The article is an attempt to distinguish between two forms of dialogue: a constructive argument and a hermeneutic discourse. The author develops a theory that different understanding of conflicting views is the foundation act of each of these forms of dialogue. The argument starts from the differences perceived as the distortion of the conformity necessary for action; the discourse is initiated by the differences perceived as a testimony of a disparate sense. The double attitude to these differences may be accounted for by two orders of experience – the order of action and the order of understanding
