Re: . rrrrrRe: reflection (on ending duels - still belabouring)

From: Wolff-Michael Roth (mroth@uvic.ca)
Date: Sat Apr 28 2001 - 07:01:12 PDT


At 8:44 AM -0500 4/28/01, Nate Schmolze wrote:
>Phil, Judy,
>
>I agree with both of you. I agree that we cannot comprehend
>without the process of interpretation, but then the opposite is
>not necessarily true. We may interpret of given situation
>without comprehending all it entails.

May I encourage all of you stuck with this question to look at the
approach proposed by Ricoeur (1991), who sets understanding and
explanation in a dialectical relationship. Explanation is derived
through critical hermeneutical analysis, but understanding precedes
and envelops explanation. Explanation, however, is required to
develop understanding...

Ric¦ur, P. (1991). From text to action: Essays in hermeneutics, II.
Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

I think that his dialectical approach fits nicely with those who find
that dialectical reasoning has advantages over classical logic.

Nice weekend,

Michael

-- 

---------------------------------------------------- Wolff-Michael Roth Lansdowne Professor Applied Cognitive Science MacLaurin Building A548 Tel: (250) 721-7885 University of Victoria FAX: (250) 472-4616 Victoria, BC, V8W 3N4 Email: mroth@uvic.ca http://www.educ.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/ ----------------------------------------------------



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:02:07 PDT