Talk:Dialogue
 | Literature Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Philosophy Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
[Untitled]
- The title of Lucian’s most famous collection was borrowed in the 17th century by two French writers of eminence, each of whom prepared Dialogues des snorts.
I am reasonably certain that Dialogues des morts was intended here, and will fix it on the main page. But this typo is too amusing not to preserve here. -- IHCOYC
This page seems to ignore dialogue in the sense David Bohm intended.
It also seems to ignore the descriptions of the meaning of the WORD; namely "Dia = flowing through" and "logos = meaning." Thus "dialogue = meaning flowing through." As I understand it, this points in the direction of the meaning given to the concept by Bohm and by Martin Buber before him. For me, the meaning of dialogue that I find most valuable is the flow of meaning for the purpose of *mutual understanding* without regard to agreement. Judgment is suspended along with whether or not one agrees or disagrees with others' views; the focus is exclusively on UNDERSTANDING. After mutual understanding, communication can then flow into "skillful discussion" [per William Isaacs in *The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook*] where differences are explored and resolved collaboratively [or agreement to disagree is reached]. By deferring the focus on "agreement," dialogue facilitates mutual understanding.
In my experience, dialogue (as per my understanding of the Buber-Bohm concept) is rare in our (U.S.) culture, since (again in my experience) people tend to be programmed to focus first on agreement and so, as soon as they disagree, their attention shifts from seeking to understand. The consequence is often argument or debate, rather than collaboration in seeking to identify "truth]]." In connection with this I feel I must note that Socrates was probably very sincere when he would say 'I don't know, PLEASE THINK ABOUT IT AND THE THINGS WE'VE SAID AND GET BACK TO ME". And that Aristotle attempts to overcome this problem of dialogue by a more systematic writing style, or at least that he partially acomplished that aim (though it is commonly said that his writings were course outlines). Still q&a sessions can impart many forms vastly more effectively than writing. WblakesxWblakesx 20:26, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC): – — … ‘ “ ’ ” ° ″ ′ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Sign your posts on talk pages: 98.150.55.132 (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
This entry starts off much to involved with literary form, the arts and history.
Compare for example with the wikitionary definition;
A conversation or other form of discourse between two or more individuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preroll (talk • contribs) 19:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
eden den se sluci jas i mojot drugar tome si igravme vo dvorot i igravme koserka i jas dadov kos,a mojot drugar tome dade poveke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.185.210.149 (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Recommend specifying what literature is referred to in the "Antiquity and the middle ages" section that was written in 1433 in Japan, since the other two examples from Sumerian literature and the Rig Veda are given. RoniGlaser (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
In terms of East Asia, why isn't the Analects of Confucius considered dialogue? In which case, it certainly came to Japan prior to 1433 as the Rongo.MarkCsik (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
For the Moral Dialogues section?
Could the Moral Dialogues section include a reference to CivilDialogues.org, a new platform that is the brainchild of Amitai Etzioni? The site is designed to encourage moral dialogues.