Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/11375/13864
Title: | Understanding a work of Art through play and agreement: A Study of Garamer's Central Notions for Understanding a work of Art |
Authors: | DiTommaso, Tanya |
Advisor: | Madison, G.B. |
Department: | Philosophy |
Keywords: | Philosophy;Philosophy |
Publication Date: | 1995 |
Abstract: | <p>This thesis is devoted to a study of Gadamer's work on play and truth. I shall begin with an analysis of Gadamer's notion of play. Since it is presumptuous on my part to assume that I could possibly give an all-inclusive account of Gadamer's notion of play, I shall at this point inform my reader that I cannot help but discuss play in a particular spotlight, highlighting certain aspects which are relevant for the next phase of my thesis. Upon the completion of my exposition of Gadamer's play, I shall then discuss the feature of agreement in Gadamer's notion of truth. After describing Gadamer's notion of play in agreement, I shall then introduce Mary Devereaux's work on Gadamer to my discussion.</p> <p>Upon the entrance of Devereaux, I shall offer a brief outline of Devereaux's interpretation of Gadamer. In discussing her position, I intend to identify Devereaux's misinterpretation of Gadamer's own stance. Through the course of my analysis, it will become clear how Devereaux has gravely misinterpreted Gadamer's notion of agreement and how she has not, therefore, taken into account the full implications of Gadamer's notions of play and truth.</p> <p>After dealing with Devereaux's misunderstanding of Gadamer's work on agreement, I shall insist that Devereaux's interpretation arises out of a lack of attention to the subject of play. It will be shown that what Devereaux is talking about is more akin to a 'consensus' than to an 'agreement'. To illustrate this, however, I must draw the necessary distinction(s) between these two concepts.</p> <p>My purpose in this thesis is to clearly outline Gadamer's notion of agreement in truth and, consequently, this task requires me to defend Gadamer from an interpretation such as Devereaux's. However, if one might still ask, 'if Devereaux's work is such a painful misinterpretation, then why bother to use it in a thesis?', my reply would be: 'I am using Devereaux's work simply because it offers itself as an opportunity where a necessary distinction between agreement and consensus must be constructed and, further, 1 find that Devereaux's own pessimistic and cynical position - born from the failure to draw such a clear and important distinction - is an unfortunate result of a view which disregards the highly significant role of play in interpretation.</p> |
URI: | http://hdl.handle.net/11375/13864 |
Identifier: | opendissertations/8699 9784 4966215 |
Appears in Collections: | Open Access Dissertations and Theses |
Files in This Item:
File | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|
fulltext.pdf | 3.98 MB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Items in MacSphere are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.