Transcendental model of dialogue as normative basis of bilateral communication

In the beginning of the article the definition of the concept dialogue is given. The author comparesthe usage of this term in every day life and scientific literature. The study of this term usage on different stages of philosophicaldevelopment including ancient, medieval and modern periods is given here. The role of ancient Greek culture in the formation of thedialogue as a form of communication is stressed. The review of different kinds of dialogue is given. The author dwells on the philosophyof the dialogue and its significance. The accent is made on the transcendental form of the dialogue proposed by French philosopherE. Levinas. The structure of transcendental model of the dialogue is analyzed, in particular, such basic components of it as the Selfand the Other. Levinas finds the cause of the crisis of sense in modern civilization in the absence of the third element of communication.The Other (interpreted as the transcendental absolute) is supposed to be such an element. It is stressed that the Other is treatedby Levinas as the main source of sense. The author supposes that the construction You (the Other) might be effective for the newforms of communication and philosophical understanding. Further, the author examines the contribution of M. Bakhtin and his followersto the theory of dialogue. Bakhtin transfers the centre of gravity from the question to the answer. In V.S. Biblers conception thedialogue is put down into the context of culture. Bibler marks out internal microdialogue and external macrodialogue in his theoreticalmodel of communication. The author notes that Biblers approach allows including personal sense into the dialogue structure.This opportunity is fixed in the category Self-Determination. Thereupon, the author pays attention to the original dialogue conceptionof G.S. Batishchev, the basis of which is the category of the Other-domination (Drugodominantnost). Batishchev makes an accenton contradictoriness (antithesis) of the dialogical principle itself: on the one hand, dialogism is deprived of hierarchy of senses and verticalline of values, on the other hand, it is a multilevel profound meeting supposing drugodominantnost(giving preference to theOther). The author comes to a conclusion that the transcendental model of the dialogue might be considered as the normative basis ofthe dialogue.

Keywords

Authors

References