高達美與羅蒂都肯定了讀者在詮釋活動中的創造性價 值，以此否定文本原意作為判斷詮釋好壞最終標準的主張。但是， 羅蒂所謂的創造性詮釋完全以讀者的意圖為標準，無法在創造性詮 釋與過度詮釋之間劃出界限，導致詮釋的相對主義。高達美的哲學 詮釋學不同，它雖然肯定詮釋都有一個「過度」，亦即都有一個「超 出」原有文本視域的部分，但並不因此抹去創造性詮釋與過度詮釋 之間的界限。相反，高達美提供出如下三個指標用於判斷詮釋的好 壞：文本的整體性原則，對話的他者性原則與實效歷史的時間性原 則。哲學詮釋學與實用主義詮釋學差異的背後是現象學與經驗主義 哲學立場的根本區別。

Both of Gadamer and Rorty appreciate the creative value of reader in the interpretation of text, and thus reject that there is an original meaning of the text as the ultimate standard of interpretation. However, the creative interpretation proposed by Rorty takes the intention of reader as the standard which cannot make difference between creative interpretation and over-interpretation, thus leading to the relativism of interpretation. Although Gadamer recognizes that there is a dimension of ‘over-5 in interpretation, he does not erase the limit between creative interpretation and over-interpretation. In stead, he proposes three indexes to judge the quality of interpretation: the principle of the wholeness of text, the principle of otherness of dialogue, and effective history. The difference beneath these two kinds of hermeneutics lies in the difference of the philosophical positions of phenomenology and empiricism.