Abstract
This is the talk I gave when the City of Stuttgart did me the honour of awarding me the Hegel prize. Since I was the first non-European philosopher to receive this award, I interpreted the occasion as marking another step in the remarkable rapprochement that is now taking place between what for a time seemed two distinct, even hostile, philosophical methods, attitudes and traditions. What we are witnessing is, of course, really no more than the re-engagement of traditions that share a common heritage. But this makes it no less surprising, since as we know, it is those who are closest in their presuppositions who are most apt to exaggerate and dwell on their differences. To understand is not to forgive, and to half-understand is all too often to reject.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Hans-Georg Gadamer, Dialogue and Dialectic,Yale University Press, 1980.
Hans-Georg Gadamer, Philebus; Platos dialektische Ethik,Leipzig, 1931. My dissertation has recently been published: Plato’s Philebus,Garland Publishing, 1990.
The importance of this feature of the elenchus is stressed in Gregory Vlastos’ brilliant book, Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher,Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Vlastos has suggested something close to this in “The Socratic Elenchus” in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy,Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1983, pp. 27–58.
Arguments in support of this thesis can be found in my “A Coherence Theory of Truth and Knowledge”, in Kant oder Hegel,ed. Dieter Henrich, Klett-Cotta, 1983, pp. 423–438.
Here are two more examples: When Protagoras asks whether he should answer for himself or as “the multitude” would, Socrates replies “It makes no difference to me, provided you do the answering. For what I chiefly examine is the proposition. But the consequence may be that I the questioner and you the answerer will also be examined” (Protagoras 333B—C). Meno is pleased by the style of Socrates’ answers, and Socrates replies “Well then, I will spare no endeavour, both for your sake and for my own [my italics], to continue in that style” (Meno 77A).
Phaedrus 275E.
Euthyphro 11B—E.
Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher, p. 44.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1994 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Davidson, D. (1994). Dialectic and Dialogue. In: Preyer, G., Siebelt, F., Ulfig, A. (eds) Language, Mind and Epistemology. Synthese Library, vol 241. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2041-0_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2041-0_19
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-4392-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-2041-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive