![]() ![]() The principle underlying “debating,” etc. Since this example, and the principle underlying it, are excluded from the meaning of dialogue, clearly dialogue must include the notion that neither side has a total grasp of the truth of the subject, but that both need to seek further. is the assumption that both sides have a total grasp on the truth of the subject and hence simply need to be supported in their commitment to it. ![]() Looking at the last example first-the principle underlying “reinforcement,” etc. Now, if we look at these two opposite kinds of two-way communication which are not meant by the word dialogue, we can learn quite precisely what we do in fact mean when we use the term dialogue. We also do not mean this when we use the term dialogue rather, we might call that something like encouragement, reinforcement-but certainly not dialogue. On the other extreme is the communication between persons who hold precisely the same views on a particular subject. Clearly none of these are meant by dialogue. However, there are many different kinds of two-way communication: e.g., fighting, wrangling, debating, etc. One-way lecturing or speaking is obviously not meant by it. Today when we speak of dialogue between religions or ideologies we mean something quite definite namely, a two-way communication between persons. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |