Fusion of horizons: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m r2.6.3) (Robot: Adding cs:Splývání horizontů |
|||
| (29 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
In the philosophy of [[Hans-Georg Gadamer]], a '''fusion of horizons''' ({{langx|de|Horizontverschmelzung}}) is the process through which the members of a hermeneutical dialogue establish the broader context within which they come to a shared understanding. |
|||
"'''Fusion of horizons'''" is a [[dialectic]]al concept which results from the rejection of two alternatives: [[Objectivity (philosophy)|objectivism]], whereby the objectification of the other is premised on the forgetting of oneself; and [[absolute knowledge]], according to which [[universal history]] can be articulated within a single [[horizon]]. Therefore, it argues that we exist neither in closed horizons, nor within a horizon that is unique. |
|||
In [[Phenomenology (philosophy)|phenomenology]], a horizon refers to the context within which of any meaningful [[Presentation (philosophy)|presentation]] is contained. For Gadamer, we exist neither in closed horizons, nor within a horizon that is unique; we must reject both the assumption of [[absolute knowledge]], that universal history can be articulated within a single horizon, and the assumption of [[Objectivity and subjectivity|objectivity]], that we can "forget ourselves" in order to achieve an objective perspective of the other participant. |
|||
People come from different backgrounds and it is not possible to totally remove oneself from one's background, history, culture, gender, language, education, etc. to an entirely different system of attitudes, beliefs and ways of thinking. People may be looking for a way to be engaged in understanding a conversation or dialogue about different cultures and the speaker interprets texts or stories based on his or her past experience and prejudice. Therefore, “[[hermeneutic]] reflection and determination of one’s own present life interpretation calls for the unfolding of one’s ‘effective-historical’ consciousness.”<ref>Herda (1999:63)</ref> During the discourse, a fusion of “horizons” takes place between the speaker and listeners. |
|||
According to Gadamer, since it is not possible to totally remove oneself from one's own broader context, (e.g. the background, history, culture, gender, language, education, etc.) to an entirely different system of attitudes, beliefs and ways of thinking,{{sfn|Malpas|2003|loc=3.2}} in order to be able to gain an understanding from a conversation or dialogue about different cultures we must acquire "the right horizon of inquiry for the questions evoked by the encounter with tradition."<ref>{{cite book|last=Gadamer|first=Hans-Georg|translator-last=Weinsheimer|translator-first=Joel|translator-last2=Marshall|translator-first2=Donald G.|title=Truth and Method|edition=revised 2nd|place=London and New York|publisher=Bloomsbury Academic|year=2013|isbn=978-1-7809-3624-6}}</ref> through negotiation; in order to come to an agreement, the participants must establish a shared context through this "fusion" of their horizons.{{sfn|Malpas|2003|loc=3.2}} |
|||
==Horizons to be fused== |
|||
[[Gadamer]] <ref>1988:269</ref> defines horizon: |
|||
<blockquote>Every finite presentation has its limitations. We define the concept of “situation” by saying that it represents a standpoint that limits the possibility of vision. Hence an essential part of the concept of situation is the concept of “Horizon.” The horizon is the range of vision that includes everything that can be seen from a particular vantage point…. A person who has no horizon is a man who does not see far enough and hence overvalues what is nearest to him. Contrariwise, to have an horizon means not to be limited to what is nearest, but to be able to see beyond it…. The working out of the hermeneutical situation means the achievement of the right horizon of enquiry for the questions evoked by the encounter with tradition.</blockquote> |
|||
==See also== |
|||
Person A and person B exchange their ideas and opinions within a conversation. People come from different places have different opinions and this difference in background creates a set of [[prejudice]] and [[bias]] which provides various intrinsic values and meanings while the conversation is carrying on. By receiving the information from person A, a fusion of person B’s vision limitation are taking place and consequently, it broadens person B’s range of horizon. In other words, the totality of all that can be realized or thought about by a person at a given time in history and in a particular culture widens and enriches. |
|||
* [[Horizon of expectation]] |
|||
Gadamer argues that people have a “historically effected consciousness” (wirkungsgeschichtliches Bewußtsein) and that they are embedded in the particular history and culture that shaped them. Thus, interpreting a text involves a 'fusion of horizons' where the scholar finds the way to articulate the text's history with their own background. |
|||
* [[Perspectivism]] |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
{{Refimprove|date=September 2008}} |
|||
==Notes== |
|||
{{reflist}} |
{{reflist}} |
||
| ⚫ | |||
[[Category:Philosophical terminology]] |
|||
*{{cite SEP| url-id=gadamer| title=Hans-Georg Gadamer| author-last1=Malpas| author-first1=Jeff| date=2003}} |
|||
[[Category:Concepts in epistemology]] |
|||
[[cs:Splývání horizontů]] |
|||
[[Category:Hans-Georg Gadamer]] |
|||
[[sv:Förståelsehorisont]] |
|||
[[Category:Hermeneutics]] |
|||
[[Category:Phenomenology]] |
|||
[[Category:Social epistemology]] |
|||
{{philosophy-stub}} |
|||
Latest revision as of 21:10, 3 November 2024
In the philosophy of Hans-Georg Gadamer, a fusion of horizons (German: Horizontverschmelzung) is the process through which the members of a hermeneutical dialogue establish the broader context within which they come to a shared understanding.
In phenomenology, a horizon refers to the context within which of any meaningful presentation is contained. For Gadamer, we exist neither in closed horizons, nor within a horizon that is unique; we must reject both the assumption of absolute knowledge, that universal history can be articulated within a single horizon, and the assumption of objectivity, that we can "forget ourselves" in order to achieve an objective perspective of the other participant.
According to Gadamer, since it is not possible to totally remove oneself from one's own broader context, (e.g. the background, history, culture, gender, language, education, etc.) to an entirely different system of attitudes, beliefs and ways of thinking,[1] in order to be able to gain an understanding from a conversation or dialogue about different cultures we must acquire "the right horizon of inquiry for the questions evoked by the encounter with tradition."[2] through negotiation; in order to come to an agreement, the participants must establish a shared context through this "fusion" of their horizons.[1]
See also
[edit]Notes
[edit]- ^ a b Malpas 2003, 3.2.
- ^ Gadamer, Hans-Georg (2013). Truth and Method. Translated by Weinsheimer, Joel; Marshall, Donald G. (revised 2nd ed.). London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-1-7809-3624-6.
References
[edit]- Malpas, Jeff (2003). "Hans-Georg Gadamer". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
 | This philosophy-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |