Recently philosophers interested in bridging the gap between continental and analytic philosophy have looked to connecting Hans‐Georg Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics with Donald Davidson’s philosophy of language. Both seem to share a number of positions, and each was familiar with the other’s writings. In this essay, I look at Davidson’s criticisms of Gadamer’s hermeneutics—in particular Gadamer’s view that dialogue always depends on a shared language and, when successful, produces a new common language to understand a topic. I argue that Davidson’s objections (...) miss the way Gadamer is using conversation as a technical term. Working out the difference between what Davidson and Gadamer mean reveals a deeper divide between their views about the relation between language and thought. (shrink)

In the Winter semester of 1925/26 Heidegger gave what appears to have been his first seminar on Hegel. Still unpublished in any form, this neglected seminar is of extraordinary importance, and not only for the in-depth and critical reading it pursues of Hegel’s Logic I, a critique that charges Hegel with not knowing how or where to begin. The seminar is also important for its attempt to demonstrate that Hegel’s philosophy was thoroughly Greek. In the class of 25 November 1925, (...) Heidegger is reported to have said: “Therefore am I in the habit of saying that Hegel is the most radical Greek there ever was. With the means that were pre-formed in Greek ontology as if in a seed, the means that lay at the roots of Greek ontology, Hegel mastered something (roughly speaking: spirit, history) that in this form was never experienced by the Greeks. This is only asserted here. Proof of this thesis is naturally very difficult.” Heidegger therefore turns towards the end of the seminar to Aristotle’s account of time in the Physics to show that both this understanding of time and the conception of being it presupposes are also Hegel’s. Yet Heidegger entrusts the initial presentation of Aristotle’s conception of time to a student whose reading is at odds with his own, so much so that Heidegger accuses the student of turning everything on its head. The student’s name is H.-G. Gadamer. (shrink)

The thesis that all learning has the character of enquiry is advanced and its implications are explored. R. G. Collingwood’s account of ‘the logical priority of the question’ is explained and Hans-Georg Gadamer’s hermeneutical justification and development, particularly the rejection of the re-enactment thesis, is discussed. Educators are encouraged to consider the following implications of the character of the question implied in all learning: (i) that it is a question that is constituted in the event rather than prepared or given (...) in advance, and that this leads to a necessary tension between learning and the curriculum or scheme, (ii) that it is a question that concerns some subject matter or issue that is at stake for both the student and the object of study, which draws our attention to the ‘intentionality’ of learning, and (iii) that it is a question that operates on the level of being—students are ‘called into question’, and thus transformed, by the object of study. (shrink)

The genre of commentary is in its historical manifestation strongly associated with a style of reading governed by an attitude of textual deference, or what I call a principle of authority. The commentator did not suppose himself equal to the “authentic” author: he sought to learn from one of those who know. The “‘authentic’ author could neither be mistaken, nor contradict himself, nor develop his arguments poorly, nor disagree with any other authentic author”.The commentator’s attitude of textual deference seems from (...) a modern philosophical perspective, distinguished as it is by an intense critical stance, to embody a serious error. From a contemporary perspective, the good philosophical.. (shrink)

The project behind this and the following1 special issue of Angelaki first assumed concrete form in the shape of a three-day international conference, “Continental Philosophy and the Sciences,” hel...

Résumé Dans cet article, je défends la signification contemporaine de la pensée de Hegel sur la subjectivité et la dialectique en impliquant Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel et Hans-Georg Gadamer dans un dialogue, puis en clarifiant les caractéristiques de l'esprit et du concept. La théorie de la subjectivité de Hegel et sa pensée sur la dialectique font face à de nombreuses critiques. L'un de ces critiques est Gadamer ; cependant, la philosophie de Gadamer est, en fait, assez proche de celle de (...) Hegel. Je prends la relation Hegel-Gadamer comme une illustration de la pertinence et de l'influence de Hegel. Je démontre ensuite l'importance contemporaine de Hegel en analysant les caractéristiques de l'esprit et du concept. Enfin, je propose que l'esprit absolu et le concept de Hegel restent significatifs. (shrink)

This essay explores Gadamer’s ambivalent relationship with modernity. Gadamer is a prominent critic of the Enlightenment project. His criticisms are both theoretical and practical. Theoretically, representationalism is at the center of modern epistemology for Gadamer. Practically, Gadamer sees the demotion of prudence (phronesis) as fundamental to the “bad” Enlightenment. Gadamer’s attempt to revive an appreciation of rhetoric is a way to the join the theoretical and practical dimensions of speech and life. The central representative philosopher of the Enlightenment for Gadamer (...) is Kant. The antithetical thinker is Aristotle. Gadamer would have his Kant and his Aristotle too. The tension between these is at the heart of Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics. (shrink)

Unlike certain commentary traditions of philosophy in which deference to an authoritative author was a central feature, there are within the analytical tradition no recognised authorities to whom the reader is required to defer. This paper takes up the question of whether this anti-authoritarian position in philosophy can be sustained. Three lines of argument are considered. According to the first, there are no credible authorities in philosophy, or, even if there were, these authorities could not be identified by the non-expert (...) reader. According to the second, since no philosopher is infallible, many readers have on many occasions epistemic grounds for non-deference to the author. According to the third, even if some readers have epistemic reason for deference to some authors, an anti-authoritarian stance can be justified in terms of distinctively philosophical values such as conceptual understanding or intellectual autonomy. Although each of these lines of argument contains an element of truth, a sufficient justification for philosophical anti-authoritarianism remains surprisingly elusive. (shrink)

This article presents Gadamer’s interest in temporality as his strategy for advancing hermeneutics as philosophy of experience, a strategy becoming significantly more salient with the appearance of his 1992 essay, ‘Wort und Bild’. I demonstrate how temporal categories readily demarcate the problem of ontological imbalance so central in Gadamer’s philosophical project, a demarcation that removes any illusion of compatibility between Gadamer and the hermeneutics of Paul Ricoeur. The article also considers some common misunderstandings of Gadamer resulting from a failure to (...) take full account of his interest in temporality, misunderstandings that prohibit recognizing the radical potential of Gadamer’s hermeneutical philosophy for our understanding of human finitude. A full account of this orientation must begin with a grasp of the exemplariness of art in his philosophy, and in this connection, the article raises the question of Gadamer’s late interest in the distinct exemplariness, not of lyric poetry, but of narrative art. (shrink)

The thesis that all learning has the character of enquiry is advanced and its implications are explored. R. G. Collingwood's account of ‘the logical priority of the question’ is explained and Hans-Georg Gadamer's hermeneutical justification and development, particularly the rejection of the re-enactment thesis, is discussed. Educators are encouraged to consider the following implications of the character of the question implied in all learning: (i) that it is a question that is constituted in the event rather than prepared or given (...) in advance, and that this leads to a necessary tension between learning and the curriculum or scheme, (ii) that it is a question that concerns some subject matter or issue that is at stake for both the student and the object of study, which draws our attention to the ‘intentionality’ of learning, and (iii) that it is a question that operates on the level of being—students are ‘called into question’, and thus transformed, by the object of study. (shrink)