神状态可以派生万理,即产生具体道德法则,前述孟子的本体论内容就是这里所谓具体道德法则,二者异名同谓。用牟宗三先生的话说,这种具体道德法则是“具体而普遍”的,它一方面出自超验的本体,另一方面又融入了当时当地的经验因素。在孟子的“圣贤易地则皆然”的智慧里,道德法则的“具体而普遍”的性格显露无遗。从“圣贤易地则皆然”的真知灼见中,我们还可以透视出一种以直觉为依托的诠释方法,这种诠释方法鲜明地展现在孟子的“以意逆志”说及“知人论世”说中。从诠释学的角度去看,“以意逆志”是一种换位思考的诠释方式,它要求诠释者设身处地地站在作者的立场上而后叩问本心,孟子认为这样一来诠释者便可以与作者达成“心向理同”的默契;显然,实施“以意逆志”的前提是诠释者要准确地掌握到作者所持的立场,而“知人论世”正是这样一种还原历史境遇的方法。此外,孟子的“不以文害辞,不以辞害志”的方法及“知言”说均可以被视之为诠释方法。“不以文害辞,不以辞害志”是孟子解读作品原意的重要手段,它要求诠释者剥离作品表面文辞的障蔽,客观地进入作品本身;“知言”的方法则是诠释者以自身的价值理念对作者或作品原意的评判。“以意逆志”之“意”正是这里所谓诠释者的价值理念,“不以文害辞,不以辞害志”之“志”正是这里所谓作者或作品原意。可见,孟子的诸种诠释方法之间有着内在的关联,可以被整合为一个有机的理论整体。在诠释《诗经》、《尚书》等经典文献及杨朱、墨翟等诸子之言的过程中,孟子广泛应用了其诠释方法。通过对孟子的诠释实践的分析,我们可以发现,伽达默尔等人所宣称的本体论诠释学与方法论诠释学之间的截然对立在孟子这里是不存在的,孟子的诠释活动总是既贯彻着他的那套诠释理路,又彰显着本体论的意蕴。通过与庄子及荀子的相互比较,孟子诠释思想的特质可以更加清晰地展现出来。庄子把知识区分为“大知”与“小知”两类,“小知”是他所排斥的世俗知识,“大知”是关于道的知识。在庄子的诠释思想里,道是其本体论的内容,同时也是其自身的诠释前见,只不过庄子的本体论内容与孟子以关注秩序和道德为特征的本体论内容在性质上完全不同。庄子极力贬低人们日常生活中常用的语言,认为它们不足以表现道;依据庄子后学的说法,表现道只能靠寓言、重言和卮言。寓言、重言和卮言是诗意的语言,而孟子在诠释过程中所使用的语言则是雄辩的语言,语言风格的不同直接影响着诠释活动的最终结论,这充分证明了洪堡所谓“语言观就是世界观”的论断的正确性。孟子的本体论内容发于本体,庄子的本体论内容也是有本有源的。庄子诠释思想里的本体是所谓“心斋”,“心斋”也是一种超乎寻常的精神体验,它与孟子“浩然之气”的差别在于,“心斋”以“虚而待物”为其本质规定性,而“浩然之气”却是“集义所生者”。因此,追本溯源,孟子与庄子的诠释前见的不同决定于本体的不同,进而言之,孟子与庄子对宇宙人生的不同理解根源于两种不同的神秘直觉。孟、荀诠释思想的相似点在于,在展开诠释的过程中,孟子和荀子均以儒家的道作为诠释前见,道是其诠释活动的标尺。这里所说的道其实也就是前文所提到的具体道德法则或者本体论的内容。孟子、荀子的这种相似突出地表现在孟子的“知言”说、“尽信《书》,则不如无《书》”之说、荀子的“解蔽”说及“隆礼义而敦《诗》、《书》”之说中。荀子的“解蔽”是以道为准绳对奸言、邪说进行权衡、取舍的诠释方法,这与孟子的“知言”相类似;荀子的“隆礼义而敦《诗》、《书》”是将道作为指导思想诠释《诗》、《书》等经典文献的方法,这与孟子的“尽信《书》,则不如无《书》”相类似。孟、荀诠释思想的相异点表现在三个方面,首先,孟子诠释思想里的道实现了历史性与超越性的辩证统一,而荀子诠释思想里的道则超越性突显,历史性不彰;其次,孟子和荀子获取道的途径不同,前者通过“心官之思”的方法直觉道,后者通过“虚壹而静”的方法认知道,“心官之思”是主客合一的认识方式,而“虚壹而静”却是主客二元分立的认识方式,不过两种认识方式间仍然存在着共同之处,即孟子和荀子都是在价值中立的前提下确立其诠释前见的,这体现了中国古代诠释思想与西方的哲学诠释学的重大差别;最后,孟子的“知言”融创造性诠释方法及还原性诠释方法于一体,而荀子的“解蔽”却是一种较为纯粹的创造性诠释方法。孟子的诠释思想对后世产生了深远的影响。从宏观上来看,汉学的治学路数大致属于还原性的诠释方法,宋学的治学路数大致属于创造性的诠释方法,而孟子是兼采创造性诠释方法和还原性诠释方法的,从这个意义上讲,孟子的诠释思想对后来的汉宋两家显然不无影响。从微观上来看,孟子之后的许多学者分别借鉴了孟子诠释方法的某一环节以作为自己的解经或治学之法。举例言之:赵岐之所以能够在章句学领域有所突破,很大程度上与他对孟子“以意逆志”说的误读与使用有关;张载深刻地领会了孟子提出“知言”说的真实用意并将其应用于对经典的解读之中;朱熹可以总结出“虚心涵泳”的读书法得益于他吸收了孟子“不以文害辞,不以辞害志”的思路;钱大昕成功地将孟子的“知人论世”理论转化为自身的史学批评方法;徐复观“追体验”的文学批评理论是对孟子“以意逆志”、“知人论世”方法的继承与创新。我们既可以将孟子诠释思想与中国历代哲人的诠释理论作纵向比较,也可以将孟子诠释思想与不同类型的西方诠释学作横向比较。“中西诠释思想间是否存在对话可能”是近年来争论较多的话题,借由孟子诠释思想与西方诠释学的对比,我们可以尝试解答这一问题。如果以西方诠释学作为参照,那么,共有两类诠释方法隐含于孟子思想之中。简言之,他的“以意逆志”说与阿斯特的诠释学接近,“知人论世”说及“不以文害辞,不以辞害志”之说则与施莱尔马赫诠释学雷同。孟子的“以意逆志”说体现了以道德直觉为依托的诠释方法,无独有偶,阿斯特的诠释学也属于借助直觉诠释对象的理论,其运思方式与孟子的诠释方法几无二致;再者,施莱尔马赫的语法解释与“不以文害辞,不以辞害志”的诠释方法在根本上属于同一类型,而他的心理学解释则与“知人论世”的诠释方法存有更多的相似点。然而,若把孟子的诠释思想与伽达默尔诠释学予以比较,我们将看到,双方各说各话、互不相干,缺乏有效沟通的前提,其最典型的表现就是脱胎于“逻各斯主义”的“视域融合”理论与发端于直觉体验传统的“以意逆志”说的尖锐对立。不过总体言之,文化背景的不同并不必然导致东西方诠释思想间的不可沟通,中西诠释思想能否对话、有无可比性,主要是由其各自的理论特质决定的。更多还原

【Abstract】 Under the stimulation of the Westem Hermeneutics which has become an important subject,the project to establish "the Sinitic Hermeneutics" are developed widely.The research pertaining to "the Sinitic Hermeneutics" has been prevailing for many years.The most typical productions resulting from these research activities are reflected on these writings of the professor Fu Weixun,the professor Cheng Zhongying, the professor Huang Junjie and the professor Tang Yijie.The professor Fu Weixun’s creative-Hermeneutics divides the annotation into five steps,which respectively is "shiwei","yiwei","yunwei","dangwei" and "biwei".The creative-Hermeneutics includes the method of reductive annotation and the method of creative annotation.It is a pity that his remark on "dangwei" and "biwei" isn’t transparent,as reduces the maneuverability of his method of annotation.The professor Cheng Zhongying created his Onto-Hermeneutics on the basis of inosculating Chinese philosophy with Western philosophy.Because he devised the interaction between entity and system, Onto-Hermeneutics surpasses the Philosophical Hermeneutics including the limitation of relativism.But his Onto-Hermeneutics still couldn’t avoid the censure of relativism because he canceled the entity’s determinacy.The professor Huang Junjie’s Hermeneutics of Confucian sutra taking Mencius as center points out that the Mencius’s academicians could be partitioned off into two camps and three essential styles via the review about the Confucianists’ annotations to Mencius.The professor Huang’s research resolved many problems of the history of interpretations to Mencius.However,he couldn’t relieve the tensity between historicity and transcendency in Mencius.In 1998 the professor Tang Yijie advanced the supposition on establishing "the Chinese Hermeneutics".He thought,for the establishment of "the Chinese Hermeneutics",on one hand,we should base ourselves upon the China’s commentarial tradition,on the other hand,we should refer to some contents on Western Hermeneutics.But the professor Tang’s project is so enormous that his modus operandi that makes the China’s commentarial tradition which has two thousand years’ history together maybe isn’t feasible.These scholars’ grope gathered estimable experiences for us,the most valuable one of which is whether "the Sinitic Hermeneutics" could come into existence lies on whether the scholars could regenerate the orthodox Hermeneutics successfully and we couldn’t creat certain theory without foundation.Besides,the systems of these existent "Sinitic Hermeneutics" has uncovered many problems to which we should pay more attention.For example,when we construct "the Sinitic Hermeneutics",we should not only put in time and effort on the methodology’s lay,but also illuminate something from ontology’s lay,and we should make some choice on the reference to the western Hermeneutics,especially the Philosophical Hermeneutics whose nuclear conception is "perspective amalgamation",otherwise we would tamper the immanent particularity of "the Sinitic Hermeneutics".The summing-up of object lesson could clarify our minds and point out the right direction for the intending development of "the Sinitic Hermeneutics".Whether we could make choice of the typical domain,qua breach or not is the key of whether we could create "the Sinitic Hermeneutics" successfully or not.Mencius’s annotations to the sutras such as the Book of Songs and the Book of History and the doctrines of various schools are just the breach undoubtedly.There are plenty of ideologies of Hermeneutics in Mencius.The past exegetes interpreted the methods of annotation such as "Yiyinizhi","Zhirenlunshi","Buyiwenhaici,Buyicihaizhi" and "Zhiyan" in Mencius from different approach.But up to now no one has regarded the Mencius’s ideologies of Hermeneutics as an integral whole to make systematic and thoroughgoing elucidation.From the 90’s of last century to now,there appeared unprecedentedly flourishing vision in study of Mencius and large quantities of excellent academical literatures were published one aider the other.It is regrettable that the writings on Mencius’s ideologies of Hermeneutics were quite lacking.Even if there were some scholars treated of it,their literatures lack of original ideas and are very superficial.So it is very necessary to elucidate Mencius’s ideologies of Hermeneutics ulteriorly.In order to elucidate Mencius’s ideologies of Hermeneutics,we should thoroughly dig its abundant ontological content firstly.The Ontological Hermeneutics of Western philosophy is the Existential Hermeneutics in essence,which relates human’s comprehension to human’s basic existential state substantially.Therefore the Ontological Hermeneutics’s meaning of Mencius includes two aspects.First,Mencius’s activities of annotation weren’t just annotation but involved being.In other words,there were profound human experience in his activities of annotation.Second,Mencius’s life course or his being was unfolded by annotation or comprehension.In other words,his gnosis about life was involved in the academical and political activities of his lifetime. In addition,the content of the ontology or the theory about being in Mencius’s ideologies of Hermeneutics involves two aspects,which respectively is the Mencius’s digestion to the human being and his definition to the being of other entities.The former is embodied in Mencius’s explanation and practice to humanity and righteousness.And the latter is embodied in Mencius’s intuition of "everything is here in me".By contrast with the Western Ontological Hermeneutics,Mencius’s ideologies of Hermeneutics avoid the trap of relativism because of the noumenon’s criterion or restriction.The noumenon in Mencius’s ideologies is a kind of exceptive psychosis.When Mencius described the "noble spirit",he revealed the psychosis’s meaning concretely.Though Mencius’s noumenon is exceedable,it isn’t insular.That is to say,the exceptive psychosis can produce idiographic reasons or moral principles,which are just the content of the ontology we refered to in former.In Mr.Mou Zongsan’s words,the idiographic moral principles are "idiographic and universal",which means on one hand these principles derive from transcendental noumenon,on the other hand there are temporal and local ingredients in the principles.In Mencius’s wisdom that "if saints or solons change places,they would behave in the same way",the moral principles’ character of"idiographic and universal" is exposed to view.From the penetrating judgment of "if saints or solons change places,they would behave in the same way",we may find a sort of method of annotation that relies on intuition,which is brightly exhibited in Mencius’s "Yiyinizhi" and "Zhirenlunshi". From the point of view of Hermeneutics,"Yiyinizhi" is an annotation’s mode of thinking transpositionally.It requires the interpreter stand with the author and ask himself.Then the interpreter’s opinion would be identical with the author’s,Mencius thought.Apparently the precondition of "Yiyinizhi" is that the interpreter need master the author’s standpoints well and truly."Zhirenlunshi" is just the method of reverting to historical condition.Furthermore,Mencius’s "Buyiwenhaici,buyicihaizhi" and "Zhiyan" both could be regarded as methods of annotation."Buyiwenhaici, buyicihaizhi" is the important measure that Mencius unscrambled a writing’s original intention,which demands a reader peel off the obstructs of a writing’s exterior diction and enter into the writing itself objectively."Zhiyan" is the judgement on the original intention of an author or a writing by a reader’s ideas about value.The "Yi" of "Yiyinizhi" is just the reader’s ideas about value and the "Zhi" of "Buyiwenhaici, buyicihaizhi" is just the original intention of an author or a writing.It is obvious that there are inherent relationships among Mencius’s methods of annotation,which may be conformed and become an organic academic whole.Mencius applied his method of annotation to the sutras such as the Book of Songs and the Book of History and the doctrines of various schools such as Yang Zhu and Mo Di abroad.From the analysis of Mencius’s pratices of annotation,we could find that the opposition between Ontological Hermeneutics and Methodological Hermeneutics which Gadamer and others ever alleged doesn’t exist.Mencius’s activities of annotation always both carried out his annotation’s logic and showed the ontological content.By contrast with Zhuang Zi and Xun Zi,the particularities in Mencius’s ideologies of Hermeneutics could be exhibited more fairly.Zhuang Zi partitioned knowledge into "major knowledge" and "minor knowledge". "Minor knowledge" is the temporal knowledge that he excluded and "major knowledge" is the knowledge that relates to Tao.Tao is the content of the ontology and the prejudice of annotation of Zhuang Zi himself in Zhuang Zi’s ideologies of Hermeneutics,only Zhuang Zi’s content of the ontology is absolutely different from Mencius’s content of the ontology which attaches importance to order and morality in character.Zhuang Zi did his utmost to debase the typic language used in daily life and thought this kind of language is inadequate for representing Tao.According to the parlance of Zhuang Zi’s disciples,representing Tao only relies to "Yuyan","Chongyan" and "Zhiyan"."Yuyan","Chongyan" and "Zhiyan" are poetic language,while Mencius’s language used in the process of annotation is eloquent language.The difference of lingual style influences the ultimate conclusion of annotation directly,as adeguately proves the correctness of Humboldt who said language view is just world view.Mencius’s content of the ontology derives from noumenon and Zhuang Zi’s content of the ontology also has fountain.The noumenon in Zhuang Zi’s ideologies of Hermeneutics is so-called "fasting of the mind" that is also unusual psychic experience, the difference between which and Mencius’s "noble spirit" is that "fasting of the mind"’s essential characteristic is "emptiness and awaiting for things",while "noble spirit" "is born of accumulated righteousness".Therefore in the final analysis the dissimilarity of prejudice of annotation between Mencius and Zhuang Zi rests with the dissimilarity of noumenon.Moreover,the dissimilar comprehension of universe and life between Mencius and Zhuang Zi roots in two dissimilar mysterious intuitions. The similarity between Mencius’s ideologies of Hermeneutics and Xun Zi’s is that Mencius and Xun Zi treated Tao of Confucianism as the prejudice of annotation in the process of annotation and Tao was their criterion of annotation.In fact,Tao refered to here is also the idiographic moral principles or the content of the ontology refered to in former.The similarity between Mencius and Xun Zi lies in "Zhiyan","Discarding the Book of History rather than trusting it absolutely","Jiebi" and "Learning the Book of Songs and the Book of History in addition to advocating courtesy and righteousness". Xun Zi’s "Jiebi" is the method of annotation that accepts or rejects heretical ideas in terms of Tao,which is similar to Mencius’s "Zhiyan".Xun Zi’s "Learning the Book of Songs and the Book of History in addition to advocating courtesy and righteousness" is the method to interpret the sutras such as the Book of Songs and the Book of History in terms of Tao,which is similar to Mencius’s "Discarding the Book of History rather than trusting it absolutely".The dissimilarities between Mencius’s ideologies of Hermeneutics and Xun Zi’s are exhibited in three aspects.Firstly,Tao in Mencius’s ideologies of Hermeneutics achieves dialectic unification between historicity and transcendency.On the contrary,historicity of Tao in Xun Zi’s ideologies of Hermeneutics is obvious,while transcendency of it isn’t obvious.Secondly,their approaches of getting hold of Tao are different,which means Mencius apprehended Tao by the method of"the Intuition of Heart" and Xun Zi apprehended Tao by the method of "Open-minded,Single-minded and Quiet"."The Intuition of Heart" is the epistemic method of syncretism between subject and object."Open-minded,Single-minded and Quiet" is the epistemic method of schism between subject and object.But then there is also common ground between two epistemic methods,which means Mencius and Xun Zi both radicated their prejudice of annotation on the basis of the neutrality of value,as embodies the important difference between China’s archaic ideologies of Hermeneutics and Western Philosophical Hermeneutics.Finally,Mencius’s "Zhiyan" contains the method of reductive annotation and the method of creative annotation.While Xun Zi’s "Jiebi" is a quite pure method of creative annotation.Mencius’s ideologies of Hermeneutics influenced afterworld profoundly.From a macroscopical standpoint,the approach in academic pursuit of the learning of the Han Dynasty is the method of reductive annotation in the rough and the approach in academic pursuit of the learning of the Sung Dynasty is the method of creative annotation in the rough.But Mencius adopted the method of creative annotation and the method of reductive annotation at the same time.From this point of view,Mencius’s ideologies of Hermeneutics influenced the subsequent scholars who studied Confucian classics apparently.From a microcosmic standpoint,many scholars after Mencius respectively refered to certain tache of Mencius’s method of annotation to unscramble sutra or make research.For example,Zhao Qi’s breakthrough in the field of commentary studies relates to his misregistration and employment to Mencius’s "Yiyinizhi" to a great degree.Zhang Zai grasped the genuine purpose of Mencius’s "Zhiyan" and applied it to unscramble sutra.Zhu Xi created the reading method of "Xuxinhanyong",as profits from his assimilating Mencius’s logic about "Buyiwenhaici, buyicihaizhi".Qian Daxin transformed the theory of Mencius’s "Zhirenlunshi" into his critical method about historiography successfully.Xu Fuguan’s critical theory about literature called "Zhuitiyan" is succession and innovation to Mencius’s "Yiyinizhi" and "Zhirenlunshi"’s methods of annotation.We not only could compare Mencius’s ideologies of Hermeneutics with China’s philosophers of past dynasties’ theories of Hermeneutics lengthways,but also with different type of Western Hermeneutics breadthwise."Whether there is possibility of dialogue between the Western Hermeneutics and the Sinitic Hermeneutics" is the topic that is debated frequently in recent years.By the comparison between the Western Hermeneutics and the Sinitic Hermeneutics,we may try to answer this question.If the Western Hermeneutics is regarded as a reference system,there are two methods of annotation in the philosophy of Mencius.At a word,his "Yiyinizhi" resembles the Hermeneutics of Ast,and "Zhirenlunshi" and "Buyiwenhaici,buyicihaizhi" resemble the Hermeneutics of Schleiermacher.Mencius’s "Yiyinizhi" is the method of annotation based on moral intuition.Not come singly but in pairs,the Hermeneutics of Ast also belongs to the theory of annotation relying on intuition,whose logic is the same as Mencius’s method of annotation.Moreover,Schleiermacher’s grammatical interpretation and the method of annotation of "Buyiwenhaici,buyicihaizhi" belong to the same style radically and there exist more similarities between his psychological interpretation and the method of annotation of "Zhirenlunshi".However,when we compare the Hermeneutics of Mencius with the Hermeneutics of Gadamer,we’ll find that both sides are out of the picture and lack the premise of resultful communication, the most typical representation of which is the poignant opposition between the theory of "perspective amalgamation" that was born out of logocentrism and "Yiyinizhi" that came into being in the tradition of intuition.But on balance the cultural background’s difference doesn’t induce the gulf between Eastern ideologies of Hermeneutics and Western ideologies of Hermeneutics.Whether they could dialogize or not or whether they have comparabilities or not is mainly decided by respective theoretical particularities.更多还原