Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Theoblogy

Home
Progressive Christian
So Hans-Georg Gadamer and Jürgen Habermas were sitting at an outdoor cafe, somewhere in Europe…

So Hans-Georg Gadamer and Jürgen Habermas were sitting at an outdoor cafe, somewhere in Europe…

Last updated on: March 13, 2015 at 5:12 pm by Tony Jones

So Hans-Georg Gadamer and Jürgen Habermas were sitting at an outdoor cafe, somewhere in Europe… 2015-03-13T17:12:44-05:00 Tony Jones

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Habermas: What up, G? Say, I’ve read all your stuff on hermeneutics, and I think it’s pretty good. But I’ve got a couple of major concerns.

Gadamer: OK, shoot.

H: Well for one, I’m not really down with your rehabilitation of tradition. I mean, tradition is there, I understand, but it is nothing more than a carrier of prejudice.

G: I know, and I think prejudice is just fine, too.

H: But prejudice and tradition are tools of The Man. They only support hegemony, oppression, and domination. You’re naïve to think they don’t.

G: You’re the naïve one, H. As human beings, we are prejudiced by our traditions. I’m just calling it what it is. You, my friend, have been seduced by the Enlightenment’s prejudice against prejudice, which is, itself, a prejudice. I think we should all claim our prejudices, and I also think — you’re going to give birth to a calf on this one — I also think that tradition is and should be authoritative.

H [getting red in the face]: Are you insane?!? Have you lost your mind?!? The point of philosophy is emancipation! Liberation from oppression!

G: Settle down, dude. I knew that would get under your skin, so let me amend it a little. I don’t agree with you that the goal of philosophy is emancipation — that kind of advocacy stance is foundationalist, and I’m a non-foundationalist. I don’t do philosophy with a political agenda. My only agenda is further self-knowledge. I will, however, grant you that I wasn’t sufficiently radical in Truth and Method. A drop or two of Marxism in my coffee would do me some good, I suppose.

Ricoeur [bending over from the next table]: I’m sorry, I couldn’t help overhearing you two. If you don’t mind me saying, I find your debate pedantic and stale, a leftover encounter between the Enlightenment and Romanticism.

G: Oh, really?

R: Yes. You, sir, are positing a naïve position in regards to tradition, which I shall call “participation.”

G: Clever.

R: And you, Mr. H, are cutting yourself off from tradition, which I shall term, “distanciation.”

H: Is that a word?

R: Frenchmen can make up words at will. Just ask Derrida. But back to my point. Ultimately, G, I’m on your side in this, but let me propose a middle ground between you two. When dealing with tradition, one should adopt a critical distance, so that you can be discerning about your traditions.

G: Is that all?

R: No. One more thing: You should judge your tradition against the regulative idea of emancipation. That will be how you determine whether the tradition is to be heeded or rejected.

G: OK. I can live with that.

H: Back to your cafe au lait, Frenchie. Listen, G, I’ve got another problem. You say that all human experience, and therefore all meaning, is utterly linguistic, right?

G: Yes.

H: But so much communication is distorted. I think hermeneutics is a fine place to start, but there are limits to interpretation. Like what about a mental patient and a therapist? That’s what I would call distorted communication.

G: Sure it is, but it’s still linguistic. The therapist claims an authoritative position based on the tradition of psychology in which she was trained. And she sits there for an hour trying to interpret what her patient is saying. Sorry, my friend, you can’t escape language.

H: Speaking of distorted communication, here comes Derrida. I’m outta here.

[Habermas hurriedly leave, and Derrida comes skipping up to the table, sits in the

chair opposite Gadamer, and laughs with a crazy cackle.]

G: Oh Jacques, pleeeeeeeeeeeease debate me.

D: I shan’t, G, for philosophy is nothing but a game with no point; it has no beginning and no end. We play and play, but everything means nothing.

G: I agree that that it’s a game, but there is a point to it. When we play the game more, we become better players. We understand ourselves better, and that is the meaning of life.

D: Meaning of life? HA! Can’t we please bury Plato already? There is no meaning, only différance.

G: I know French, and that’s not a word.

D: Frenchmen can make up words at will.

G: Yeah, I guess I’ve heard that. But listen, the point of dialogue, of conversation, is agreement. That’s how we know things better.

D: Agreement?!? HA! Consensus leads to holocausts. There is no consensus, only dissensus, you silly man. You are a Romantic. And the French love Romance. Let me give you a hug.

[Derrida reaches across the table, spilling coffee on himself and Gadamer, and hugs Gadamer a little too long for anyone’s comfort.]

D: I must be off. My favorite soap opera begins in ten minutes!

[Derrida skips off, leaving Gadamer alone at the table.]

N.B.: Thanks to Tim Keller, whose question prompted my assault on philosophical dialogue. Tim, I’ve not read Van Hoozer, and I only know Thistleton as a (foundationalist) commentator on hermeneutics — I’ve not really read enough of him to judge his work.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

January 17, 2005

Phenomenological Hermeneutics

Next Post

January 24, 2005 Minnesota Insider Post

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category bible blogging books christianity in america church church history dissertation divorce Dog Training education emergent church essay family funny glbt jopa productions ministry minnesota movies music parenting philosophy politics Prayer publishing Questions That Haunt random same sex marriage speaking spirituality Teaching technology television theology Travels Uncategorized writing youth ministry

Select a Month January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 June 2006 May 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 June 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 August 2004 February 2004 January 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What is written on Jesus’ robe in Revelation 19:16?

Select your answer to see how you score.

The Alpha and Omega The Lamb of God King of Kings and Lord of Lords The Lion of Judah