ABSTRACT
Starting with H. G. Gadamer's notion of hermeneutic understanding, Gadamer ends with dialogical communication; while J. Habermas starts from his discourse model of communication, and ends with his notion of hermeneutic understanding. By adding the conditions of validation as a condition of understanding, Habermas wants to achieve at least three goals. One is to make the conditions of understanding knowable to the interpreter. The second goal is to make the conditions of understanding dialogical. The conditions of understanding need to be justified in argumentation oriented toward reaching agreement. Closely related to the second goal is Habermas's attempt to substantiate his basic conviction shared with Gadamer, that is, understanding is a process of reaching understanding and agreement through argumentation in dialogue. Based on Habermas's condition of communication (C2), for the communication between PL1 and PL2 to be successful, the truth claims have to be justified discursively through argumentation in rational debate between participants.
