Gadamer's linguistic turn has been criticized for eclipsing ontological grounds for truth by conflating the meaning of existence with history. Chung‐ying Cheng's recognizes the nihilistic implications of a ceaseless quest for meaning that cannot but perpetually slip away and in response, discloses the cosmo‐ontological grounds that Gadamer's interpretive acts presuppose. In so doing, Cheng initiates a theoretical appropriation and integration between Western philosophy and the Yijing tradition. However, Cheng also interprets Gadamer from a Heideggerian perspective without due regard to Plato. When Gadamer's turn to language is understood in terms of his claim that Socrates removes the contradiction between the Pythagorean One and the many by studying the forms in language, then there is room in the said turn for temporalizing the meaning of Being in the dialogue form. It is through the dialectical interplay between the auditory and visual dispositions underlying orality and literacy, the two mediums in which human understanding is entangled for Gadamer, that the “creative” emerges in his thought from within and out of a prior historically effected consciousness that in the final analysis attests to the universality of Cheng's onto‐generative hermeneutics.

中文翻译：

---

伽达默尔的语言学转向与程氏的生成学诠释学对话

伽达默尔的语言学转向因将存在的意义与历史相混淆而掩盖了真理的本体论基础而受到批评。成忠英的认识到了对意义的不断追求的虚无主义含义，这种含义只能永恒地溜走并作出回应，他揭示了伽达默尔的解释性行为以宇宙论为基础。通过这种方式，郑提出了西方哲学与《易经》之间的理论上的占有和整合。传统。但是，郑也从海德格尔的角度解释了伽达默尔，而没有适当考虑柏拉图。当加达默尔转向语言时，他声称苏格拉底认为苏格拉底通过研究语言形式消除了毕达哥拉斯一世与许多人之间的矛盾，那么，在该轮回中就有空间使对话形式中的存在的意义暂时化。正是通过听觉和视觉倾向之间的辩证相互作用，口述和读写能力是纠缠人类理解伽达默尔的两种媒介，这种“创造性”思想在他的思想中从一种先前受历史影响的意识的内部和外部浮现出来。归根结底，这证明了程氏本体论诠释学的普遍性。