Summary
Excerpt
Table Of Contents
- Cover
- Title
- Copyright
- About the author
- About the book
- This eBook can be cited
- Table of Contents
- Chapter One: Introduction
- Chapter Two: Human Being Is a Conversation
- Chapter Three: Dialogue as Foundation of Human Life
- Chapter Four: On the Possibility of Human Dialogue
- Chapter Five: Interinstitutional Dialogue
- Chapter Six: Possibility of Friendship Between Religions
- Chapter Seven: Intercultural Dialogue
- References and Suggested Bibliography
- Series Index
Chapter One: Introduction
Purpose of the Book
Interest in interinstitutional dialogue has been growing exponentially during the past five decades, to the extent that an impressive number of books, articles, university colloquia, and national and international conferences were devoted to a detailed critical, analytical, and constructive discussion of the conditions under which interreligious, interstate, intercultural, and interideological dialogue is possible. This interest is laudable and should be fostered theoretically and practically not only because dialogue is one of the fundamental urges or demands of human nature but also because it is a primary mode of communication in the various spheres of human experience. Indeed, it is an essential element and requisite for the possibility of any meaningful encounter between people. Delete the possibility of the spoken, written, verbal, or gestural word, and you delete the possibility of human life. I do not exaggerate if I say that the occasion in which the human word was first articulated was the initial birthplace of humanity as we know it and, consequently, of human civilization. Whether it is in the family, school, marketplace, factory, board meeting, research center, religious building, monastery, tennis court, office, or any place where a human being interacts with another human being, it is inconceivable to think, design a project, realize a purpose, and pursue an objective, a cause, a project, or an ideal without a direct or indirect dialogical encounter with another human being. We conduct the activity of all types of human endeavor in the spiritual and practical domains of our lives as individuals and communities in the medium of the word.
The initial articulation of the word signifies the commencement of the growth of human thinking, feeling, and willingness. These three types of activity are the womb in which the word comes into being. But its articulation is neither accidental, anomalous, nor fortuitous; it is a response to a deep-seated human urge, one that aims to see the light of reality. This urge is the most basic impulse to life—human life. It is the power by which the human that exists as a potentiality in the human body transcends the domain of the body and leaps into the world as a particular flame of ←9 | 10→humanity. But the locus of this transcendence is not merely the natural world or the objects that make it up but another world, that is, another human being. The human other is the reason for my being as well as the locus of the transcendence. I exist as a human reality when I speak with another human when we mutually hear and respond to the words we utter. Could Adam exist alone in the Garden of Eden? I exist and discover my humanity in and through another human being, or put differently, when I interact with her in and through the word. This kind of interaction is human communication par excellence.
If human communication is a sine quo non for the rise and development of humanity, and I believe it is, it should follow that a critical, analytical, and comprehensive exploration of the structure and dynamics of humanity should be an integral part of any inquiry into the nature of the human essence. I am confident that the recent proliferation of the latest written and oral discussions of interinstitutional dialogue, which is a distinct form of human dialogue, is a most welcome contribution to this kind of inquiry. But it is not enough for two reasons. First, the reason that prompted the rise and expansion of the discussion of the conditions under which interinstitutional dialogue is possible is expedient and practical in character. Theologians, philosophers, politicians, and social reformers raised the question of the possibility of this kind of dialogue as a way of meeting serious and, in some cases, destructive and painful problems—conflict, hate, tension, misunderstanding, intolerance, violence, animosity, and sometimes war—between institutions. The emphasis on the possibility of this kind of dialogue in the attempt to solve these and related problems betrays the practical and expedient nature of the interest in the analysis of the concept of interinstitutional dialogue, but this emphasis, which necessarily implies a methodological procedure, undercuts the possibility of meeting these problems adequately because it tends to treat the symptom rather than the real cause of the problems. Suppose two religions are in some kind of conflict with each other. How can the conflict be resolved? Can we resolve it simply by dialogue, although dialogue is the primary means of solving it, or by examining the source of the conflict? Can we cure a type of cancer simply by a course of pain management? Is it not more reasonable to ask, should there be a conflict between two religions? Why did the present conflict occur? The question is not whether we numb a headache ←10 | 11→for a few hours or days but whether we can cure it permanently. How can we solve interinstitutional problems if we do not try to understand them as human problems, and how can we understand them as human problems if we have an inadequate understanding of the essential fabric of human nature? The purpose of the dialogue should not be appeasement, a short-lived solution, or putting up with a different political, religious, or cultural institution but discovering an effective method for existing or interacting with the human other, regardless of whether it is an individual or an institution, as a human reality. The attainment of this purpose should, I submit, be the ultimate aim of an adequate conception of any kind of human dialogue.
Second, a necessary condition for the possibility of an adequate conception of human dialogue should proceed from an adequate understanding of dialogue as a human event. It is a generally accepted dictum that human beings are essentially rational, but what does it mean for human nature or any reality to be rational? What is the structure and source of rationality? What is the relationship between rationality, or reason, and speech? Moreover, human beings communicate their thoughts, feelings, or experiences by speaking or writing. What is the relationship between this kind of communication and the subject that does the speaking or communication? Can we construct or stipulate any necessary or sufficient conditions for the possibility of a successful dialogue between individuals or institutions if this construction or stipulation does not arise from a sound, explanatory conception of communication? Is speaking or communication merely an instrumental or expedient function of the subject that thinks or speaks? When I stand before a human being and communicate with her about a certain question or idea in the sphere of the family, profession, school, business, personal life, or politics, do I stand before a speaking automaton or before a human reality? What does it mean to communicate with a human reality?
The purpose of raising the aforementioned rhetorical questions is only to direct our attention to the focus of this book, viz., the possibility of human communication. One of the main reasons people do not communicate effectively and meaningfully is not only a lack of linguistic skill but especially a lack of skill in human communication, i.e., the inability and sometimes reluctance of a person to confront and interact with the ←11 | 12→“human other” as a human reality. The I that interacts with the human other is a living flame of humanity; it constitutes the totality of my being. Similarly, the I to whom I speak is a living flame of humanity; I speak to the totality of her being. What is the nature of the subject, or the I, that communicates in interinstitutional dialogue? Is it any less or more real because it is represented by a “collective subject”? No! The conditions we may envision for the possibility of dialogue between individuals or institutions should, I submit, be based on the fundamental premise that the participants in the dialogue are human realities and should be treated as such.
Thesis of the Book
The thesis I shall present, elucidate, and defend in this book is a composite of four main propositions; first, human nature is essentially rational; second, rational nature is a conversation; third, as the essential fabric of human nature, reason exists as a potentiality in the human body; and forth, at the individual and collective levels, humanity grows and develops in the medium of rational conversation. The main premise that underlies my analysis of reason, which will be the basis of my discussion of the conception of individual and interinstitutional dialogue, is that reason, generally called mind, spirit, self, soul, consciousness, or psyche, is not a faculty or a power of human nature that performs the intellectual or “rational” function in addition to the faculties of affection and volition; on the contrary, it is the organic unity of these three powers. This is why I shall use “reason” and “human nature” interchangeably. Human communication is a function of the human being as a singular, indivisible reality. We may distinguish intellectual or affectional activities as distinct types of activity, but ontologically speaking, they are functions of one human reality. Accordingly, the I that thinks, feels, wills, and communicates is the human I; it is the concretization of the three powers of intellect, affection, and will. In a rational conversation, I do not stand before another human being as an intellect or as an affectional being. Consequently, I do not communicate with her merely as an intellect or a bundle of affection; she and I stand before each other and communicate as two human realities. Accordingly, the question that should figure prominently in the analysis of any type of ←12 | 13→dialogue, regardless of whether it is with oneself, another human individual, or a certain human association, should be, Under what conditions can we communicate not merely as intellects but as human realities? What does it mean to converse with an “other” as a human reality?
In my discussion of this and related questions, I shall assume that humanity is an absolutely valuable reality; put differently, it is intrinsically valuable. As such, it should always be treated as an end in itself. This assertion does not imply that it cannot be used as a means; it only implies that it should be treated as an end even when used as a means. Accordingly, using a human being as a means should be done under the conditions of respect for humanity. For example, friends use each other, but they do not treat each other merely as a means; they treat each other as an end even when they use each other as a means. If this is the case, and I think it is, it should follow that to be truly rational or genuine in any conversation with human reality, I cannot violate the integrity or well-being of that reality. This is a primary condition for the possibility of human dialogue. It seems to me that this assumption should be a source of inspiration and the measure in terms of which we attempt to articulate the formal conditions of human dialogue.
This assumption seems philosophically attractive, if not idealistic, but is it practicable? This question is, in fact, a challenge. I am quite aware of this challenge; I am aware that the true, the good, and the beautiful remain ideals, and I am aware that the kingdom of humanity is and will remain a distant land. Does this mean we should not strive with all our power to move closer to this land? I am convinced that it is not only our obligation to move closer to it but also to discover the best possible way to move faster in this direction. This claim is based on the belief, which I shall discuss in detail in the following pages, that qua reason humanity is an urge or peremptory desire; it is a flame of life for a higher, limitless realization or fulfillment. Reason is the source of the light that illuminates the terrain and the process of its realization.
Details
- Pages
- 202
- Year
- 2023
- ISBN (PDF)
- 9783631900154
- ISBN (ePUB)
- 9783631900161
- ISBN (Hardcover)
- 9783631899441
- DOI
- 10.3726/b20724
- Language
- English
- Publication date
- 2023 (April)
- Published
- Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Warszawa, Wien, 2023. 202 pp.
