OK. I know this isn’t particularly coherent, but a lack of sleep over the New Years and this urge to write has brought about this thought and it would be helpful to understand that these ideas in a forum where I’m not necessarily required to be coherent. I think I do have the basic structure of my paper here; I just need to elaborate on a few concepts.Gadamer says that “all understanding is language.” On one level, would, in view of the dialectical relationship between Account grip on human and everything it encounters, I accept this statement. But I can’t help but ask … What about art? Is understanding not sometimes Visual?
A possible answer to this question may reside in Account view of language. What is language? Is language words? Or is it something completely different? If we perceive language not as word elements, but rather as a dynamic exchange of ideas, Account claim begins to make more sense.Gadamer talks a lot about the game, emphasizing the priority of playing of its participants. We tend to think of ourselves as topics of the event play “* I * are playing a game.” But in reality, a person who really has found the game lose themselves to the spirit of the game, the game’s own structure and rhythm. In this sense will be participants in a game of objects instead of the items.
Language works the same way. The condition of being of language is the back and forth movement of dialog that can be stopped, but never completed.
Account tanks lose context, if we think of understanding as a goal, a finality. But understanding that understanding is not a goal, but a never-ending process delineated only by the infinity of its participants.
Understanding requires two participants (at least–but maybe only? A participant can have more dialogue, but dialogue can have more than two participants?). Process of being open to ideas, share ideas, and criticize/espousing ideas of the other, so that our own horizon broaden … this understanding.
Art is therefore not to understand, but participates in the understanding. In the same way, we can equate the text with language. Text on a page is also the only participant in understanding … not to understand itself.
A work of art, be it a painting or music or a literary work does not have to be until it is interpreted, like our being is actualized in the encounter with the work of art.
Therefore, Gadamer can justify using the forward and backward movement of the language as a metaphor for human comprehension of all objects.