Dialogue and reliability
26
Aug
In times of globalization, in which many very different cultures come
into contact, in religious intolerance times of political radicalization and serious social problems, a word seems distant, almost utopian: dialogue.
In the history of philosophy much was made of it in different contexts, the School Platonic dialogue was essential to education, he feared until the spring writing could ward off men of dialogue, at the height of the Reformation the word tolerance was used by philosophers like Locke, at the height of the Enlightenment and its ideas about the state seemed that this would be the guardian of peace, but that means dialogue today?
Many things, but one seems to me fundamental reliability, either because the clash of cultures and ideologies generate distrust, or because we assume that most people have some degree of information, although many think that in the form of nothing we point in our post previous.
The truth is that is most necessary horizontality in conversations, dialogues and even debates; because what we call for a long time was dialogue from Plato to Hegel, only the idea that a central power to override the other, considered minor. Today’s society calls for greater trust and respect between the people who are in a dialogue, although social networks are flooded with memes, insults and calumnies, many of them criminal, at the root of it all is an almost desperate plea: listen to me.
Mutual trust, which is not general agreement but is not dialogue, it is necessary.
