Talk:Dialogue

Literature Low‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy Low‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Typo

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 — Preceding undated comment added 13:54, 27 June 2003 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions

This page seems to ignore dialogue in the sense David Bohm intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.29.83.247 (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2003 (UTC)[reply]

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." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.192.246.33 (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2004 (UTC)[reply]

In the sense of "that which contrasts with writing", ie in the socratic sense, in the sense of Krisnamurti, dialogue is a process which moves step by step from a statement, to one of perhaps many questions, to an answer,... repeating the process till a 'mental structure' is sufficiently developed for further reflection alone. It is largely of indeterminant structure before it's completion of 'transfer', it has an infinite # of possible branches as it developes.

For some topics the mind of the 'learner' is sufficiently predictable to know how to present, in writing, a monolothic block of statements, a written text, and expect some percentage of readers to 'get it', For many subjects however such predictability and/or statistical framing doesn't work. Dialogue is often the fastest, most reliable and perhaps only practical way to teach or learn.

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 December 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Too literary

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)[reply]

Recommendation for more specific information

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Communitarian703 (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. This seems like WP:Promotion. Harold the Sheep (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance dialogue

Virginia Cox, The Renaissance Dialogue: Literary Dialogue in its Social and Political Contexts, Castiglione to Galileo, Cambridge University Press , 1992.

Nothing in this page on the dialogue as a genre in the Renaissance. Neither on medieval dialogues in the West (e.g., Cur Deus Homo). Other Wikis have dedicated articles on the literary genre (e.g., es:Diálogo (género literario). Srnec (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]