philosophies Article Analogy and Communication Enrique Dussel y Facultad Filosofía y Letras (School of Philosophy and Literature), Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana (Autonomous Metropolitan University, UAM), Mexico City 04510, Mexico; [email protected] See www.enriquedussel.com. y Received: 31 December 2018; Accepted: 17 April 2019; Published: 5 June 2019 Abstract: Analogy makes possible the dialogue between people. This dialogue, at the intercultural level and from distinct ontological comprehensions of life, cannot be achieved from a univocal pretension of meaning. Analogy permits, especially at the rhetoric level of Political Philosophy, an adequate interpretation of such complex concepts as people, state or rights. A semantics of these concepts by similarity allows us to advance in the process towards a better interpretation of the other interlocutor’s expression though never reaching identity. Keywords: analogy; communication; dialogue 1. Introduction Univocal communication is only possible when the meaning of the words or signs that it involves is abstract. In the case of human communication, when a human being communicates with another regarding their ontological, biographical, historical, personal world, the enunciation loses equally and to a greater extent its univocal quality, because the horizon of sense1 (the “comprehension of being” that M. Heidegger referred to, which is not identical to that of other such worlds) gives to each of the entities of the world a distinct sense2 (which is what one seeks to communicate within the context of an existential dialogue between persons), which leads certain philosophers to speak of an inevitable degree of incommunicability, because of the ontological incommensurability of the worlds that constitute the subject of the enunciation at issue. Here we would be then in the case opposite to that of a determined univocal character; which is to say that here we are confronting the virtually absolute equivocal character of incommunicability, even though the same word3 does not have the same meaning (which is why it is opined that the word uttered by the person who enunciates is incomprehensible for the listener, who seeks to achieve a univocal understanding, which is identical). To the contrary, I will argue here that there can be a communication through similarity, but which is not identical, of the same word in each of the worlds of the interlocutors involved, since the expression of one can have, in the world of the other a meaning which is distinct but similar4, and thus approximately 1 The “meaning” (semantic relation) indicates the reference of the word or concept to the thing (be it real or reasoned); its “sense” (its ontological relation) (sens in French, Sinn in German) indicates the respective relationship of the thing or meaning within the totality of the world (Welt in M. Heidegger). See ([1], chapters 2.3.3–2.3.8, 2.4.3) and Glossary of concepts. Analogy, difference, distinction, identity, etc. 2 In this writing there are three words that will be employed with semantic precision: (1) the word “difference” (differentia in Latin) refers to a univocal identical character, (2) “distinction” (distinctio) to analogical similarity, y (3) “diversity” (diversitas) indicates the non-equivalency between the meaning of the two above. 3 For example, when one says “I love you!” to one’s partner. 4 Is it possible for example for the interlocutors of a dialogue to attain the same interpretation of the sense of “love”? For one of these perhaps, it means servicing one’s own self through the other in order to fulfill their own egotistical appetites (mere éros); while, by contrast, for the other, it might mean friendship in service of mutuality (philía); or it could also mean a unconditional and disinterested affection committed to the construction of the happiness of the Other (agápe) without Philosophies 2019, 4, 31; doi:10.3390/philosophies4020031 www.mdpi.com/journal/philosophies Philosophies 20192019,, 44,, 31x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 23 thus approximately comprehensible (which could increase mutual comprehension by means of a comprehensibledialogue within the (which context could of “analogical increase mutual time” comprehension6). by means of a dialogue within the 5 contextAnd of so, “analogical between the time” univocal). character that presupposes a simplification of the semantic content of thatAnd which so, between is communicated, the univocal and character the equivocal that presupposes character of a simplificationthat which is diverse of the semantic without contentshared ofmeaning, that which we must is communicated, situate the use and of theanalogy equivocal which character has reference of that to which the communicative is diverse without reason shared that meaning,makes it wepossible must situatefor there the to use be of greater analogy flexibility, which has richness reference of to content the communicative and the possibility reason that of makesundertaking it possible a dialogue for there between to be greater human flexibility, worlds, richness cultures of contentor realities and which the possibility unfold ofdiachronically undertaking awithin dialogue a temporal between context: human this worlds, begins cultures with a or mi realitiesnimum which level unfoldof mutual diachronically comprehension within and a temporalthen can context:increase thisthrough begins the with widening a minimum of the levelcommon of mutual semantic comprehension framework where and then the canhermeneutical increase through action theof the widening word of of the the other common gradually semantic assumes framework more fully where and the deeply hermeneutical the meaning action of ofthe the words word and of the of otherthe world gradually of the assumes other. Analogy more fully comes and closer deeply to the iden meaningtity without of the ever words fully and coinciding, of the world as of in the the other. case Analogyof the asymptotic comes closer line to (moment identity without3 of the ever figure fully below coinciding, which asrepresents in the case an of impossible the asymptotic point line of (momentidentity). 3 of the figure below which represents an impossible point of identity). ClarificationClarification regardingregarding Figure Figure1: The1: The limits limits of a processof a process of communication of communication are marked are bymarked extremes by (1)extremes and (3), (1) and and it is(3), between and it theseis between that the these similarity that isthe achieved, similarity around is achieved, which communicativearound which dialoguecommunicative is practiced, dialogue as in is the practiced, case of an as asymptotic in the case line of (a)an whichasymptotic represents line (a) the which increase represents in analogical the similarity,increase in from analogical 1 to 2 insimilarity, c, but which from never 1 to coincides2 in c, but with which equivocal never incommunicabilitycoincides with equivocal (1) nor withincommunicability a perfect degree (1)of nor univocal with a perfect communication degree of (3).univocal This advancecommunication in the “temporal (3). This advance dimension in the of communication”“temporal dimension (b) does of communication” not arrive at a level (b) does of identity, not arrive although at a level permits of identity, a greater although understanding permits througha greater the understanding time of the dialogue through through the time an increasingof the dialogue of “fusion through of horizons” an increasing (of the kindof “fusion analyzed of byhorizons” H. Gadamer, (of the see kind Figure analyzed 5). by H. Gadamer, see Figure 5). 1 b a 23 c Figure 1.1. BetweenBetween equivocality equivocality and and a fully communicativecommunicative identical character lies the temporaltemporal dimension of communication withinwithin thethe contextcontext ofof thethe similaritysimilarity achievedachieved byby analogy.analogy. Neither thethe totally totally univocal univocal character character of identical, of identical, monosemic monosemic consensus consensus that clearly that andclearly precisely and encompassesprecisely encompasses all differences, all differences, nor the incommensurability nor the incommensurability of incomprehension of incomprehension as an impossibility as an ofimpossibility purely equivocal of purely communication, equivocal communication, but instead the but polysemic instead analogical the polysemic room analogical of similarity room which of makessimilarity a consensus which makes or agreement a consensus possible, or agreemen but whicht possible, nonetheless but which permits nonetheless the tolerant permits respect the of comprehensiontolerant respect throughof comprehension the distinction through of the the Other. distinction of the Other. I seekseek to to counterpose counterpose here here the logicthe logic of alterity of alteri centeredty centered around similarityaround similarity and analogical and distinctionanalogical asdistinction an alternative as an toalternative that of the to logic that ofof totalitythe logic centered of totality around centered identity around and diidentityfference and in thedifference Hegelian in sense.the Hegelian Moreconcretely, sense. More this concretely, implies the this confrontation implies the confrontation of analogous of reason analogous withthat reason of the with univocal that of reason.the univocal This reason. is more This crucial is more than crucial ever withinthan ever the within context the of context the need of the for need analogous for analogous reason