The "contextualism" method proposed by Quentin Skinner, a leader of the Cambridge School，Has a broad influence in the field of research on the history of bet with bet365 thought，Domestic academic circles also pay much attention to this research method。However，The “contextualist” method of this school has obvious shortcomings and flaws，The "contextualist" approach should only be the "starting point" for textual interpretation，rather than the "upper limit" of textual interpretation。At the same time，There is still a squeeze on the “contextualist” approach、Disadvantages of narrowing the text interpretation space。

As the leading pioneer of the Cambridge School，Skinner systematically discussed the explanatory principles of historical contextualism。Inspired by the "speech act theory" of Austin, a philosopher of language，Skinner believes，What we should pay most attention to when delving into classic texts is not the meaning or reference of the words in the text，It is the "performative" function of words，That is, what the author does with the text？What praise did he make while intervening in a realpolitik debate、Question、Rebuttal、What political ideas do you support，These words are all developed in the name of action，And action contains intention，There is no way to explain actions without considering intention。In "Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas"，Skinner pointed out，The proper method for studying the history of ideas is to narrate specific remarks (i.e. texts) made by the author on specific occasions，Then follow the clues provided by these remarks to trace its involvement in the more general social context，Restore the author’s true intention。The "permanent problems" dealt with in classical texts are all made up by philosophers，It is even less possible to draw "eternal wisdom" from classic texts。Those so-called "eternal truths" are just accidental products under a specific historical structure。All statements are inevitably involved in the political and regional debates bet with bet365，Reflect a specific intention on a specific occasion。Therefore，It becomes crucial to understand the specific position of political texts in the "spectrum" of a certain debate。Each classic text has its own special historical background，Attempting to transcend the "gravity" of this specific context and discuss abstract philosophical theories can only be a sign of naivety。Classic texts are only concerned with the author’s own issues，Not concerned about our problems，Therefore there is no unified intellectual history tradition，Attempting to find solutions to the problems of today’s era from the history of ideas is tantamount to trying to find fish in a tree。associated with this，Skinner pointed out，In the study of the history of political thought，Historians of ideas tend to make two mistakes: on the one hand，They tend to think of current ideologies、Values ​​imposed on the ancients，Deliberately looking for "consistent myths" from classic texts that do not seem to exist at all，causing anachronism。On the other hand，They often confuse the audience and ignore the author’s intention，"Bring" some historical concepts from the text and attach them to their own analysis，Then conversely, this is the author’s original intention，Thus causing a misunderstanding of the text。

Skinner’s discussion of the contextualist method，The core points can be roughly summarized as follows。First，Language in classical texts expresses political action，Intention is embedded in the speech act。Secondly，The texts of classic writers are not self-sufficient，Must combine the writer’s life story and the context bet with bet365 to clarify the author’s true intention。Borrowing Mencius’ interpretive attitude of “knowing people and analyzing the world” to make an analogy，That is: "Praise his poem，Read his book，I don’t know if he is a good person？This is how we talk about the world。"("Mencius·Wan Zhang 2") again，There is no unified theme of political philosophy in the history of thought，What is there is just a loose collection of irreducible political opinions，Therefore it is completely hopeless to expect to “learn from history”。After roughly understanding the gist and rationale of Skinner’s contextualist methodology，We think，There are many theoretical shortcomings in its method that are difficult to overcome。

First，Closed and rigid text interpretation。Skinner used the so-called "specific context" to tie a "dead knot" between the text and the historical context，Making the interpretation space bet with bet365 lose its original flexibility。This practice of attaching historical "footnotes" to every political doctrine of political philosophers，In fact, it is an unnecessary "straitjacket" artificially put on the writer's classic text，This further limits the interpretation bet with bet365 firmly within the "information cocoon" of historiography。As Peter Myers said，“The premise that all thoughts and all things are specific，Not so much a key，It might as well be a lock”。The cost of this narrow interpretation of text that overly binds text and historical context is，It blocks the "thought signals" of great writers，Closing the channel for dialogue between sages and contemporary people，Relegating past classics to "exhibits" in historical archives。

Second，Confusing the distinction between bet with bet365 philosophy and ideology，Caught in the vortex of historicism and relativism。To be fair，The reason why great bet with bet365 writers in the history of thought wrote books，It is definitely not just to deal with the bet with bet365 war of words of "fighting over one day's shortcomings"，But it focuses on "what bet with bet365 principles are legitimate？What kind of society is just?？"Thinking about such fundamental issues。These reflections are intended to provide reasonable justification for some legitimate bet with bet365 principles and values、Coherent system explanation。deny these fundamental principles of thinking，It is equivalent to denying justice to oneself and others、The rational foundation and demonstrability of value concepts such as public good。The "context of particularity" claimed by Skinner reduces bet with bet365 ideals or principles in bet with bet365 philosophy to an ideology that does not hesitate to manipulate language symbols in order to gain influence in real politics，This is tantamount to potentially abolishing the distinction between bet with bet365 philosophy and ideology。

　Third，Ignoring traditional “fragmentation” research。Skinner claimed，Classic texts only deal with issues of their own time，There is actually a beggar-thy-neighbour relationship between political classics from different eras，Therefore, there is no unified historical tradition of political thought，The history of ideas is nothing more than a series of "epochal histories"。This is just a conclusion based on one-sided facts。Classical texts will certainly be limited by the political experience of a specific era，However，This particular era is not unique in itself，It is also a transitional stage in a large historical tradition，And the problems bet with bet365 themselves reflect the permanent problems to a certain extent。Skinner was too sensitive to the disconnect between thinkers，The vertical context that caused him to fail to notice the history of thought。In the study of the history of political thought，We often find an interesting phenomenon，A certain philosopher will praise or criticize a philosophical sage who has been dead for hundreds or even thousands of years on a certain philosophical topic。When he struggled to criticize the dead，We don’t think he was “shooting the tiger to death”，Rather, he thinks he is in dialogue with a political idea that has far-reaching influence and is still active in the present。For example，Hobbes’s criticism of Aristotle’s theory of human nature，Rawls’s “abstract inheritance” of social contract theory，The premise for these dialogues to be established is，They share a common political language tradition。An interesting contrast to this，Some famous contemporary political philosophers will not shy away from claiming that they have inherited the ideological legacy of a certain sage，And calls himself a (neo)Platonist、(New) Hobbesian、(Neo)Kantian、(Neo)Hegelian、(New) Marxists, etc.。These real inheritance and development relationships fully demonstrate the aspect of the history of political thought being passed down from generation to generation。As Sheldon Walling said，There are two tendencies in the Western political thought tradition，That is, "the tendency to infinitely return to the past" and "the tendency to accumulate"。In other words，The political concepts of the past never disappear，It will be refined again and again by thinkers、Update、Rumination and condensation into cultural traditions preserved to this day。For that matter，Research on the history of political thought injects "source of living water" into current political experience。Besides，The original intention of most scholars to study the history of ideas is not just to understand the historical background of the text and the author’s intention and other details，But with the attitude of "understanding the changes of ancient and modern times"，To form a holistic and unique set of insights with the mentality of "one family speaks"。

　Fourth，The extremes of contextual theory。Skinner’s contextualist approach was originally developed to counter the Straussian “hidden reading”。In order to avoid the "anachronism" caused by the Straussian "Classics" method，And the endless philosophical debates fostered by "text-centrism"，Skinner adopted a more conservative "historical" approach。In order to eliminate once and for all the risk of misinterpreting the text，He simply denies the possibility of philosophical interpretation bet with bet365。This “throwing out the bathwater with the baby” approach follows the logic of choking and giving up food。In fact，The wisdom contained in the text comes from the possibility of multi-dimensional interpretation，The improvement of the quality of text research requires a certain amount of "trial and error space"。Reasonable argument is an interpretive risk that any mature approach to textual interpretation must bear，Escape from this risk compresses the meaning bet with bet365 within a narrow historical context，Limit the researcher’s work to the field of historical textual criticism of “My Commentary on the Six Classics”。Not to mention，Once the philosophical part of the classic text is eliminated，Those intellectual history texts hidden deep in the piles of historical papers，It will lose its "skeleton" and become "uncategorized" archaeological data in the historiographic sense。In the words of Wang Xianqian, a man of the Qing Dynasty: "Righteousness and principle are the principles"，The following text is attached，The evidence has its conclusion。"("Preface to the Compilation of Continuing the Classical Dictionary") The famous scholar Nathan Tarcov once made a more incisive comment on Skinner's extreme contextual theory，He believes that Skinner's explanatory method follows simple but disastrously faulty logic，We are forced to make a false choice between refusing the external assistance necessary to understand the text and refusing to learn lessons from the text at all。This way of thinking about the problem is obviously guilty of the fallacy of "false dilemma" reasoning。Actually，Classic texts contain both timeless and immediate elements。For that matter，Skinner’s approach of adhering to an extreme historical position in order to combat the over-explanation of the Straussian school is suspected of being overkill。

　Fifth，Logic is difficult to be consistent。This concentration is reflected in the following two aspects: 1，Any classic text is born out of a certain historical background，It will inevitably bear the mark bet with bet365，This is a common common sense in hermeneutics。But the mere fact that the historical background is the "birthmark bet with bet365" of the classic text，It cannot be directly concluded that the text does not contain any eternal elements。It is too extreme to simply deny that the textual meaning rises from a specific historical context to a universal abstract theory，The fact that all texts have their historical background，Does not necessarily contradict the general argument structure shown in the text。Part 2，Under the dominance of Skinner’s strong contextualism，If no additional reference standards are cited，It is impossible to reasonably explain the difference between the first-rate classic writers and the third-rate political writers in the history of thought，Unable to determine the research value of classic works。If you go by what he said，All political texts are indiscriminately pamphlets focusing on current affairs，All political theorists are "public intellectuals" of their time。It’s hard for us to understand，He completely rejects philosophical standards，How to convince us that we should study Machiavelli、Hobbes and other great thinkers，You should not waste your energy on low-end political writers。What cannot be ignored，The motivation behind a large number of scholars studying classic writers，It is precisely because their lofty philosophical vision and ability to grasp fundamental issues are far beyond the reach of third-rate writers。

　Sixth，The concept of “intention” is not self-evident。Skinner’s ever-present concept of “intention” is the key to understanding his contextualism。Skinner believes，As long as you understand the author's historical background, you can share a common world of meaning with the author，And accurately guess the author’s true intention。This is a taken-for-granted assumption。The first question facing this hypothesis is，How he successfully switched from the third-person observer’s perspective to the first-person client’s perspective，To understand the parties’ intentions？If he cannot enter the perspective of the person involved，It is impossible to determine the "bordering" part between the established social context and the author's own subjective intention。Secondly，He assumes that there is a "ding to ding" relationship between speech act and intention，Correspondence between "Mao and Mao"，Such an assumption is too simplistic。In fact，Not only human intentions are very complicated，And the form of language is also complex and changeable。As Derrida said，Whatever your intentions are，Language may obscure intention，Present something other than intended。It is one thing to have intention in any action，Whether the reader can accurately guess the actor’s intention is another matter。Again，He assumes that the author's writing intention can only be limited to the historical era in which he lives。But，If a classic writer’s writing intention is to transcend the limitations bet with bet365，Not only dialogue with contemporary academic peers，And to talk to future researchers，So what?？We have every reason to believe，Being Hobbes、When Locke preached the abstract thesis that "all men are created equal and have the same natural rights"，The purpose is not primarily to describe the political discourse system of the British in the 17th century，It aims to express a more general philosophical proposition that can transcend the coordinates bet with bet365。

Overview of Skinner’s contextualist approach，Except for evading important matters and persuading readers to shift their attention from "text" to "context"，Lack of constructive suggestions。His positive discussion on the method of interpreting the text itself failed to be condensed into a systematic normative operating procedure。The author thinks，The historical context and the text are in a dialectical relationship of "somewhere at a distance"，The information flow between the two is an open two-way loop。Once the historical context bet with bet365 is regarded as the "end point" of interpretation from a "reductionist" perspective，Extremely convert the "context" attached to the text into "ism"，There is a risk of putting the cart before the horse。The context bet with bet365 is only one parameter among many reference variables that affect the results of text interpretation，Rather than an "absolute" standard that can monopolize the right to interpret texts。The relationship between philosophers and historians is not a zero-sum game，The two cannot simplify or eliminate each other。Good textual interpretation is not about fighting for the right to speak between historical context and philosophical analysis，But to form a positive interaction between the two。

　　(This article is a phased result bet with bet365 Fundamental Research Funding Project for the Central Universities “Rationalism and Voluntarism in Social Contract Theory” (2017TS057))

(bet with bet365 unit: School of Philosophy, Shaanxi Normal University)