Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Argument explores Gadamer's concept of horizon in dialogue, countering Hirsch's criticism.
Hans‐Georg Gadamer is often criticized for his account of the fusions of horizons as the ideal resolution of dialogue. I argue that in fact it is an excellent account of the successful resolution of dialogue, but only in light of a proper understanding of what Gadamer means by ‘horizon’ and how then horizons are fused. I do this by showing how Gadamer is drawing on the technical sense of ‘horizon’ found in Edmund Husserl’s and Martin Heidegger’s phenomenologies. In the process I show why a prominent criticism of Gadamer’s account of the fusion of horizons, a criticism presented most forcefully by E. D. Hirsch, is mistaken.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
David Vessey (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: