¹ Rorty, Richard, “Pragmatism, Relativism, and Irrationalism,” in The Consequences of Pragmatism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982), pp. 160–75;Google ScholarBernstein, Richard J., Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983);Google ScholarWillard, Charles Arthur, Argumentation and the Social Grounds for Knowledge (University of Alabama Press, 1983), pp. 141–44;Google Scholar and Hesse, Mary, Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1980).Google Scholar

² Geertz, Clifford, Local Knowledge (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1983), p. 13.Google Scholar

³ Elam, Keir, The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama (London: Methuen, 1980), p. 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ Kennedy, Andrew K., Dramatic Dialogue: The Duologue of Personal Encounter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), p. 5.Google Scholar

⁵ Ibid., pp. 10-11.

⁶ Hume, David, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1980), part XI, p. 76.Google Scholar

⁷ Voltaire, , “A Conversation with a Chinese” in Smollett, Tobias, ed., The Works of Voltaire (42 vols.; Paris: E. R. DuMont [1901]), 4:28–32.Google Scholar

⁸ Functionally incommensurable” means that there is no one available in the situation who can provide a common measure to the interlocutors. On the meaning of incommensurability and related terms, see Bernstein, Richard J., Beyond Objectivism and Relativism, pp. 79–92.Google Scholar

⁹ Schopenhauer, Arthur, “On Religion: A Dialogue” in Schopenhauer: Essays and Aphorisms (Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, Inc., 1970), pp. 98 and 107 respectively.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Martyr, Justin, “Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew” in Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979).Google Scholar

¹¹ Willard, , Argumentation, p. 232.Google Scholar

¹² Gadamer, Hans-Georg, Philosophical Hermeneutics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976), p. 7.Google Scholar

¹³ Something suggested, for instance, in Apel, Karl-Otto, Towards a Transformation of Philosophy, trans. Adey, Glyn and Frisby, David (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Erasmus, , “A Pilgrimage for Religion's Sake” in Thompson, Craig R., trans., The Colloquies of Erasmus (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), pp. 285–312.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Grice, H. P., “Logic and Conversation” in Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry L., eds., Syntax and Semantics (3 cols.; New York: Academic Press, 1975), 3:41–58.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Bernstein, , Beyond Objectivism and Relativism, p. 167.Google Scholar Compare Gadamer, , Philosophical Hermeneutics, p. 88Google Scholar, where he calls the “essence of speaking” both “relativity to situation and opportunity.”

¹⁷ Gadamer, Hans-Georg, Truth and Method (New York: Crossroad, 1975), pp. 326–27.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Ibid., p. 317.

¹⁹ Justin Martyr, “Dialogue with Trypho,” chaps. 39, 55, and 77.

²⁰ Erasmus, , “A Fish Diet” in Thompson, Craig R., trans., The Colloquies of Erasmus, pp. 312–57.Google Scholar See Ch. Perelman, and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L., The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969), p. 493 on this rhetorical strategy.Google Scholar

²¹ Gadamer, , Truth and Method, pp. 266 and 330.Google Scholar

₂₂ Tracy, David, The Analogical Imagination (New York: Crossroad, 1981), p. 446.Google Scholar

²³ Klostermaier, Klaus K., “A Hindu-Christian Dialogue on Truth,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 12 (Spring 1975), 157–71;Google ScholarTheodoret, , “Dialogues (Eranistes)” in Schaff, Philip and Wace, Henry, eds., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 3:160–244.Google Scholar

²⁴ de Sade, Marquis, “Dialogue between a Priest and a Dying Man” in Seaver, Richard and Wainhouse, Austryn, eds., The Marquis de Sade (New York: Grove Press, 1965), pp. 163–75.Google Scholar

²⁵ Gadamer, , Truth and Method, pp. 93–95.Google Scholar

²⁶ Ibid., p. 326.

²⁷ See Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric; and Toulmin, Stephen, The Uses of Argument (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969).Google Scholar

²⁸ Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim, Nathan the Wise, trans. Ade, Walter Frank Charles (Woodbury, NY: Barrens, 1972).Google Scholar

²⁹ Klostermaier, “Hindu-Christian Dialogue.”

³⁰ Lucian, , “Zeus Catechized” in Harmon, A. M., trans., Lucian (8 vols.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960), 2:60–87.Google Scholar

³¹ Anselm of Canterbury, “Why God Became Man” in Fairweather, Eugene R., ed., A Scholastic Miscellany: Anselm to Ockham (New York: Macmillan, 1970), pp. 100–83.Google Scholar

³² Herder, Johann Gottfried, God, Some Conversations (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1940), pp. 76–92.Google Scholar

³³ Schleiermacher, Friedrich, Christmas Eve: Dialogue on the Incarnation, trans. Tice, Terrence N. (Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1967).Google Scholar

³⁴ Malebranche, Nicholas, Dialogue between a Christian Philosopher and a Chinese Philosopher on the Existence and Nature of God, trans. Iorio, Dominick A. (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1980), p. 74.Google Scholar

³⁵ Herder, , God, Some Conversations, p. 192.Google Scholar

³⁶ Erasmus, , “A Fish Diet,” p. 357.Google Scholar

³⁷ Schleiermacher, , Christmas Eve, p. 31.Google Scholar

³⁸ Ibid., pp. 45 and 36.

³⁹ Ibid., pp. 85-86.

⁴⁰ Diderot, Denis, “Conversation of a Philosopher with the Maréchale de--” in Birrell, Francis, trans., Dialogues (New York: Capricorn, 1969), p. 184.Google Scholar

⁴¹ de Sade, Marquis, “Dialogue between a Priest and a Dying Man,” p. 175.Google Scholar

⁴² Rorty, Richard, “Pragmatism, Relativism and Irrationalism,” in The Consequences of Pragmatism, p. 170;Google Scholar and Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979), pp. 315–19.Google Scholar

⁴³ Habermas' proposals concerning ideal speech situations, thus, seem irrelevant. For a discussion of Habermas and more appropriate alternatives, see Geuss, Raymond, The Idea of a Critical Theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt School (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), pp. 55–75.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ On the politics of conversation, see Dallmayr, Fred R., Polis and Praxis (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1984).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Rorty, , Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, p. 320.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ This is a problem in George A. Lindbeck's cultural-linguistic theory of theology. See The Nature of Doctrine (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984).Google Scholar My analysis supports Lindbeck's objection to foundationalism and his main argument that a clear self-understanding provided by one's native cultural-linguistic framework is a crucial condition for dialogue. However, Lindbeck's intrafield definition of rationality as “assimilative power” (131) is too restrictive and parochial to account for the full range of intermural conversations which are demanded in theological discourse. Standards of rationality are not only inherited from our home frameworks; they also are discovered in the voices of alien speakers and they are constructed pragmatically in the constantly evolving social dynamics of conversation. Lindbeck assumes that any interfield or public theology will be foundationalist, relying on a “framework independent language” (130). This is erroneous: literary dialogues illustrate the many practical struggles involved in interfield dialogues, all because no common foundation is conveniently at hand to resolve disagreements; but they also show the necessity and the imperative to stretch our communicative efforts beyond the familiar and secure parameters of our own linguistic frameworks.

⁴⁷ In The Nature of Doctrine, Lindbeck assumes that his “communal enclaves” in which people are well-versed in and confident in their field's supremacy will “stress service not domination” (128) and will not fall into “traditionalist rigidity” (134). This is a dangerous assumption.

⁴⁸ See Hackforth, R., ed., Plato's Phaedrus (New York: Liberal Arts, 1952);Google Scholar on Plato's love-speech correlation, see Weaver, Richard M., “The Phaedrus and the Nature of Rhetoric” in The Ethics of Rhetoric (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1953), pp. 3–26.Google Scholar Gadamer adds the parallel correlation of love and understanding in Truth and Method, pp. 321-25.

⁴⁹ Gadamer, , Truth and Method, p. 322.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Augustine, , On Free Choice of the Will (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1964).Google Scholar Evodius is all but silent through the last quarter of the dialogue.

⁵¹ Gadamer, , Truth and Method, p. 322.Google Scholar

⁵² Ibid., p. 331.

⁵³ Lucian, , “Philosophies for Sale” in Lucian, 2:449–511.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Gadamer, , Truth and Method, p. 341.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Bernstein, , Beyond Objectivism and Relativism, p. 229.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Geertz, , Local Knowledge, p. 16.Google Scholar