بازخوانی انتقادی هرمنوتیک عینی اریک هرش در پرتو اصول تفسیری علامه طباطبائی

In recent decades, discussions of hermeneutics and the evaluation of interpretive validity within religious and philosophical texts have become fundamental concerns in the humanities and in religious epistemology. The question of criteria for interpretive validity and the (im)possibility of attaining a text’s authentic meaning—in particular when confronted with contemporary relativistic and fluid approaches—underscores the necessity to reconsider objectivist and essentialist hermeneutical theories. E.D. Hirsch’s objective hermeneutics, grounded in the authority of authorial intent and a principled distinction between meaning and significance, seeks to formulate specific and scientific criteria for distinguishing valid from invalid interpretation. Employing a descriptive-analytical method and a comparative approach, this study critically examines Hirsch’s epistemological framework and his proposed criteria in light of Allameh Tabatabaei’s interpretive principles. The findings reveal that Hirsch’s theory, by centering authorial intent and reconstructing the historical and linguistic context, offers a significant capacity to control excessive interpretive pluralism and relativism, and in terms of methodological foundations, insists on the possibility of adjudicating between multiple interpretations. Nevertheless, fundamental criticisms—such as the difficulty of accessing the actual intent of the author, the limitations of linguistic tools, and the inherently probabilistic nature of interpretation—leave Hirsch’s model methodologically vulnerable, especially in the realm of revelatory and religious texts. In contrast, Allameh Tabatabaei’s ijtihadi and context-based approach—which emphasizes interpreting the Qur’an with the Qur’an, making use of reason and tradition, and accepting the multi-layered nature of meaning—provides a pathway for localizing and advancing contemporary criteria for interpretive validity. Ultimately, synthesizing the strengths of both frameworks opens new horizons for addressing the enduring challenges of validity and methodology in Islamic textual interpretation

In recent decades, discussions of hermeneutics and the evaluation of interpretive validity within religious and philosophical texts have become fundamental concerns in the humanities and in religious epistemology. The question of criteria for interpretive validity and the (im)possibility of attaining a text’s authentic meaning—in particular when confronted with contemporary relativistic and fluid approaches—underscores the necessity to reconsider objectivist and essentialist hermeneutical theories. E.D. Hirsch’s objective hermeneutics, grounded in the authority of authorial intent and a principled distinction between meaning and significance, seeks to formulate specific and scientific criteria for distinguishing valid from invalid interpretation. Employing a descriptive-analytical method and a comparative approach, this study critically examines Hirsch’s epistemological framework and his proposed criteria in light of Allameh Tabatabaei’s interpretive principles. The findings reveal that Hirsch’s theory, by centering authorial intent and reconstructing the historical and linguistic context, offers a significant capacity to control excessive interpretive pluralism and relativism, and in terms of methodological foundations, insists on the possibility of adjudicating between multiple interpretations. Nevertheless, fundamental criticisms—such as the difficulty of accessing the actual intent of the author, the limitations of linguistic tools, and the inherently probabilistic nature of interpretation—leave Hirsch’s model methodologically vulnerable, especially in the realm of revelatory and religious texts. In contrast, Allameh Tabatabaei’s ijtihadi and context-based approach—which emphasizes interpreting the Qur’an with the Qur’an, making use of reason and tradition, and accepting the multi-layered nature of meaning—provides a pathway for localizing and advancing contemporary criteria for interpretive validity. Ultimately, synthesizing the strengths of both frameworks opens new horizons for addressing the enduring challenges of validity and methodology in Islamic textual interpretation

In recent decades, discussions of hermeneutics and the evaluation of interpretive validity within religious and philosophical texts have become fundamental concerns in the humanities and in religious epistemology. The question of criteria for interpretive validity and the (im)possibility of attaining a text’s authentic meaning—in particular when confronted with contemporary relativistic and fluid approaches—underscores the necessity to reconsider objectivist and essentialist hermeneutical theories. E.D. Hirsch’s objective hermeneutics, grounded in the authority of authorial intent and a principled distinction between meaning and significance, seeks to formulate specific and scientific criteria for distinguishing valid from invalid interpretation. Employing a descriptive-analytical method and a comparative approach, this study critically examines Hirsch’s epistemological framework and his proposed criteria in light of Allameh Tabatabaei’s interpretive principles. The findings reveal that Hirsch’s theory, by centering authorial intent and reconstructing the historical and linguistic context, offers a significant capacity to control excessive interpretive pluralism and relativism, and in terms of methodological foundations, insists on the possibility of adjudicating between multiple interpretations. Nevertheless, fundamental criticisms—such as the difficulty of accessing the actual intent of the author, the limitations of linguistic tools, and the inherently probabilistic nature of interpretation—leave Hirsch’s model methodologically vulnerable, especially in the realm of revelatory and religious texts. In contrast, Allameh Tabatabaei’s ijtihadi and context-based approach—which emphasizes interpreting the Qur’an with the Qur’an, making use of reason and tradition, and accepting the multi-layered nature of meaning—provides a pathway for localizing and advancing contemporary criteria for interpretive validity. Ultimately, synthesizing the strengths of both frameworks opens new horizons for addressing the enduring challenges of validity and methodology in Islamic textual interpretation