What is the history behind philosophy? Howdid it came to be? In an article I found out that the beginning of philosophyand the contemporary of Anglo- American (philosophy) give us the precision of awidely perused goal. There might be a distinction between precision and theabundance of presentation.
Avery good wayof illustrating it would in the question to precise meteorological model, tohave a good idea of the enrichment of the model, and so on. (Bendick &Borgmann, 2015) Philosophy of communication begins with aquestion that understands the experience with the communication environment(society). Philosophy of communication is not there to explain what has happened but rather toknow or understand what was done before us. All this is centred to Gadamer andhis question about the understanding an answer which might stick, which wouldbe highly in the public for one’s inquiry. The philosophy of communicationwouldn’t give you the final answer to your questions but indeed gives you a momentaryunderstanding. Philosophy of communication allows one to understand themomentary answers within the human communication. (Arnett, 2017) Within the first paragraph we have adistinguish between Plato and Gadamer of course within dialogue. Plato’s takewithin dialogue is in the form of The Republic, whilst Gadamer characterize thedialogue from a different perspective he understand the hermeneutic.
Gadamer’sperspective about the hermeneutics, basically creates openness, sinceritybetween the public. A very good statement about dialogue doesn’t affirm a closeending statement. Infect hermeneutic has the attention for self-understanding.On the other side of the spectrum, Platonic dialogue’s general characteristicshas the hermeneutic dialogue that was mentioned in the paragraph above.
Aninteresting fact about Gadamer’s effective history said that Plato’s TheRepublic basically wouldn’t be cut off from the past and from the traditional. Historyis there for us to be able to understand the perspective of the past. People can’tbreak away from the effective history which extends the limits of the way ofthinking, which quite frankly provides all of their values. The perspective ofGadamer’s hermeneutics, within Platonic dialogue has the truth within thetension between the whole and individual parts. Within this statement the twoaspects of the Platonic dialogue, which extends the philosophical content whichfollows the hermeneutic circle that has an understanding for the each. (Chunge& Xiaodi, 2014) What is quite interesting is that allthese approaches were never criticised which brought them with the dialogue ofthe Gadamer’s hermeneutic project.
What is quite interesting is that Gadamer concludedthat the philosophy of practical is said to be “the practice of payingattention to the realities of social and political life”. An important figureWalhof follows the misconception about Gadamer that his theory in realityrejects the past but at the same time the theory is refusing to infect conceivethe past, ‘merely conservative’. In one of his main thesis of the Truth and Method which simply impliesthat the majority of life isn’t able to be reduced to objects which can beimplied with the methodology approach the suggest within the sciences. InfectWalhof introduce Gadamer Concept of the horizons, which basically means that aproposition doesn’t have the truth in or of itself, although the meaning iscaught from an exact context. Controversial to Walholf, Gadamer’s phenomenologyof conversation, entered to a genuine dialogue to someone, we are in control tothe conversation that is taken place. Basically to sum up what Walhof was meantto argument that political philosophies kind of ignore the social and politicalrealities which are seen more pressing than ever.
All this leads to theGadamerian concepts of dialogue that calls a lot of attention to the weaknessesto a deliberative approach. (Badge, 2017) With contrast to a number that includesthe postmodern thinkers, which includes philosophical hermeneutics, whichconcluded to Gadamer to believe that we could learn not only from big peoplelike Hegel and Heidegger but also from Plato, which ties with what was beingsaid in the previous paragraph, and also Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas too.Gadamer compares the relation with the mental and thought which one can matchwith the relation of a father and son (the truth and method). Also within this work he emphasis more on theunity of humans within the thought and the language.
Language is thought asbeing 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 tobe intelligible for itself, and what is very quite interesting it comes out tobe more intelligible for us. And this statement shows how Gadamer thinks, whichis the opposite of what Habermas thinks, which he express that it is notlinguistic constructivist. The last but certainly not the least is how Gadamerturns to St Thomas’s contribution for the theory of the verbum. Gadamer gives a good explanation of how theprocessual character of the human thought, gives out the concept to the”personal character of the inner word and the process of the Trinity”, thisquote was taken from Gadamer work, ‘Truth and Method’. From this passage we saw how Gadamer hascontrast with other philosophers/ people, that might have different meaning ofwhat he believes in.
(Zolatova, 2009). The last contrast is between Gadamer andGlenn Gould. This contrast compares within the performing arts with thecognitive and the practical dimensions of interpretation. Both of them pointsout the difference of the divergence and the antagonism, that lies in the heartof the artist (creative mind). Interesting enough we4 have the concept ofecstasy, which is understood to be a radical form to the divergence thatprovides the basis for the concept of subjectivity for linguistics. Thedimensions of the performing arts, music illustrations, etc. were emphasized byboth Gadamer and Glenn Gould. Within the notion of the ecstasy, it wasunderstood the both represents a non- differentiation between both the subjectand the object.
The subjectivity characterised much the human sciences and theanti-humanist, that quite frankly made it impossible to have the socialscientist to be an account to the human agency. (Hamlin, 2015) In this regard we saw how Gadamer contrastwith what he believes to other philosopher/ people. I found out that he notonly focuses on the linguistics as in direct speech but also incorporate thearts and how creative people communicate with the public. I also found out thatone 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 livein and how it affects the people around them, (the society). A lot of otherreaders found his work and analysed it to how it might be different to otherphilosophers that tackled the same issue and got a lot of contrast andbelieves, and how it might be different to other philosophers analysis. Thispaper was quite interesting to tackle and to see others point of view of howthe theory of dialogue (Gadamer perspective) came to be and what other people thoughtof it. Ending with one quote said by Gadamer himself that infect helped rightsome of this paper, the motivation for this paper, is this, “The ambiguity ofpoetic language answers to the ambiguity of human life as a whole, therein liesits unique value.
All interpretations of poetic language only interpret whatthe poetry has already interpreted.”