Saba Mirikermanshahi; Negin Nouraei; Mehdi Azadibadrbani
Abstract
In modern medicine, paraclinical findings carry out a major role in the process of diagnosis and treatment and physician decisions are largely made with the help of these findings. The expansion of these technologies has diminished the role of physician-patient dialogue, which is necessary for clinical ...
Read More
In modern medicine, paraclinical findings carry out a major role in the process of diagnosis and treatment and physician decisions are largely made with the help of these findings. The expansion of these technologies has diminished the role of physician-patient dialogue, which is necessary for clinical practice. However, medicine is fundamentally a hermeneutical process that requires a common understanding between the physician and patient, which takes place in the context of clinical encounter, and therefore para-clinical findings will in no way replace the conversation with the patient; therefore, the importance of paying attention to hermeneutics in medicine is understandable. This article, as well as presenting an explanation of Gadamer's hermeneutics, analyses the process of understanding from Gadamer's point of view and argues that the hermeneutical reading of medicine, as Gadamer intends, requires attention to the Aristotelian concept of phronesis. Since empathy is necessary to achieve a common understanding, or, in Gadamer's words, a “fusion of horizons of understanding”, this article goes on to discuss empathy and introduce some of common definitions of empathy in medicine. Finally, by criticizing the common approaches to empathy, presents a phenomenological understanding of empathy by employing Lou Agosta's interpretations, and considers empathy not only as a tool to increase patient satisfaction with the physician, but also by emphasizing on conceptual fusion of hermeneutics and empathy, considers empathy as a critical and basic condition for achieving common understanding in the clinical dialogue process.
Seyed Esmaiel Masoudi; Seyed Saied Zahed Zahedani
Volume 8, Issue 15 , Summer and Autumn 2018, , Pages 81-108
Abstract
Objectivity, as the ideal of science, especially human science, is criticized by Gadamer because it constructs an alienated experiment in human and causes an ontological obstruction. This ideal stems from the superiority of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason on modern science and also negligence of language ...
Read More
Objectivity, as the ideal of science, especially human science, is criticized by Gadamer because it constructs an alienated experiment in human and causes an ontological obstruction. This ideal stems from the superiority of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason on modern science and also negligence of language by Western philosophical tradition. Although Dilthey attempted to provide a special place for human science using linguistic and hermeneutics tradition, due to his Cartesian foundations, and his instrumentalist attitude toward historical language and consciousness, he suffered from subjectivism and considered human science truth-less as Kantian aesthetic judgment. Rereading artistic experience and historical experience in Kant and Dilthey, and using Heidegger’s and Hegel's philosophy and also attending to the ontology of language, Gadamer organized hermeneutic experience so that its ideal is not objectification process, but the emergence of the subject itself in the language, and this is Sachlichkeit that is the disclosure of the subjectivity of subject or the objectivity of object.
