Why Share a Language or Tradition? Gadamer and Davidson in Dispute

That the ideal way to communicate and reach understanding is by speaking the same language, is a widespread view: it is rarely questioned in debates concerning language, (intercultural) communication, and interpretation. I shall argue that Hans-Georg Gadamer, too, suffers from this common language “...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Vandenabeele, Bart
Format: text
Published: Archīum Ateneo 2024
Subjects:
Online Access:https://archium.ateneo.edu/budhi/vol16/iss3/1
https://archium.ateneo.edu/context/budhi/article/1059/viewcontent/Budhi_2016.3_201_20Article_20__20VANDENABEELE.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Ateneo De Manila University
id ph-ateneo-arc.budhi-1059
record_format eprints
spelling ph-ateneo-arc.budhi-10592024-11-20T14:24:03Z Why Share a Language or Tradition? Gadamer and Davidson in Dispute Vandenabeele, Bart That the ideal way to communicate and reach understanding is by speaking the same language, is a widespread view: it is rarely questioned in debates concerning language, (intercultural) communication, and interpretation. I shall argue that Hans-Georg Gadamer, too, suffers from this common language “syndrome.” Donald Davidson is one of the few philosophers who explicitly uttered qualms about the necessity of a common language. Davidson critiques Gadamer’s common language idea, and rightly claims that a common language is not needed for communication and understanding. I show that Davidson has been unable to develop this insight fruitfully and underestimates the importance of the “embeddedness” of communication in (what Gadamer calls) a tradition. In this essay, a confrontation is offered between both views. neither comes out of the confrontation unscathed: Davidson’s notion of idiolect should be de-essentialized and needs to be supplemented with Gadamer’s view of the necessity of taking into account the importance of tradition(s) for mutual understanding. Yet Gadamer’s view has its own flaws: communication and understanding cannot be reduced to “fusion of horizons,” openness, or tolerance. One of the dangers of this Gadamerian perspective is that in the name of tradition and openness in theory, the procedural rules redefine tradition on so narrow a base that the real life status quo changes not a jot. 2024-11-20T14:25:55Z text application/pdf https://archium.ateneo.edu/budhi/vol16/iss3/1 https://archium.ateneo.edu/context/budhi/article/1059/viewcontent/Budhi_2016.3_201_20Article_20__20VANDENABEELE.pdf Budhi: A Journal of Ideas and Culture Archīum Ateneo Gadamer Davidson language intercultural communication linguistic community
institution Ateneo De Manila University
building Ateneo De Manila University Library
continent Asia
country Philippines
Philippines
content_provider Ateneo De Manila University Library
collection archium.Ateneo Institutional Repository
topic Gadamer
Davidson
language
intercultural communication
linguistic community
spellingShingle Gadamer
Davidson
language
intercultural communication
linguistic community
Vandenabeele, Bart
Why Share a Language or Tradition? Gadamer and Davidson in Dispute
description That the ideal way to communicate and reach understanding is by speaking the same language, is a widespread view: it is rarely questioned in debates concerning language, (intercultural) communication, and interpretation. I shall argue that Hans-Georg Gadamer, too, suffers from this common language “syndrome.” Donald Davidson is one of the few philosophers who explicitly uttered qualms about the necessity of a common language. Davidson critiques Gadamer’s common language idea, and rightly claims that a common language is not needed for communication and understanding. I show that Davidson has been unable to develop this insight fruitfully and underestimates the importance of the “embeddedness” of communication in (what Gadamer calls) a tradition. In this essay, a confrontation is offered between both views. neither comes out of the confrontation unscathed: Davidson’s notion of idiolect should be de-essentialized and needs to be supplemented with Gadamer’s view of the necessity of taking into account the importance of tradition(s) for mutual understanding. Yet Gadamer’s view has its own flaws: communication and understanding cannot be reduced to “fusion of horizons,” openness, or tolerance. One of the dangers of this Gadamerian perspective is that in the name of tradition and openness in theory, the procedural rules redefine tradition on so narrow a base that the real life status quo changes not a jot.
format text
author Vandenabeele, Bart
author_facet Vandenabeele, Bart
author_sort Vandenabeele, Bart
title Why Share a Language or Tradition? Gadamer and Davidson in Dispute
title_short Why Share a Language or Tradition? Gadamer and Davidson in Dispute
title_full Why Share a Language or Tradition? Gadamer and Davidson in Dispute
title_fullStr Why Share a Language or Tradition? Gadamer and Davidson in Dispute
title_full_unstemmed Why Share a Language or Tradition? Gadamer and Davidson in Dispute
title_sort why share a language or tradition? gadamer and davidson in dispute
publisher Archīum Ateneo
publishDate 2024
url https://archium.ateneo.edu/budhi/vol16/iss3/1
https://archium.ateneo.edu/context/budhi/article/1059/viewcontent/Budhi_2016.3_201_20Article_20__20VANDENABEELE.pdf
_version_ 1816861440163708928