In hermeneutics, the horizon is a central metaphor for the limits and possibilities of understanding. Both Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur developed influential accounts of this concept, though their emphases differ. Gadamer frames the horizon as part of his fusion of horizons in Truth and Method, while Ricoeur reinterprets it in light of distance, narrative, and interpretation. Comparing the two reveals the subtle balance between tradition, openness, and critical reflection in hermeneutical philosophy.
Gadamer: Fusion of Horizons
For Gadamer, the horizon refers to the scope of vision from a particular standpoint—shaped by language, culture, and history. Understanding occurs when the interpreter’s horizon engages with the horizon of the text or tradition. This process, which he calls the fusion of horizons (Horizontverschmelzung), is not about erasing differences but about entering into dialogue.
Key aspects:
-
Historicity: Our horizons are shaped by tradition, prejudice (in the neutral sense), and cultural inheritance.
-
Dialogue: Understanding is dialogical, a conversation between the past and present.
-
Openness: The fusion requires openness to otherness and willingness to let one’s horizon be transformed.
For Gadamer, then, the horizon embodies both limits and possibilities: it restricts what we can see but also enables new insights through dialogue.
Ricoeur: Horizon as Distanciation and Projection
Ricoeur accepts Gadamer’s dialogical account but introduces critical distance into the concept of horizon. Influenced by phenomenology and structuralism, Ricoeur sees the horizon not only as dialogue with tradition but also as shaped by distanciation:
-
Textual Autonomy: Once a text is written, it gains independence from its author and context, projecting a world in front of itself.
-
Horizon of the Text: Readers enter into the projected world of the text, expanding their own horizon through imagination.
-
Critical Hermeneutics: Ricoeur stresses that interpretation requires both belonging (Gadamer) and suspicion/critique (in line with Marx, Freud, Nietzsche).
Thus, Ricoeur’s horizon is not only a fusion of perspectives but also a space of productive distance, where the reader reconfigures self-understanding through narrative and interpretation.
Convergences: Shared Hermeneutical Ground
-
Non-relativism: Both resist the idea that understanding is arbitrary; horizons shape, but do not dissolve, meaning.
-
Historicity of Understanding: Both see understanding as historically conditioned.
-
Transformative Power: For both thinkers, the encounter with another horizon changes our own.
Divergences: Belonging vs. Distanciation
-
Gadamer: Emphasizes belonging to tradition, dialogue, and trust in language.
-
Ricoeur: Emphasizes critical distance, textual autonomy, and narrative imagination.
-
Philosophical Aim: Gadamer seeks to rehabilitate the authority of tradition and language, while Ricoeur seeks to balance tradition with critique, mediating between suspicion and faith.
Horizons Between Dialogue and Distance
Gadamer and Ricoeur offer complementary accounts of the horizon of understanding. Gadamer grounds it in the dialogical fusion of traditions, highlighting continuity. Ricoeur adds the dimension of distanciation, emphasizing interpretation as a transformative reconfiguration of the self. Together, they show that hermeneutics requires both belonging and critique, both fusion and distance.
