One can only access the viewpoint of another from within one’s own horizon. This relationship between ‘one’ and ‘the other’ which, in Gadamer’s philosophy makes understanding possible, is what has been examined by other philosophers as well. Emmanuel Levinas considered this relationship known by him as ‘the face-to-face’ relationship, as “the heart of life [that] is found not in knowing yourself but in your relation to the Other.” (Theory for Performance Studies, Philip Auslander, p. 129)
The Other is a phenomenon that should be discussed in relation to ‘I’. While Levinas accepts Heidegger's argument that a human being experiences itself as an entity without control over its beginning and ending, he insists that Being or ‘I’ is a continuous …show more content…
For Gadamer, dialectic is inseparable from dialogue. There are four key components of dialogue in his hermeneutics. First one is that a dialogue is concentrated on the subject matter; the purpose of a dialogue is not to triumph over ‘the other’, nor does it aim at a subjective understanding of the other. Rather, both sides open themselves to coming to an agreement about the matter itself. The second component asserts that a dialogue requires each party to have an openness to hear something anew, so as to create a connection with another. Third, a good dialogue requires an inclination to present reasons for one’s views. One must be open to the other’s expression and also make the effort to explain oneself to another. Last but not least of the four components declares that a good dialogue entails a commitment that one “knows one doesn’t know.” Dialogue involves a humble spirit in which we get caught up and lose ourselves in the connection with
The Other is a phenomenon that should be discussed in relation to ‘I’. While Levinas accepts Heidegger's argument that a human being experiences itself as an entity without control over its beginning and ending, he insists that Being or ‘I’ is a continuous …show more content…
For Gadamer, dialectic is inseparable from dialogue. There are four key components of dialogue in his hermeneutics. First one is that a dialogue is concentrated on the subject matter; the purpose of a dialogue is not to triumph over ‘the other’, nor does it aim at a subjective understanding of the other. Rather, both sides open themselves to coming to an agreement about the matter itself. The second component asserts that a dialogue requires each party to have an openness to hear something anew, so as to create a connection with another. Third, a good dialogue requires an inclination to present reasons for one’s views. One must be open to the other’s expression and also make the effort to explain oneself to another. Last but not least of the four components declares that a good dialogue entails a commitment that one “knows one doesn’t know.” Dialogue involves a humble spirit in which we get caught up and lose ourselves in the connection with