Dialogue

Reading a Dutch book about modern philosophers. It was actually on my stack of books to give away, but i took it out, curious about it. I think i got this book from my stepfather, after he died. Sofar i enjoy reading it.

This bit in the text about Hans-George Gadamer about dialogues i really like.

To make this clear Gadamer points to the model of the dialogue. A dialogue is distinguished by a difference in perspective between the participants. There is distance, because one has a different perspective on the case than the other. This difference is fruitful; it continually forces the participants to closer clarification. This process of clarification can only work if one is actually interested in the viewpoint of the other. Commitment is as fundamental as distance. When distance is missing nothing needs to be explained; when commitment is missing, nothing can be explained. There is the entire difference between an unproductive fight and a productive difference of opinion. In a dialogue the perspectives are not identical, but they stand open for each other, exactly on the points where they differ. When the dialogue succeeds, the perspectives fold into each other, and a collective perspective originates. Gadamer speaks here of a melting of horizons. Then both original perspectives are removed, as two metals (tin and copper) change into a new metal, the amalgam bronze.

Translation mine