Post by account_disabled on Mar 4, 2024 1:26:27 GMT -8
The philosophical approach achieved the recognition of subjectivity, of the “I”, but has not managed to give sufficient reason for otherness, of the “you”. Hence, to the extent that the “I” is emphasized , the importance of the “other” is devalued and reasonable and compensated dialogue is made difficult and impossible. Dialogue implies a willingness to reason and convince and, in turn, if there are better reasons, one also allows oneself to be convinced. Agreement and convergence make it possible for no political position or political group to impose itself over the others since the objective of a constructive dialogue consists of the search for consensus capable of evaluating, even assuming, the different options. Dialogue is cooperative, on the other hand, confrontation and confrontation are competitive; In dialogue the objective is the search for a common space of understanding.
Confrontation, it is to win by imposing on the other; Dialogue is reflection on one's own positions, confrontation is blind denial of the position of others; Dialogue opens minds, confrontation closes them; Dialogue seeks basic agreements, confrontation obscures differences; The Australia Phone Number dialogue always remains open to finding solutions, the confrontation closes without resolving the problems. In short, dialogue implies a willingness to reason and convince and, in turn, if there are better reasons, one also allows oneself to be convinced. If the purpose of dialogue is to establish a pact for conciliation of interests, if it is the most appropriate method of social coexistence, when dialogue breaks down and the relationship between the parties - government and opposition - is fragile and not peaceful, parliamentary confrontation becomes becomes a dangerous enemy for democracy.
We have the impression - we see it in the weekly interpellations to the government - that in Parliament the dialogue is often replaced by the "monologue", the questions and cross-questions are already previously written; Whatever one says, the other responds with what he has written; They speak for themselves and for their loved ones; The “monologue” does not require an interlocutor, in fact, it is excluded or eliminated. Nothing is further from a civilized parliamentary democracy than to claim to have a monopoly on the “truth” and turn dialogue into a defamatory confrontation, disqualifying the opponent. How easily they forget that a democracy represents the construction of civil coexistence based on the free expression of ideas between different political parties and projects! There is a real image, confirmed by some parliamentarians, that baffles citizens: seeing how they insult each other in the Parliament rostrum and then chat so calmly while having a drink in the cafeteria.
Confrontation, it is to win by imposing on the other; Dialogue is reflection on one's own positions, confrontation is blind denial of the position of others; Dialogue opens minds, confrontation closes them; Dialogue seeks basic agreements, confrontation obscures differences; The Australia Phone Number dialogue always remains open to finding solutions, the confrontation closes without resolving the problems. In short, dialogue implies a willingness to reason and convince and, in turn, if there are better reasons, one also allows oneself to be convinced. If the purpose of dialogue is to establish a pact for conciliation of interests, if it is the most appropriate method of social coexistence, when dialogue breaks down and the relationship between the parties - government and opposition - is fragile and not peaceful, parliamentary confrontation becomes becomes a dangerous enemy for democracy.
We have the impression - we see it in the weekly interpellations to the government - that in Parliament the dialogue is often replaced by the "monologue", the questions and cross-questions are already previously written; Whatever one says, the other responds with what he has written; They speak for themselves and for their loved ones; The “monologue” does not require an interlocutor, in fact, it is excluded or eliminated. Nothing is further from a civilized parliamentary democracy than to claim to have a monopoly on the “truth” and turn dialogue into a defamatory confrontation, disqualifying the opponent. How easily they forget that a democracy represents the construction of civil coexistence based on the free expression of ideas between different political parties and projects! There is a real image, confirmed by some parliamentarians, that baffles citizens: seeing how they insult each other in the Parliament rostrum and then chat so calmly while having a drink in the cafeteria.