음악해석학: 왜 슐라이어마허인가?

장유라 이화여자대학교 음악연구소 2023 이화음악논집 Vol.27 No.1

This article begins with a discussion of the ineffability of music. Just as a poet composes a poem after seeing the beauty of nature, can we not talk about the beauty of music? Schleiermacher's hermeneutic philosophy provides a clue for discussing the modality of music. His philosophy is considered romantic hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is a study for understanding, while romantic hermeneutics goes beyond understanding the “author’s intention” and instead aims to “understand better than the author.” For this, Schleiermacher insists on “grammatical interpretation” and “psychological interpretation” that emphasize theory and practice. His hermeneutics is “universal hermeneutics.” In addition, through the discussion of music in his books, we can get a glimpse of his “musical hermeneutics,” albeit only fragmentarily. Not only did music hermeneutics start from universal hermeneutics, but music hermeneutics also developed along with the development of hermeneutics. In this paper, Schleiermacher's hermeneutics is examined as a first attempt to examine the development of such musical hermeneutics. 본 논문은 음악의 형용 불가능성에 대한 논의에서 시작한다. 자연의 아름다움을 보고 시인이 시를 짓듯이 음악의 아름다움에 대해 우리도 말할 수 있지 않은가. 슐라이어마허의 해석학적 철학은 음악의 형용 가능성 논의를 위한 단초를 제공한다. 그의 철학은 낭만주의 해석학이다. ‘이해’를 위한 학문인 ‘해석학’에서 낭만주의 해석학은 ‘저자의 의도’를 이해하는 것에서 더 나아가 ‘저자보다 더 잘 이해함’을 목표로 삼는다. 슐라이어마허는 이를 위해 이론과 실천을 강조하는 ‘문법적 해석’과 ‘심리적 해석’을 주장한다. 그의 해석학은 ‘보편적 해석학’인 것이다. 또한 그의 저서에 나타난 음악에 관한 논의를 통해 단편적이나마 그의 ‘음악해석학’을 엿볼 수 있다. 음악해석학이 보편적 해석학에서 시작되었음은 물론이고 나아가 해석학의 발전과 함께 음악해석학도 발전하였다. 본 논문에서는 그러한 음악해석학의 발전을 살펴보기 위한 첫 시도로 슐라이어마허의 해석학을 살펴본다.

The Radical Hermeneutics of Matteo Ricci

Tran Van Doan 서강대학교 신학연구소 2013 신학과 철학 Vol.- No.22

하이데거의 철학 전통 안에서 근본적 해석학은 텍스트를 하나의 대상으로서가 아니라 이해하는 주제로서 다룬다. 이 논문은 이성적 비판과 가다머의 철학적 해석학을 방법론으로 삼아 해석학이 학문으로서 완전히 발달되지 않았던 시대인 17세기에 마태오 리치 (1552-1610)가 부분적으로 근본적 해석학을 발전시켰고 또 실천하였다는 것을 보여주고자 한다. 먼저 근본적 해석학의 의미와 실제를 간략하게 살펴보고 마태오 리치의 해석작업을 잘 이해하기 위하여 근본적 해석학 중에서 널리 알려져 사용되고 있는 현상학적 해석학을 택한다. 그 다음 현상학적 해석학에 따른 근본적 해석학의 기본 교리에 기초하여 마태오 리치의 해석 방법론을 더 체계적인 방식으로 재구성함으로써 마태오 리치의 해석학에서 근본적 해석학의 요소들을 식별한다. 이렇게 하여 천(天)에 대한 마태오 리치의 해석적 이해가 그의 근본적 해석학을 보여주는 최고의 예임이 드러난다. Radical hermeneutics in the Heideggerian tradition deals with a text not as an object but as an understanding subject. Taking rational criticism and Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics, this paper attempts to argue that such radical hermeneutics was partly developed and practiced by Matteo Ricci (1552-1610) in the 17th century, when the science of hermeneutics was not fully developed. The paper begins with a short review of the meaning and practice of radical hermeneutics. It, then, takes phenomenological hermeneutics, the most widely used form of radical hermeneutics, for a better understanding of Ricci’s hermeneutical enterprise. Based on the basic tenets of radical hermeneutics, it rearranges Ricci’s method of interpretation in a more systemic way so that radical elements may be clearly discerned in Ricci’s method. Ricci’s interpretative understanding of T’ian turns out to be an example par excellence of his radical hermeneutics.

발견의 수사학과 적용의 해석학

정연재(Jeong, Yeonjae) 한국수사학회 2017 수사학 Vol.0 No.29

This article attempts to investigate the feature of Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics that reaffirms the classical rhetorical tradition and that clarifies the interconnectedness between rhetoric and hermeneutics. More specifically, this study lays the foundation for the development of rhetorical hermeneutics. Gadamer emphasizes, “The rhetorical and hermeneutical aspects of human linguisticality completely interpenetrate each other,” and “There is a deep inner convergence with rhetoric and hermeneutics.” Thus, this article attempts to clarify the rhetorical dimension of Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics. This study is organized as follows. The first section investigates the affinity hermeneutics and rhetoric with practical philosophy. Rhetoric and hermeneutics share the characteristics of practical philosophy in dialogical form. Rhetoric, like hermeneutics, returns us to the finitude of human existence in a practical context. The second section clarifies the interconnectedness between rhetoric and hermeneutics, showing the interwoven history of rhetoric and hermeneutics. By equating the interpreter with the rhetor rather than with the receptive audience, Gadamer emphasizes the dynamic character of interpretation and the space for affirmation of the tradition that is opened by the dialogic structure of understanding. Especially, avoiding the superficial account of the rhetor’s speaking and interpreter’s listening, he establishes that the interpreter is engaged in a rhetorical–hermeneutical activity that is structured by the logic of question and answer and that is conversational in nature. The second section naturally leads to the third section, which deals with the interaction between rhetorical invention and hermeneutical application. The interplay between invention and application creates an organic connection between the production of rhetoric and the understanding of hermeneutics. Then, the final section summarizes the feasibility of rhetorical hermeneutics.

슐라이어마허 해석학의 기원

김승철 ( Seung Cheul Kim ) 한국해석학회 2009 해석학연구 Vol.24 No.-

Scholars approach to the hermeneutics of Schleiermacher in various ways. As some of them ask, the theme of this essay is, Why did Schleiermacher have interest in hermeneutics at all? Friedrich Lucke, the first editor of Schleiermacher`s hermeneutics, named the book, Hermeneutics and Criticism, in Special Reference to the New Testaments(1838). This title can easily give to readers the impression that Schleiermacher had interest in hermeneutics for biblical interpretation, as Wilhelm Dilthey and other scholars have argued. Yet Hans-Georg Gadamer seriously criticized Schleiermacher by arguing that Schleiermacher`s hatred of the divine inspiration theory of the Bible was the cause of his interest in hermeneutics. A Gadamerian scholar, Heinz Kimmerle, provided a different view, saying that Schleiermacher`s dissatisfaction of the existing special hermeneutics led him to develop a general hermeneutics. Nonetheless, Richard L. Corliss argued that Schleiermacher`s desire to communicate through language was the cause of his concern about hermeneutics. All of these interpretations are not convincing. Because the father of Schleiermacher had taught Schleiermacher rhetorics mostly during the period between 1790 and 1794. Rhetorics and hermeneutics have a close relationship as that of writing and understanding. The most of rhetorical advices of Schleiermacher`s father was reflected to the fundamental elements of Schleiermacher`s Hermeneutics such as grammatical, psychological, comparative, and divinatory interpretation. Therefore, it is argued that the father of Schleiermacher awakened Schleiermacher`s interests in hermeneutics. There is one more thing to be considered. No one was able to truly understand the inner thoughts of Schleiermacher, because of his rhetorical statements. Thus, Schleiermacher strongly felt the need for the general hermeneutics to communicate with readers or to let the readers understand the real thoughts of the writer or speaker. This new interpretation about Schleiermacher`s hermeneutics and its origin can contribute to understand Schleiermacher`s hermeneutics and thoughts in general.

슐라이어마허 해석학과 목회상담의 만남: 가능성과 한계

김용민 ( Yong Min Kim ) 한국목회상담학회 2014 목회와 상담 Vol.22 No.-

The purpose of this paper is to explore the possibilities and limitations for the encounter of pastoral counseling and Schleiermacher``s hermeneutics. Schleiermacher was a pastor, a practical theologian, a philosophical interpreter, and a pastoral care-giver. He challenged the universal hermeneutics by stressing the importance of the interpretation of texts. He defined the meaning of hermeneutics as "the art of understanding." He placed an emphasis on the author``s intuition and feelings in the text. These represent his stand on hermeneutics. Therefore, the meaning of the encounter of pastoral counselling and Schleiermacher``s hermeneutics is to apply this method in the area of pastoral counselling. In this research paper there are three chapters. In chapter one, we look at how Schleiermacher as a practical theologian, a philosophical interpreter, and a pastoral care-giver, introduces all aspects of pastoral counseling. In chapter two, we will investigate the features of pastoral counseling by applying Schleiermacher``s hermeneutics to pastoral counseling, human-centered pastoral counseling, and intuition and feeling-focused pastoral counseling. In chapter three, we will examine the limitations of these forms of pastoral counseling. Pastoral counseling can be combined with philosophical hermeneutics, theological hermeneutics, biblical hermeneutics, and psychological hermeneutics. Schleiermacher``s hermeneutics is relevant to theological hermeneutics, biblical hermeneutics, and psychological hermeneutics which goes beyond philosophical hermeneutics. Therefore it can be said that his hermeneutics is closely related to pastoral counseling. This paper is meant to show the possibilities and limitations of the application of Schleiermacher``s hermeneutics which can greatly contribute to pastoral counseling and at the same time, this will open the applicability of different hermeneutics.

하이데거의 존재와 해석 -『존재론: 현사실성의 해석학』에 대한 해석학적 탐구-

박병준 ( Park Byoung-jun ) 한국가톨릭철학회 2014 가톨릭철학 Vol.0 No.23

하이데거의 해석학에 대한 구상을 구체적으로 알 수 있는 그의 저서는 많지 않다. 『아리스토텔레스에 대한 현상학적 해석』 및 『존재와 시간』에서 해석학에 대한 그의 단상을 엿볼 수는 있지만 해석학의 근본 문제와 관련된 상세한 논의는 『존재론: 현사실성의 해석학』이 유일하다. 하이데거는 이 작품에서 기존의 해석학을 비판하고 해석학의 새로운 길을 모색한다. 그 만큼 이 작품은 하이데거의 해석학적 사유를 이해하는 중요한 단초가 된다. 특히 하이데거는 이 작품에서 해석과 현존재 사이에 놓여 있는 ‘해석학적 상황’의 ‘근원성’을 밝힘으로써 존재 해명의 가능한 길을 방법론적으로 제시한다. 그는 ‘현사실적 삶의 존재’로서의 ‘현존재’를 해석학적으로 고찰할 뿐만 아니라 그것의 현상학적 성격과 존재론적 성격을 함께 분석함으로써 이들 학문 사이에 놓인 긴밀한 관계성을 밝히고 있다. 이는 『존재와 시간』이 미리 기획되고 준비된 강의와 연구를 통해 완성되었음을 시사한다. 본고의 목적은 『존재론: 현사실성의 해석학』을 중심으로 ‘현사실성의 해석학’ 혹은 ‘현존재의 해석학’이라 명명되는 하이데거의 해석학적 사유를 검토하고 분석하는데 있다. 이로써 하이데거의 해석학의 본질 및 근본 과제를 구명하고, 나아가 그의 해석학과 현상학과 존재론 사이에 놓인 밀접한 관계를 밝히는데 있다. 이와 함께 존재 해명으로서의 현사실성의 해석학이 갖고 있는 한계를 형이상학적 관점에서 비판적으로 검토한다. There are not many of Heidegger’s works that give us a concrete understanding of his conception of hermeneutics. Some of his thoughts on hermeneutics can be shown through his works Phenomenological Interpretations of Aristotle and Being and Time; however, the fundamental problems of hermeneutics and his related detailed discussions can be seen only in his earlier work Ontology: The Hermeneutics of Facticity. While criticizing existing modes of hermeneutics in this work, Heidegger seeks a new hermeneutical approach. The work thus constitutes an important clue for understanding the grounds of his hermeneutics. In it, he suggests a methodology for a possible way of giving an explanation of existence by revealing the ‘root’ of ‘hermeneutic situations’ as placed between interpretation and Dasein. He not only considers the ‘Dasein’ of ‘factual life’ hermeneutically, but also reveals the close relationship between phenomenological and ontologistic characters by analyzing the two together. This suggests that “Being and Time” was completed as the result of earlier teaching and research. The present manuscript aims at analyzing and examining the grounds of Heidegger’s hermeneutics as termed ‘Hermeneutics of Dasein’ or ‘Hermeneutics of Facticity’ by using Ontology: Hermeneutics of Facticity as the pivot point. In that work, the essential aspects and fundamental subjects of his hermeneutics can be found; and the close relationship between hermeneutics, phenomenology, and ontology is revealed. Moreover, the limits of hermeneutics in terms of facticity is critically examined from a metaphysical point of view of the explanation of existence.

신화, 신, 신학적인 것의 해석학 폴리쾨르의 해석학에서 철학적인 것과 신학적인 것의 연관관계

장경 ( Kyung Jang ) 한국해석학회 2007 해석학연구 Vol.20 No.-

This study aims at showing the mutual belongings to the two philosophical and biblical hermeneutics in the hermeneutics of Paul Ricoeur. It seems to us that there is a complex relation of mutual inclusion between the two hermeneutics. To be sure, we start at first with the order that the initial mouvement proceeds from the philosophical to the biblical pole. The same categories of work, writing, world of the text, distanciation, and appropriation govern interpretation in one as well as in the other. In this sense, biblical hermeneutics is a regional hermeneutics in relation to philosophical hermeneutics, considered a general hermeneutics. It may then appear that we are acknowledging the subordination of biblical hermeneutics to philosophical hermeneutics by treating it as an applied hermeneutics, However, it is precised by treating theological hermeneutics as a hermeneutics applied to a type of text (biblical texts) that Ricoeur causes an inverse relation between the two hermeneutics to appear. Theological hermeneutics presents features that are so original that the relation is gradually inverted, and theological hermeneutics finally subordinates philosophical hermeneutics to itself as its own organon. It is the hermeneutical categories centered on the notion of the text. In this process of application, Ricoeur considers that the category of the thing of the text(=world of the text) is the central category, both for philosophical hermeneutics and for biblical hermeneutics. And with respect to the fourth category (self-understanding), Ricoeur has stated how it bases itself upon the world of the text in order to come to express in language. The thingof the text is the world it unfold before the text. And this world, especially with respect to poetic and fictional literature, takes a distance with regard to the everyday reality toward which ordinary discourse is directed. The general hermeneutics invites us to say that the necessary stage between structural explanation and self-understanding is the unfolding of the world of the text. The theological implication of this is considerable. The primary task of a hermeneutics is not to bring about a decision in the reader but first to allow the world of being that is the thing of the biblical text to unfold. In this way, above feelings, dispositions, belief, or unbelief is placed the proposal of a world, which, in the language of the Bible, is called a new world, a new covenant, the kingdom of God, a new birth. There are realities that unfold before the text. This is what can be called the objectivity of the new being projected by the text. One of the features that constitues the specificity of biblical discourse is the central place held by the referent God. The word God does not function as a philosophical concept, no even that of being. The word God presupposes the total context constituted by th entire gravitational space of the narratives, the prophesies, the laws, the hymns, and so on. Understanding the word of God is following the arrow of meaning of the word. By arrow of meaning, Ricoeur intends to express its twofold power: gathering together all the significations produced by th partial discourses and opening up a horizon that escapes the closure of discourse. Ricoeur applies the same thing about the word Christ. To the twofold function stated above concerning the word God is added the power to incarnate all the religious significations in one basic symbol: the symbol of a sacrificial love, of a love stronger than death. It is the function of the teaching of the Cross and of the Resurrection to give the word God a density that the word being does net contain. Now, We can say in what sens this biblical hermeneutics is at once a particular and unique case of the general hermeneutics. A particular case because the new being of which the Bible speaks is not to be sought anywhere but in the world of the text. A unique case because all the partial discourses are re

“해석은 윤리적 행위인가?”

이국헌(Kuk-Heon Lee) 한신대학교 신학사상연구소 2023 신학사상 Vol.- No.201

본 연구의 목적은 해석학적 윤리성을 강조하는 케빈 밴후저의 신학적 해석학을 이해하고 평가해 보고자 하는 것이다. 밴후저는 성서해석학에 대한 학문적 관심에 집중하여 여러 서적들과 논문들을 출판한 복음주의 신학자다. 그는 해석학의 영역에서 실재론자들과 비실재론자들이 가지는 문제점들을 해결하기 위해 화행론과 커뮤니케이션 행위 이론에 기초한 해석학을 추구한다. 특별히 그는 오늘날 해석학에서 비평의 대상이되는 저자와 텍스트의 위치를 재구조화하고, 독자의 해석학적 윤리성을 강조함으로써 탈근대적 성서해석학을 재정립한다. 그는 저자의 의도를부활시킴으로써 해석학적 실재론을 추구하고, 텍스트의 의미를 재구조화함으로써 해석학적 합리성을 주장하며, 독자의 역할을 재설정함으로써 해석학적 윤리성을 강조한다. 아울러 그는 의미의 초월성, 문학적 지식의 가능성, 그리고 해석학적 겸손 등을 강조하며 자신의 해석학을 신학적 해석학으로 규정한다. 이런 밴후저의 신학적 해석학은 탈근대시대에 성서해석학의 가능성을 강조한다는 점에서 신학적인 의의가 있지만, 일반 해석학적 담론의 일부만을 논리의 기반으로 가진다는 점에서 한계도 있다. The aim of this study is to comprehend and assess Kevin Vanhoozer’s work on “Theological Hermeneutics”, which highlights the ethical aspects of hermeneutics. Vanhoozer, an evangelical theologian, has written several books and papers on Biblical Hermeneutics. He uses the theory of speech and communication behavior to resolve issues concerning realists and non-realists in the realm of Hermeneutics. In particular, he restructures the position of authors and texts, which are currently under scrutiny in hermeneutics, and redefines postmodern biblical hermeneutics by emphasizing the reader’s ethical responsibilities. Vanhoozer advocates for hermeneutic realism by reviving attention to the author’s intention. He argues for hermeneutic rationality by restructuring the meaning of the text and emphasizes hermeneutic ethics by resetting the reader’s response. Additionally, he emphasizes the transcendence of meaning, the possibility of literary knowledge, and hermeneutic humility. Hence, he refers to his hermeneutics as theological hermeneutics. Vanhoozer’s theological hermeneutics has theological significance because it highlights the possibility of biblical hermeneutics in the postmodern era. However, it has limitations since it is only a part of the general discourse on hermeneutics based on logic.

통합적 해석학 구상을 위한 시론

김선규(Sunkyu Kim) 중앙대학교 중앙철학연구소 2018 철학탐구 Vol.50 No.-

이 글은 ‘방법론적 해석학’과 ‘존재론적 해석학’으로 나뉜 해석학의 이분법적 담론지형을 통합할 수 있는 ‘통합적 해석학’의 가능성을 가다머의 진리와 방법에서 모색하고자 한다. 해석학의 이분법적 연구 동향은 더욱 심해지고 있으며, 양자 사이에는 소통할 수 없는 간극이 존재하는 것처럼 여겨지고 있다. 이에 따라 두 개의 해석학이 개별적으로만 정당성 내지는 학문적 가치를 획득할 수 있다는 통념이 고착되고 있다. 이러한 경향 속에서 해석학에 대한 통합적 전망을 제시하는 것은 그 필요성에도 불구하고 실제로 이루어지지 못하고 있다. 통합적 해석학의 성립 근거로서 이 글은 가다머의 해석학이 방법론적 해석학의 ‘부정’이 아닌 극복ㆍ변형을 통한 ‘계승’임을 주장한다. 또한 이 글은 방법론적/존재론적이라는 이분법의 대립이 많은 부분 가다머의 해석학에 대한 오해에서 기인하고 있음을 보이려고 한다. 통합적 해석학의 매개점으로 이 글이 제시하는 것은 ‘형성체(Gebilde)’와 ‘해석학적 동일성(hermeneutische Identität)’ 개념이다. 이 개념들은 가다머에 대한 비판의 중심에 있었음에도 불구하고 거의 주목받지 못했다. 그 이유는 일반적으로 두 개념이 조화되기 힘든 개념, 상호 모순적인 것으로 여겨졌기 때문이다. 그러나 가다머의 해석학을 균형있게 파악하고 더 나아가 발전적 전망을 제시하기 위해서 이 개념들은 함께 논의되어야하며, 추후에 더 많은 연구를 통하여 새롭게 조명되어야 한다. 이 개념들은 ‘존재일변도의 철학’, ‘해석지상주의’, ‘이해 상대주의’와 같은 가다머 해석학에 대한 통상적인 오해들을 불식시킴으로써 이분법적 논의의 구도를 극복하는 데에 기여할 수 있다. This study set out to explore the possibilities of “integrated hermeneutics” to achieve integration in the dichotomous discourse topography of hermeneutics, which has been divided between “methodological hermeneutics” and “ontological hermeneutics,” in Gadamer’s Truth and Method. The dichotomous research trend in hermeneutics has been increasingly severe, and there seems to be a gap that will not be communicated between the two sides. As a result, a common idea is settling down that two branches of hermeneutics can achieve legitimacy or academic value only individually. In this trend, there has been no proposal of an integrated view for hermeneutics despite its need. Trying to present a ground for integrated hermeneutics, the investigator maintained that Gadamer’s hermeneutics was not to deny methodological hermeneutics but to inherit it through conquest and transformation. The present study also tried to demonstrate that the dichotomous confrontation between methodological and ontological hermeneutics derived from a misunderstanding of Gadamer’s hermeneutics in many parts. Proposed in the study as media for integrated hermeneutics were ‘Gebilde’ and ‘Hermeneutische Identität.’ Although these concepts were at the center of criticisms about Gadamer, they had received little attention because the two concepts were considered to be difficult to harmonize with each other or contradict each other. These concepts should, however, be discussed together and illuminated in a new perspective through more researches in order to figure out Gadamer’s hermeneutics in balance and further propose a developmental outlook for it. The concepts may contribute to the conquest of dichotomous discussions by wiping out common misunderstandings of Gadamer’s hermeneutics such as ‘philosophy devoted to being,’ ‘supremacy of interpretation’, and ‘relativism of understanding’.

법해석학의 철학적 기초

양천수(Chun-Soo Yang) 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2016 江原法學 Vol.49 No.-

전통적인 법적 삼단논법과는 달리 법해석학은 ‘선이해’와 ‘해석학적 순환’을 바탕으로 하여 법관이 법을 해석하는 과정에 적극적으로 개입한다고 주장한다. 법해석학에 따르면, 법을 해석하는 과정은 기존에 존재하는 법을 인식하거나 발견하는 과정이 아니라, 새로운 법을 형성하거나 창조하는 과정이다. 1970년대를 전후로 하여 주로 독일 법학에서 성장한 법해석학은 철학적 해석학, 그 중에서도 가다머의 철학적-존재론적 해석학을 수용함으로써 이론화되었다. 이 글은 법해석학의 철학적 기초를 밝힌다는 취지에서 가다머가 정립한 철학적-존재론적 해석학을 분석한다. 이에 따르면, 가다머의 철학적-존재론적 해석학은 다음과 같이 요약할 수 있다. 가다머는 딜타이처럼 해석학을 정신과학의 방법으로서 이해하는 것에 반대한다. 왜냐하면 해석학은 <주체-객체 모델>에 입각한 인식론적인 성격을 갖는 것이 아니라, 오히려 <주체-객체>가 서로 융합된 존재론적인 성격을 띠기 때문이다. 이를 가다머는 이해자가 이미 지니고 있는 선입견을 통해 정당화한다. 이러한 선입견은 하이데거가 전개한 ‘이해의 선구조’를 수용한 것이다. 나아가 선입견은 권위와 전통에 바탕을 두고, 전통은 고전이라는 형식으로 존재하게 된다. 한편 가다머는 선입견에 입각한 존재론적-해석학적인 이해는 해석학적 순환이 역사적으로 확장된 지평융합을 통해 진행된다고 한다. 이를 가다머는 ‘영향사적 원칙’이라고 말한다. 그런데 가다머는 이러한 영향사적 원칙이 단순히 정신과학 영역에만 한정되는 것이 아니라, 언어를 매개로 하여 심지어는 자연과학 영역에서도 타당할 수 있다고 한다. 그래서 존재론적 해석학은 말 그대로 보편적인 존재론으로서 자리 잡게 된다. 이러한 가다머의 철학적-존재론적 해석학은 이후 많은 반향을 불러일으켰다. 이러한 반향은 문학비평이나 역사해석 또는 고전철학과 같은 정신과학 영역에만 한정되지 않았다. 법학이나 사회과학 심지어 자연과학에서도 가다머의 해석학은 많은 영향을 미쳤다. 그러나 동시에 다양한 비판이 가다머의 해석학에 제기되었다. 이를테면 가다머와 해석학 논쟁을 전개한 하버마스는 철학적-존재론적 해석학이 이데올로기에 의해 왜곡될 수 있음을 간과하고 있다고 비판한다. Legal hermeneutics asserts that judges intervene actively in the process of interpreting the laws based on ‘preunderstanding’ (Vorverständnis) and ‘hermeneutic circle’ (hermenutischer Zirkel), which is in contrast to the traditional legal syllogism. According to legal hermeneutics, the process of interpreting the laws is neither the process of perceiving nor discovering the existing laws but that of constituting or creating new laws. Legal hermeneutics has mainly been formulated in the German jurisprudence in pre and post-the1970s, accepting and theorizing philosophical hermeneutics and in particular, philosophical-ontological hermeneutics that Hans-Georg Gadamer established. In this regard, this study analyzes philosophical-ontological hermeneutics established by Gadamer for the purpose of understanding the philosophical bases of legal hermeneutics. According to its theory, Gadamer’s philosophical-ontological hermeneutics can be summarized as follows. Gadamer does not advocate that hermeneutics is understood as methodology of humanities (Geisteswissenschaft) just as Wilhelm Dilthey does. This is because hermeneutics does not assume epistemological characteristics but rather ontological characteristics. Gadamer justifies this based on the ‘prejudice’ (Vorurteil) that any understander has already had. This prejudice accepts ‘the pre-structure of understanding’ established by Heidegger. Furthermore, prejudice is based upon ‘authority’ and ‘tradition’. Meanwhile, Gadamer states that ontological-hermeneutic understanding is being considered through historically broadened fusion of horizon (Horizontverschmelzung) in relation to the theory of hermeneutic circle. Gadamer cites it as the ‘wirkungsgeschichtliches Prinzip’. Yet, Gadamer asserts that the wirkungsgeschichtliches Prinzip is not merely limited to humanities areas but is even applied to natural science areas, using languages as the medium. Taking it into account, ontological hermeneutics is literally established as universal ontology. The philosophical-ontological hermeneutics formulated by Gadamer has later created much sensation. However, such sensation has not been limited to humanities areas such as literary critics, history interpretation or classical philosophy. Gadamer’s hermeneutics has had a great deal of influence on laws, social sciences and even natural sciences. At the same time, however, there have been criticisms for Gadamer’s hermeneutics. Making the debate about hermeneutics with Gadamer, Jurgen Habermas, for example, criticizes that philosophical-ontological hermeneutics could be distorted by ideology but this is left disregarded.