We have to appreciate the truth can be received from the outside of---not ---only within---our own group...
2007-08-04 16:40:16 · 15 answers · asked by Rita 6 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
in a way. i do beleive that in a GENUINE dialogue the turning to the partner takes place in all truth. that is, it is a turning of both sides. every speaker 'means' the partner(s) to whm he turns his personal existence. to 'mean' someone in this connection is at the same time to exercise that degree of making present and true which is possible to the speaker at the moment. the turning of this person to the other and vice versa includes this confirmation, this acceptance. of couse, such a confirmation does not mean approval; but no matter in what i am against the other, by accepting the person as my partner in genuine dialogue i have affirmed truth in contextwith him as a person. =)
2007-08-04 16:50:41 · answer #1 · answered by the lioness 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Dialogue isn't a tennis match. It's a mutual examination of some agreed subject. There's not much of it about. Most people are so busy thinking of what they are going to say in reply to what they aren't listening to that the whole exercise is little more than uproar. Few learn to listen - apart from Buddhist priests and psychiatrists and we never elect them to Parliament, do we. Or they've more sense than to offer. Or if we did they'd join a party and turn out to be merely human after all. But listening is the trick to getting anywhere - even with the non-listeners.
2007-08-04 18:29:03 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
that is an excellent first step even though it ain't gunna happen. there's a reason they use the word denier and not doubter. Doubter could be polite and good. they generally are not. in addition they are not involved in dissent. the government sees a great money cow with carbon credit / taxes. The left relies upon on it sales much extra so than do the incredible. by means of tying sales onto something you attempt to shrink, that's barely techniques-boggling stupid. They the two have no theory of incentives or they're disingenuous or the two.
2016-11-11 06:15:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. In true dialogue, both parties are willing to listen. In a true compromise, both parties are willing to change. I propose that we as humans strive to have true dialogue with every other human we interact with, but we should also choose our true compromises carefully, reserving that kind of sacrifice and effort for the most intimate relationships. Unless we're talking International relations and world politics... that's another story....
2007-08-04 16:46:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Practically speaking yes, true dialog requires both parties to be open to change (changing their opinions, that is). If they are not open to changing their opinions, they cannot truly understand what the other person is saying; they may as well not even be in the same room.
In philosophical terms, no. Dialog is only a device to illustrate a point. A person can use dialog as a foil to contrast one idea with another, to argue a case. This usually involves "leading questions" however, i.e. provoking one person to say something, in order base your argument against this.
2007-08-04 16:56:35 · answer #5 · answered by nater4817 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Ideally, yes, but in reality, people go into "dialogue" w/ the intention of changing the other's mindset. With that line of thought it's pretty much I'm right until someone proves me wrong! lol
This is fine as long as you are willing to admit when you're wrong. (Unfortunately, many people aren't willing)
2007-08-04 16:51:56 · answer #6 · answered by misterFR33ZE 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What group would that be? Those who agree on a "True dialogue" agree on the specific utility of the dialogue. Is it a dialogue between individuals face-to-face for the purpose of discovery or the more common encounter of pretenders? This willingness to change does not yet understand the will, and so what you are describing in the premise is not fully aware of itself, lacking in its capacity, to say nothing of appreciation, for truth.
2007-08-05 07:31:48 · answer #7 · answered by Baron VonHiggins 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
No, that's called a "compromise", when both sides are willing to change. "True" dialogue is not limited only to compromise.
2007-08-05 14:06:19 · answer #8 · answered by Lisa 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
True dialog has nothing to do with change. It is openly sharing and listening to anther's words. If change comes about it is another subject and the result of dialog but not a part of it.
2007-08-05 01:28:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I believe that "true dialogue" refers to dialogue the content of which corresponds to reality, i.e. the content of which is true.
2007-08-04 17:19:42 · answer #10 · answered by Theron Q. Ramacharaka Panchadasi 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋