Abstract

This dissertation investigates the possibility of a systematic yet non-methodological grounding for knowledge within the framework of hermeneutics. In opposition to formalistic and scientistic construals of philosophy, I argue that philosophy is essentially non-formalistic, nuanced, and contingent, characterized by circularity, ambiguity, and paradox. In rejecting formalized fixed positions and emphasizing circularity and contingency, I am concerned nevertheless to ensure that my account does not dissolve into random flux or empty indeterminacy. I look to articulate, therefore, a middle space between radical closure and radical openness in an account I have termed anchored openness. ;In developing this account, I contrast it with other models of this middle space. In the accounts of Hegel and Derrida, the outcome is a one-sided extremism which proves unacceptable. The concept of the hermeneutic circle furnishes a valuable preliminary account, but it cannot provide the full elaboration of this perspective. Gadamer's account comes close to striking the appropriate balance between extremist poles and articulating the middle space, but because of its problematic objectivist and relativist implications, it also proves inadequate as a model of anchored openness. ;For a more salutary model that avoids the deficiencies of these accounts, I turn finally to Kant's Critique of Judgement. Through an analysis of the aesthetic judgement, I find the systematic yet open principles needed for this account: mediation and openness, subjective universality, and grounded free play. I conclude by suggesting possible future directions for the development of these principles