| Summary: | Gadamer’s view on truth and understanding does not offer a real solution on Dilthey’s problem, because it involves a concept of language that doesn’t admit the communication between text, action and history in the same time with the constitution of a field of autonomous significations. Gadamer denies Dilthey’s naïf objectivism and the representation-language, but he can not rebuild, on an other level, the reference. Thus, the historical sciences should adopt the model of poetical language, considered as non-referential, but it would be better to find resources in a non-ostensive referential language. Such language is the narrative one, if it is considered from the point of view of contemporary theories of linguistic and semiotics, which admits the idea of text’s world. According to these theories the analogies with the text world make possible a reconstruction of action. This direction was followed by Paul Ricoeur, who found a solution on Dilthey’s problem avoiding the naïfobjectivism without compromising the spirit of gadamerian reflection on understanding.
|
|---|