This post will attempt to concretely outline the lens through which good dialogue is achieved. In a dialogue, there are two or more parties that are discussing a topic or range of topics in the pursuit of expanding one's own knowledge and more clearly understanding truth. While most people would stop their definition at merely discussing a topic or range of topics, pursuing knowledge and truth must be at the core of each party. Without this, one of two scenarios is likely to follow. Firstly, the parties involved in the dialogue are in total agreement about the topic and no critical analysis is achieved. This can easily lead to a cognitive dissonance that can stunt the growth of the parties involved, especially if any party later initiates a dialogue with another party that is far more critical and in complete disagreement with the first. The second scenario that is likely to follow is that the two parties, simply trying to be right, are not willing to listen to any reasonable argument that does not coincide with their own. This leads to either a situation of total frustration with the other party, or a "agree to disagree" scenario that does not edify either party involved.
As a quick side note, let us first determine two presuppositions I made in my original definition of dialogue. Firstly, that truth is objective. While the arguments for both the objectivity and subjectivity of truth may be explored in a later post, for the purposes of this post, we must assume some portion of truth is objective and able to be explored by both parties. You may argue that gravity does not exist, but that doesn't take away the objective truth that when you drop an object, so long as it is denser than the air around us and no other force is acting upon it, it will fall to the ground. This is objective and observable by both parties involved in any discussion on the nature of gravity and our planet. The second presupposition is that each party involved in any dialogue on any complex topic may have a perspective of truth that another party may not. This means that in any dialogue, you must assume that the other person may have something of value to say that you may not know yet. This comes about for two reasons. Firstly, no two people grow up in the same environment, and therefore each person will by definition develop a different perspective on life and many other topics than the perspectives of their peers. We can define this as static intelligence or the total accumulation of thoughts and experiences of a person. The second reason this is true is because we are highly dynamic creatures. Even if one has never heard of a complex idea or topic, once given the basic premises of that idea, they are capable of comparing that with the rest of their experiences and extrapolating from those basic premises into more complex reasoning and thought. These two premises support the definition of dialogue previously stated by understanding that there is a virtually infinite expanse of knowledge that no two people may have the same range of, and that truth is an object of which we all have a perspective on, and are therefore capable of getting a better picture of truth through sharing what information we have with each other. Understanding this, we can easily understand not just the use of dialogue, but the reason we as humans love it so much. Having more knowledge or a better/deeper understanding of topics in our lives give us a larger and more detailed map with which we can navigate complex and difficult decisions that come up in life. Dialogue, therefore, is not just fun, but a potentially crucial endeavor that can radically determine our framework with which we make decisions.
This leads us to the most general tools with which we engage in good dialogue: debate and discussion. By debate, we typically mean one party defending an argument with further logic or evidence while another party attempts to meaningfully break down an argument with counter evidence or more solid logic. The argument must be broken down in a meaningful way such that the main pursuit of the dialogue is furthered. Often, a single argument will not be the entirety of a dialogue. Instead, it is a series of arguments and discussions of subtopics that lead through the mess of reality into a better understanding of a topic or the answer to a complex question. Therefore, the breaking down of an argument in debate ought to serve one of two purposes. Firstly, it must be to show the inadequacies of that argument to answering the broader question; the question that brought about the argument in the first place. Secondly, breaking down an argument can be done because of the presuppositions it brings about that might muddy later discussion or argument. Essentially you are either pointing out the flaw in the logic or clearly defining the limitations as to the application of an argument. This is critical in dialogue because the pursuit is truth. Therefore any argument, when applied in the correct scope, ought to always match up with the appropriate empirical evidence.
Discussion functions very differently from debate. Debate is used to tear away the irrelevant or untrue ideas within the dialogue. Discussion is instead used to add in fresh ideas, pivot to new topics, or simply present a new question or idea with which to grapple. This can be in reference to an argument already presented, or, having exhausted the exploration of an idea, attempt to use the new, well refined understanding of that idea to answer another question or apply it to a new scenario. However, it must be understood that we are dynamic creatures capable of drastic change, and therefore the switch from either discussion or debate to the other may happen at any moment. Dialogue is an attempted exploration of truth, but truth is a very large thing. Therefore a conversation about complicated topics will often fall into many rabbit holes or side topics that may have little or nothing to do with the original idea, but is still a rigorous tear through new and unexplored territory, and thus the original purpose of dialogue is still achieved: expanding one's own knowledge and more clearly understanding truth.
So, why cover all this? We conversate every day with many people but rarely are we conscious of the way in which we talk to them, and perhaps even more rarely are we delving into the kinds of discussions that bring about the depths in which this understanding is highly important. While the application and relevance of this framework perhaps deserves a post of its own, the gist of it is two fold. Firstly, it allows you to openly explore new ideas with other people. Because truth is something that exists outside of you, you are free to poke and prod at it openly without any threat coming to you. And as you more clearly see truth, your map becomes larger and more detailed, allowing you to better navigate new and perhaps more interesting territories. This also means you have the tools with which to poke and prod at truth through discussion and debate. Firstly adding new ideas, and secondly refining those ideas until they match the world around you. The second reason this framework is relevant is that without it, the prospect of changing minds is rarely possible. If everyone involved in a dialogue is seeking truth, it assumes that while they may know some stuff, there are things they don't know or are wrong about, and therefore they must change their mind on something, even if it is simply broadening a perspective. Therefore in good dialogue, all parties are consistently having some aspect of their perspective changed while also changing some aspect of the perspectives of those around them. This makes this system crucial to any meaningful talk on any topic that is relevant to real life. You cannot grow your understanding if you do not first accept that your understanding is lacking in some aspect. This means that truth, the basis of understanding, must exist at least in part somewhere outside of you and others may have some of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment