What and his question about the understanding an

     What is the history behind philosophy? How
did it came to be? In an article I found out that the beginning of philosophy
and the contemporary of Anglo- American (philosophy) give us the precision of a
widely perused goal. There might be a distinction between precision and the
abundance of presentation.  Avery good way
of illustrating it would in the question to precise meteorological model, to
have a good idea of the enrichment of the model, and so on. (Bendick &
Borgmann, 2015)

 

     Philosophy of communication begins with a
question that understands the experience with the communication environment
(society). Philosophy of communication is not there  to explain what has happened but rather to
know or understand what was done before us. All this is centred to Gadamer and
his question about the understanding an answer which might stick, which would
be highly in the public for one’s inquiry. The philosophy of communication
wouldn’t give you the final answer to your questions  but indeed gives you a momentary
understanding. Philosophy of communication allows one to understand the
momentary answers within the human communication. (Arnett, 2017)

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 

     Within the first paragraph we have a
distinguish between Plato and Gadamer of course within dialogue. Plato’s take
within dialogue is in the form of The Republic, whilst Gadamer characterize the
dialogue from a different perspective he understand the hermeneutic. Gadamer’s
perspective about the hermeneutics, basically creates openness, sincerity
between the public. A very good statement about dialogue doesn’t affirm a close
ending statement. Infect hermeneutic has the attention for self-understanding.
On the other side of the spectrum, Platonic dialogue’s general characteristics
has the hermeneutic dialogue that was mentioned in the paragraph above. An
interesting fact about Gadamer’s effective history said that Plato’s The
Republic basically wouldn’t be cut off from the past and from the traditional. History
is there for us to be able to understand the perspective of the past. People can’t
break away from the effective history which extends the limits of the way of
thinking, which quite frankly provides all of their values. The perspective of
Gadamer’s hermeneutics, within Platonic dialogue has the truth within the
tension between the whole and individual parts. Within this statement the two
aspects of the Platonic dialogue, which extends the philosophical content which
follows the hermeneutic circle that has an understanding for the each. (Chunge
& Xiaodi, 2014)

 

     What is quite interesting is that all
these approaches were never criticised which brought them with the dialogue of
the Gadamer’s hermeneutic project. What is quite interesting is that Gadamer concluded
that the philosophy of practical is said to be “the practice of paying
attention to the realities of social and political life”. An important figure
Walhof follows the misconception about Gadamer that his theory in reality
rejects the past but at the same time the theory is refusing to infect conceive
the past, ‘merely conservative’. In one of his main thesis  of the Truth and Method which simply implies
that the majority of life isn’t able to be reduced to objects which can be
implied with the methodology approach the suggest within the sciences. Infect
Walhof introduce Gadamer Concept of the horizons, which basically means that a
proposition doesn’t have the truth in or of itself, although the meaning is
caught from an exact context. Controversial to Walholf, Gadamer’s phenomenology
of conversation, entered to a genuine dialogue to someone, we are in control to
the conversation that is taken place. Basically to sum up what Walhof was meant
to argument that political philosophies kind of ignore the social and political
realities which are seen more pressing than ever. All this leads to the
Gadamerian concepts of dialogue that calls a lot of attention to the weaknesses
to a deliberative approach. (Badge, 2017)

 

     With contrast to a number that includes
the postmodern thinkers, which includes philosophical hermeneutics, which
concluded to Gadamer to believe that we could learn not only from big people
like Hegel and Heidegger but also from Plato, which ties with what was being
said in the previous paragraph, and also Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas too.
Gadamer compares the relation with the mental and thought which one can match
with the relation of a father and son (the truth and method).  Also within this work he emphasis more on the
unity of humans within the thought and the language. Language is thought as
being polyphonic, which simply means that language comes from many varieties,
which works very well with the thought to make it look real, which comes out to
be intelligible for itself, and what is very quite interesting it comes out to
be more intelligible for us. And this statement shows how Gadamer thinks, which
is the opposite of what Habermas thinks, which he express that it is not
linguistic constructivist. The last but certainly not the least is how Gadamer
turns to St Thomas’s contribution for the theory of the verbum.  Gadamer gives a good explanation of how the
processual character of the human thought, gives out the concept to the
“personal character of the inner word and the process of the Trinity”, this
quote was taken from Gadamer work, ‘Truth and Method’.  From this passage we saw how Gadamer has
contrast with other philosophers/ people, that might have different meaning of
what he believes in. (Zolatova, 2009).

 

     The last contrast is between Gadamer and
Glenn Gould. This contrast compares within the performing arts with the
cognitive and the practical dimensions of interpretation. Both of them points
out the difference of the divergence and the antagonism, that lies in the heart
of the artist (creative mind).  Interesting enough we4 have the concept of
ecstasy, which is understood to be a radical form to the divergence that
provides the basis for the concept of subjectivity for linguistics. The
dimensions of the performing arts, music illustrations, etc. were emphasized by
both Gadamer and Glenn Gould. Within the notion of the ecstasy, it was
understood the both represents a non- differentiation between both the subject
and the object. The subjectivity characterised much the human sciences and the
anti-humanist, that quite frankly made it impossible to have the social
scientist to be an account to the human agency. (Hamlin, 2015)

 

     In this regard we saw how Gadamer contrast
with what he believes to other philosopher/ people. I found out that he not
only focuses on the linguistics as in direct speech but also incorporate the
arts and how creative people communicate with the public. I also found out that
one of his most popular work is his thesis with the name, ‘Truth and Method’,
that also incorporates the religion with the different society one might live
in and how it affects the people around them, (the society). A lot of other
readers found his work and analysed it to how it might be different to other
philosophers that tackled the same issue and got a lot of contrast and
believes, and how it might be different to other philosophers analysis. This
paper was quite interesting to tackle and to see others point of view of how
the theory of dialogue (Gadamer perspective) came to be and what other people thought
of it. Ending with one quote said by Gadamer himself that infect helped right
some of this paper, the motivation for this paper, is this, “The ambiguity of
poetic language answers to the ambiguity of human life as a whole, therein lies
its unique value. All interpretations of poetic language only interpret what
the poetry has already interpreted.”