Dialogue

This past Friday we had yet another interesting 50 minutes in my Philosophy 101 class. While the meeting began as strictly in the context of philosophers like Sartre and Buber, it eventually progressed into a discussion on the contemporary issue of the role of dialogue in the "war on terrorism."

What McGowan (the instructor) was advocating was constantly striving for dialogue with those who are "out to get" the United States. Although this may never be achieved, we must avoid concluding that it can't. In other words, while he advocates peace and non-violence, he seemed to suggest that our current situation is a necessary evil. McGowan continued by saying, unambiguously, that we as Americans have no grounds on which to condemn terrorists or their actions, including the 9/11 hijackers. Needless to say, at least one student took offense and cited her faith in God as reason enough to condemn terrorist acts. I think McGowan's methodology was lost on many students when he pursued the issue and used the "but why not?" line of questioning when challenging her. He eventually backed off a little bit and revealed that he was trying to get us to think, which is where he excels as a professor (purposefully enrage students in order to get them to think). After the class meeting, I started having second thoughts about all the perceived liberal bias in academia. At least in this case, McGowan was advocating an extreme view on terrorism in order to get us, as students of philosophy, to think.

While I didn't take offense at McGowan's comments and agreed with him to an extent, I echoed the "war-as-necessary-evil" argument but stopped short of suggesting that terrorists are justified in their acts of violence. Indeed, I believe that their basic argument, while completely wrong on moral grounds, is valid. What McGowan was doing was completely removing the emotional/political/moral aspect of terrorism vs. the United States and challenging us to approach the other side in an objective manner. While this method is rejected by many people as impossible, McGowan's overarching argument is that in order to achieve the desired result (i.e. peace) we have to constantly strive for dialogue with our enemies, regardless of whether or not it seems impossible. I agree with him in that if we continue as we are, the United States will ultimately fail at winning the war on terror.

On a personal level, I can't think of a single more important concept than dialogue. Everything we do in life, every aspect of our existence, is governed by the idea that we are able to interact with those around us. Even the most reclusive hermit is influenced in his ways by the outside world. For this reason, it seems ridiculous to assume that anyone can progress through life by ignoring the ideas of others and not considering all reasonable options. In terms of my Art of Living, I have begun to incorporate dialogue into my everyday existence, the most significant manifestation of that being discussions via the internet. From reading blogs to posting my own thoughts on message boards, not only am I giving my opinion but I am nurturing and informing it at the same time. I am constantly disheartened at the amount of stubbornness that dominates many people's thought process, sometimes to the point of complete ignorance. While it is not my place to judge anyone for the way they think, I can only hope that science and reason will prevail in the end.