Via The Tribune

Nicole F. Motta

Staff Writer

Ring, ring. Who’s there? 

No one, apparently. The line is dead in 2025. It ave been lost on the other side. Too often, dialogue today looks less like a mutual reflection and more like: “may the loudest, most manipulative opinion win.” 

It’s not all that surprising things have turned out like this. Everywhere we look, we are being served “versus” thinking: left vs. right, citizens vs. immigrants, Israelis vs. Palestinians, climate vs. capitalism. The media, always on the hunt for more “engagement,” is eager to cultivate this hostile online environment by fueling polarization and pushing binaries. The surge of questionable online debaters—who seem to have forgotten that the art of debating requires listening and reciprocity—is a testament to this. The conversation often stops before it even begins. In fact, it’s not so much a conversation, as these debaters seem to want to perform their idea rather than genuinely lay out its groundwork for dissection. They accuse and evade rather than ask pertinent and self-critical questions. Emotions and ego get involved, and it doesn’t help that this happens on the big stage that is the internet—for, quite literally, anyone and everyone to witness. Unfortunately, these “performers” are setting a model for discussion that many people are following in their personal lives.

  However, these binary-driven spaces do not reflect reality.

“Human life is made of coexistence, inconsistencies, and contradiction. Yet society has forgotten how to explore these complexities—we’ve forgotten the art of true dialogue.”

Without it, dominant single narratives stay intact, and global empathy and togetherness crumble under their weight. 

It is understandable—because who really wants to sit down with someone whose perspectives just tick that button in us? It does feel so much better to just avoid or distance ourselves from these interactions altogether.

However, this easy way out comes with a logical cost. It undermines the first conceptual prerequisite to dialogue. Refusing to engage means that we are taking for granted that our knowledge on a particular subject is complete. It is based on the presumption that we have nothing to learn from different perspectives—which is a logical fallacy. Plato reminds us of this in his writings, Five Dialogues, in the section “Apology”, where he writes of Socrates’ attempt to reconcile the paradox of being declared the wisest man in Athens when, on the contrary, he did not at all believe himself wise above human possibility. After interrogating other self-proclaimed wise men—Socrates realized they did not actually know all—the philosopher came to understand that he has been proclaimed the wisest because “human wisdom is worth little or nothing” and true wisdom comes when we are ready to recognize our own ignorance and limits to knowledge. 

To flesh this out further: imagine knowledge like a web. We all carry such a small fragment of it—a web spun from our own lives. The more we weave ours together, the stronger and more expansive they’ll become. Humans are always chasing the truth, and we need each other’s fragments to continuously and productively build a fuller picture of reality. Butting heads only ends with us treading water in the fallacies that come from our limits to knowledge. 

This relates back to our opinions, which we are constantly trying to push onto one another. They are built upon what we know. If what we know can only be partial to what reality truly consists of (as we are not omniscient), our beliefs and attitudes can simply never perfectly align with fact. This is why, when engaging in dialogue, the second thing we must be ready to accept is that our opinions and feelings about things remain separate from reality—and thus should remain relatively detached from the subject discussions. This, of course, is a difficult thing to swallow, which is why we struggle to execute this second conceptual prerequisite to dialogue. It requires great mindfulness and self-awareness. The good news is that this is something we can practice, taking it day by day. 

Once we take on the right headspace to engage in dialogue, where do we go from there? How do we go through the process itself? The great philosophers have extensively explored this, especially through their own versions of the concept of “dialectics,” which typically refers to a method of reasoning through arguments and counter-arguments that arise within dialogue. However, this concept is known to be somewhat muddled, precisely because many different thinkers have approached it in so many different ways. For the purpose of cultivating productive dialogue today, it is useful to draw into the many different theories, particularly Socrates’ and Hegel’s methods. 

The Socratic dialectical method uses refutation as its central technique. Instead of simply accepting what people said, the philosopher would engage in probing questions that aimed to reveal inconsistencies or inadequacies in people’s beliefs. This process often left them confused and shamed about their previous solid statements. Socrates wanted others to come to the realization that he had come to: recognizing your own ignorance is the first step towards knowledge. Today, we can apply this in our conversations by actively choosing to truly listen to what the other is saying and engaging with the material they’re presenting—by asking as many questions as possible. By committing to the full investigation, breaking down the barricade and allowing foreign ideas to flow in, it is easier for both people discussing to hone in on a particular questionable point of whose web might need more weaving. This approach transforms dialogue from battle to shared exploration. 

Hegel’s dialectics are similar in the way that there are opposing forces in a discussion, but they do not come from people like Socrates and his interlocutors. Instead, they come from within the subject matter itself—within one’s own mind. This introspective aspect is essential to dialogue because the result of discussion can only take place within oneself. In fact, each person has the responsibility to resolve the matters of the dialogue within them and bring about internal change. Hegel based this method in the theory that many truths can arise from the same subject. According to the philosopher, every thesis will have an antithesis: a contradiction equally as true. Truth emerges when we allow these opposing forces to interact. This is called synthesis. In dialogue, putting this method into practice not only implies passively receiving others’ ideas, but also creating space for them to contradict and expand our own. This does not mean someone is necessarily in the right or wrong; rather, synthesis is a union of pieces coming together to build a larger concept. Believe it or not, conflict is actually a good thing—when embraced in the right way.

The death of dialogue is affecting each and every one of us. Good dialogue is the key for cultivating empathy and togetherness, and diminishing rashness, anger, and hate. It feels uncomfortable when views are so opposing to ours, but every opportunity for understanding is for the better. Opening this reflective space within ourselves isn’t about endorsing harmful beliefs, but allowing oneself to delve into how certain beliefs come to be held by some people. It’s about trying to dissect the knowledge that is the foundation for someone else’s worldviews— and recognizing that maybe they stem from fear, ways that society has failed them, or from experiences we could never have imagined one person would have to endure. We might even discover that our own opinions are corrupted by the way that society has shaped us. After all, we are all the sum of our own experiences. Tracing issues back to their roots can be done in the hope of preventing society from failing others in a similar way. This process of being able to understand and share the feelings of another is what we call empathy. Empathy is how we will break down our walls. Empathy is how we will grow love and compassion.

Right now, we are being served polarization on a plate. Walls are constantly being put up, and the distance growing between us feels overwhelming and disillusioning. It is enticing to give in to the conviction that dialogue is impossible with those who do not immediately align with our ideas. But the reality is, our world is interconnected—whether we like it or not. We have no choice but to move forward together. It’s time for us all to accept and explore complexity instead of allowing our worldviews to fall within binary boxes. So, pick up that phone, dial that estranged friend’s number and start asking some questions. 

To the rebirth of true dialogue.