(Some wisdom comes from: Panikkar, The Interareligious… )
In my opinion, interreligious dialogue can only take place at the "I-Thou" level. At the "We-You" level, there is a high probability that it will be a sham dialogue.
- What do you mean, I didn't fully understand.
"Look, let's take, for example, an attempt to establish a dialogue between Judaism and Christianity on an "Us-You" level. From observation, I dare say that a significant percentage of Christians, at least in Poland, for unknown reasons hate Jews. They invent crimes they didn't commit or accuse them of thefts they didn't commit. "A Jew is rich because he steals"—another stereotype. Of course, there are exceptions to the rules everywhere, but we're considering the so-called "ideal" case.
" "Okay, I understand.
" "Let's assume that we've always been stereotyped about Jews. Until we privately try to get to know them through interreligious dialogue, we'll think like everyone else, because the masses' opinion will influence us too strongly." And here, as an example of this dialogue, I'll give the Saturday-by-Saturday help of a Gentile for a Jew. It seems to me that this is sufficient proof that this type of dialogue exists only in an "I-You" relationship.
"Well, but such a goy probably helped not only one person, but also the entire family?
" "Yes, that can be the case. However, this is a specific form of "I-Thou," where, in my opinion, "Thou" becomes "You," because everyone thinks in unison and, in this case, the family, is a unit.
"I understand. What if someone is an atheist? Can they also participate in interreligious dialogue?
" "You see, Philo, this is where a different story begins. People who don't believe lose their religious-moral character of existence and being. They get rid of the foundations of culture. They create a kind of schizophrenic society. Secular humanism is a kind of religion for them. It is the basis for ethical decisions, especially in the family, bioethical issues, or nuclear weapons policy. Their decisions are practical in nature. They allow as good things that benefit them personally or specific groups. For example, drugs. They are good because they allow relaxation, do you understand what I mean?
" "Yes, I understand."
"All of this leads to the discussion of man himself, his dignity and inner value, his eternal certainty and desire for the absolute.
(John Paul II, The Crisis of Europe is the Crisis of Christianity in Europe. Address at the 5th Symposium of the Conference of European Bishops (CCEE))
More and more people don't need God, they live as if he didn't exist. This doesn't apply only to individuals. Names like Marx and Nietzsche surely mean something to you. They believed that society didn't need religion. It only stupefies and confuses. The world can be happy without God. But you know how that ended.
" "I don't think so. Listening to you like this, I can expect anything."
"In the Soviet Union, they mummified Lenin. He was a symbol of the country's greatness. For many, he was practically a god! They fled the metaphysical absolute, but despite this, most of society needed "something beyond." Currently, the mass media is, well, Lenin on earth. People prefer to sit in front of the television rather than go to church and pray—that is, talk to God. Dialogue on the religious plane doesn't concern the indifferent. But why this is happening? We need to understand the reasons for contemporary religious and moral indifference. This is the Church's task. A difficult task lies ahead, as it must adapt to contemporary conditions. It must use modern language, simply be understandable. A number of erroneous concepts of God exist today. This fosters unbelief and religious indifference. Religion must rebuild the moral sphere of the "lost sheep," the proper orientation of conscience. It must spread the universal values of peace, justice, and solidarity, which are realized in Christ."
(John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Tertio millennio adveniente )
The next step in attempting to establish dialogue with people who are indifferent or deny the existence of God, agnostics and atheists, is the witness of faith and moral life. They need dialogical dialogue. Faithful obedience to one's religious beliefs is also, in a sense, initiating dialogue. Such a "witness" has a positive impact on the indifferent person. It can encourage them, turn them back to the "right track," because such a lifestyle may seem more attractive, more varied, and more interesting than the previous one—the one without God. We should acknowledge the lost individual, their life, and attempt to establish a sincere and prudent dialogue. It must be based on trust. We should become friends with such a person, trying to help them find meaning in life. Those who have felt lost and uneasy should be shown the true, evangelical image of God and His attitude toward humanity.
"It seems logical, but it seems to me that it won't change anything in our world.
" "Why do you think that?" My aunt was intrigued by this statement.
"Because society has always seemed like an organism to me. It's constantly evolving. It seems to me the natural order of things that the media is replacing religion. It's like the body adapting to being warm-blooded, because that's more efficient than being cold-blooded. It's getting rid of some no longer needed organ that served to unite or divide society."
"And the media doesn't unite and divide? Oh, Filip, you're making this up! You're talking nonsense! A person isn't what they see on TV, boy, get a grip! It's not the individual who makes the culture, but the culture creates the individual! Are you in favor of universalism? Just a short while ago I was praising your parents, now I'm going to have to yell at them a little! How can you even say that?" Filip felt embarrassed. "Did you watch the film 'Equilibrium' directed by Kurt Wimmer? I honestly didn't think you were guided by Marxist views!
" "I saw that film, but auntie, maybe I said it wrong... you're right."
(Well, well, well, what's going on!)
"Of course I'm right! You have no arguments that I'm wrong! Now tell me where such absurd thoughts came from!
" "You see," Filip said, not knowing how to begin. For the first time, he was absolutely crushed by his aunt's hand of authority, the one who usually stood by him. He had to defend himself somehow, to ease the pressure. "Personally, I'm not looking for God. I don't need to go to church, I don't need to pray every night." Auntie tried to interject, but Filip interrupted. "Wait, let me finish. You see for yourself that I act morally. The fact that I'm sometimes a bit Epicurean and prefer to sleep in instead of ascetically dragging myself out of bed on Sunday morning to go to church isn't a bad thing! I respect religion. Personally, I think I behave like Spinoza. I'm guided by a general ethical law, not my own." Auntie listened to the boy's statement. She thought for a moment, then concluded:
"I'm not a particularly practicing Christian either, but the last accusation you could make against me is that I don't respect my culture, including my religion. You're an adult now, you're entitled to your own opinion, but personally, I won't let you think that God is something unnecessary."
"I don't think it's unnecessary, I just think that the idea of a single God is naturally falling out of use, like the Greek gods of the Pantheon. It's like a typewriter. It supposedly still serves humanity, but we already have computers. However, I don't stop believing that something semblance of God can be seen in respect for one's neighbor and the like. I'll always reach out for help when someone needs it, I'll always comfort someone when they cry.
" "Do you consider yourself a pantheist, like Leśmian?
" "Yes." This answer reassured her aunt, but it didn't satisfy her. For a moment, what Filip said seemed logical to her, but she immediately recalled the thoughts of medieval philosophers. She decided not to pursue this thread any further.
"Don't consider this topic closed. We'll talk about it another time; it's a topic for another evening. I advise you to start gathering arguments to support your own hypothesis. I have a lot of counterarguments.
" "Fine. Can we get back to the essence of the philosophy of dialogue?"
"Yes. We mentioned universalism. Universalism is a philosophical view that believes the common good is more important than the good of the individual. In the Middle Ages, it relied on a commonality of interests, ideals, and historical and cultural awareness. Universalists are those who forget the need to seek moral needs consistent across all. We will be dealing with the relationship between the individual and society. In my opinion, the media are based on universalism. Satellite communication means you can watch a Polish TV series in the middle of Africa. In my opinion, this is not a healthy approach. In the long run, it causes all people to have the same opinions, becoming impoverished in their own culture. They lose their identity. The differences between us disappear. Instead of learning something new, for example, when we're in China, instead of trying a local delicacy, we go to McDonald's! Personally, I'm against the uniformity of all civilizations. I praise diversity!"
"You sound like Discovery Channel," Filip laughed. "'UNICEF – let's celebrate diversity!'" He quoted a fragment of a propaganda clip broadcast under the patronage of that famous TV channel. "Have you noticed that to talk about the negative effects of the mass media, you have to use them?" Filip knew that by asking such questions, he wasn't diminishing in her eyes, but growing. She liked heated discussions.
"Yes. But the difference lies in the content of the information being conveyed. Falling into the extreme thinking you're now representing isn't healthy. Filip, I'm not against global communication.", only to the mass media. Excuse me, they're being fooled by American TV shows about other nations. In the States, the oldest monument is perhaps only two hundred years old! This country, in my opinion, is very culturally deficient; it has nothing to showcase. Anyone who wants to can compete in this field, I won't change my mind! You don't want to be like them, do you? Living in "prosperity" and being overweight, come on, you know that's not the point! – She crushed Filip on his field. She still hadn't gotten over the speculations about God. But it's only a matter of time. – I'm a proponent of transculturalism from an individualist perspective. Transculturalism is about being interested in another culture and simultaneously trying to get to know it. Individualism is about being proud of, for example, one's own roots and not hiding it. It's a philosophical doctrine attributed only to individuals, like a poet who stands out in a crowd. This attitude is characterized by personal distinctiveness, a kind of "freedom." "Freedom" in quotation marks, because it's a false freedom. We will always be limited, even by our physical needs. But that's a different discussion. Romantic poets were born from the foundations of individualism, fighting for their rights and refusing to compromise. It's a kind of propagation of one's own history, one's own undisguised culture. This is the "otherness" that UNICEF so strongly supports. I also subscribe to this!
- And what does this "learning about another culture" involve?
- As I said, it involves, for example, sampling national dishes, learning about religion or art. Do you know what "mask" a pig wears in China?
- Filth and gluttony?
- No! If you told a Chinese person they were a pig, you'd be paying them a huge compliment!
- Why!?
- Because it's a symbol of good behavior, family ties, and respect there. This is due to historical factors. Every symbol is interpreted differently in different cultures. We associate white with purity and goodness, but in India, it's the color of death and sadness. See how interesting learning about other cultures can be?
"Indeed! I must admit I didn't know.
" "The opponents of transculturalism are neo-Nazis. Poor, lost creatures with a narrow worldview... I guess I don't have to comment that they are the worst of all. They are extreme cases of individualism, but don't worry, I don't go to extremes. Once we've become interested in another culture, intercultural dialogue can occur. It's characterized not only by, for example, you personally going somewhere and talking to someone else, but also by civilizations with different cultural roots exchanging technologies, for example, and opening up to new ideas. Eliade divided intercultural dialogue into three points:
1. A "spatial" dialogue, consisting of the confrontation of Eastern and Western cultures, "modernity" and "backwardness," or so-called Europe and "backward cultures."
2. A dialogue of "eras," consisting of the confrontation of knowledge about the past with the most recent present, or tradition with modernity.
3. A dialogue of "equal opportunity," consisting of the confrontation of small and large cultures, universal and local, "traditional" and "modern," or "savage" and "civilized."
How all these philosophers like to divide everything into three parts...
I'll explain the specific points in a moment. Annotating the first point, Eliade cites an example of civilizations resisting uniformity. This is the Middle East. For example, the United Arab Emirates are at a very high technological level, yet women in their country still wear headscarves.
"That's cruel!
" "Not at all!" You don't know their culture, you lack dialogue with them, you don't know how they approach it. Eliade calls dialogue of the ages a return to the sources. An acquaintance with one's own history. It's a scientific and spiritual encounter with an archaic mindset. This acquaintance encompasses everything that is understood, experienced, and remembered. It's a process of appropriating forgotten languages, beliefs, values, and ways of being, such as practicing yoga or alternative healing with herbs or talismans. Little Red Riding Hood was lost in this dialogue. You said that the Wolf compared her to a Voodoo doll. Now you know what caused it. She simply wanted to find herself, but she went, in my opinion, to an extreme.
- Interesting, interesting...
- Equal opportunity dialogue is what UNICEF promotes, for example, the preservation of "dying out" languages. That's a brief overview of intercultural dialogue. Admittedly, we could go on and on about this topic, but we're looking for a general outline. Now we'll tackle the last thread of dialogue philosophy for today, namely politics and ethics.
- Phew... Good!
You know perfectly well what ethics is. You used this concept to support your arguments, so perhaps you can tell me what it is. In your own words.
- Ethics is the study of morality, a set of principles and norms of conduct.
"Okay. Now listen. Dialogue in politics is unique because it allows a certain "third party" to speak. There's an "I," a "You," and a certain "third party." This third party is responsible for resolving a dispute justly. When "I" and "You" can't reach a consensus, this "third party" intervenes by invoking ethics. This is necessary because, in a specific situation, such as an argument, only an impartial "judge" can resolve the dispute. This is how law and the constitution were born in the state, and what's the point of all this? Because politics itself is unethical. It applies only to the masses, to all people, and doesn't treat anyone individually. Ethics, in my opinion, is tied to the individual. Politics is divided into various parties: the right, the left, and the center. The right wing promotes a certain kind of nationalism. This is a term used to describe political groups that promote conservatism and nationalism. They oppose excessive state interventionism. The right wing is characterized by a devotion to tradition and authority. They dislike anyone trying to start a revolution for any reason. The left, on the other hand, promotes socialism. They believe that everyone is equal and deserves the same. Funnily enough, even anarchists are leftists, but they don't seem to realize it. As you might imagine, socialist governments arise from the flames of revolution. Anarchists and communists are considered extreme cases of socialism. There are also political parties of the "centre." As the name suggests, they stay "in the middle." They are considered, among other things, liberal parties. Sometimes the centre "swings" sideways. It may have slightly more right-wing views, in which case it is the centre-right, or it may have more left-wing views, in which case it is the centre-left. All parties appeal to the general public, under the guise of the individual. It doesn't matter that you can vote in a democracy. There is "freedom," which, according to Levinas, is strongly linked to one's own responsibility, and thus also to ethics.
(This is how my aunt interprets E. Levinas, On God Who Visits Thoughts ).
However, in voting, a single vote truly counts only in comparison with other individual votes. In other words, it has some political value, but no greater practical value. Everything seems fine, but where does it come from that there will always be at least one percent of opposition? Precisely because no political party will ever directly appeal to an individual...
In the meantime, a gust of air first blew into the room, then Eureka ran in. Behind her entered a mysterious figure dressed in the costume of an 18th-century nobleman, with a beautiful lady at her side. Uncle Immanuel suggested they sit at the table with Philip and Zofia. He himself went to the kitchen. My aunt quickly cleared the crumbs from the table and ran after her husband to help him. When the characters were alone with Philip, the mysterious nobleman spoke:
"Hello, boy. How have you learned about the current importance of the philosophy of dialogue?" Filip choked up.
"A wolf?" he asked incredulously.
"No, I'm no longer a wolf. Now I'm a prince who found his princess." He looked straight into the beautiful lady's eyes. "Thanks to your idea of going to China, I visited an oriental shop and there met a tearful Little Red Riding Hood buying scented incense. Without a second thought, I fell to my knees before her and proposed." It was born when my aunt and uncle appeared in the room. "Now, I would like to invite you, my friends, gathered here to my wedding..." During the speech, my aunt approached Filip, who seemed to be unable to believe his senses, and whispered in his ear:
"Our conversation is over for today. Remember to gather your arguments for the next dialogue, and now let's have some fun!
(Honestly, I couldn't have thought of it better myself!)
The end!
Bibliography:
1. Philosophy of Dialogue , edited by B. Baran Cracow 1991
2. J. Tischner, Philosophy of Drama , Cracow 1998
3. Philosophy of Dialogue: Volume 1, 2003: Paths and Forms of Dialogue , edited by Józef Baniak Inowrocław 2003.
4. Philosophy of Dialogue in Confrontations of Cultures , edited by Stanisław Tokarski Warsaw 1996
5. Małgorzata Jantos, Philosophy of Dialogue: Sources, Principles, Adaptations , Cracow 1997
Brak komentarzy:
Prześlij komentarz