Pages

Sunday, January 8, 2012

How should I approach the other when invited to a discussion?

There are 3 approaches. If I have left anything out, please let us know.


You are my enemy
I meet my enemy in a battleground. I call it a battleground because there is every intention of winning, and of making the loser look bad. In a battleground, there is at least one self centered individual or party who listens to no opinion but his. He has only one agenda, namely, to win the individual to his side. Any objection to his view (or, what appears to be an objection) is perceived as an affront on his set of beliefs, his personality.

Is there a loser? Yes: you have the loser who lost, the loser who won; and the biggest loser of all: truth that nobody seems to care about.


Socratic Method  In this scenario, you are engaged with another person in a discussion. You listen and ask question while the other gives you his take on the topic. You are on the lookout for loopholes in his argument. You cross examine him on his assumptions and sets of belief. It's alright if you don't have the answer; but the whole point of this exercise is to get the other person to admit his state of ignorance and to eventually become humble. But, how many of us would be willing to admit how painfully ignorant we are about which we believe ourselves to be knowledgeable? I would say, very few – and this is because these few have in them, from the very beginning, a sense of humility; while the many felt, not humility, but humiliation. While this approach may work on some people, I wouldn’t apply this on someone with a big, fat ego.

Doctor-patient relationship In a doctor patient relationship, the doctor begins by posing some questions to the patient. The whole idea of this activity is to come up with the most accurate diagnosis. Unless, it is very clear what the patient is suffering from – for example, a simple, non chronic headache – then the doctor patiently continues with his questioning. With this tender approach and the doctor’s caring attitude, the patient learns to trust him. Patient desperately helps the doctor to help himself. In this assist-being assisted - if the cure is found - the patient is cured.

Similarly, you can help the person who is in search for a spiritual meaning in his life, by listening to his judgment about his life. His problem, I think, lies in his inability (or, fear) to see, objectively, how certain beliefs about himself or life in general, impedes him from considering adopting other beliefs that could expand his views, thus improve the quality of his experience.

For more discussion on this approach similar to this, click on philosophical counseling

I would love to read your comments.

7 comments:

  1. Love to hear it from you again sir- james

    ReplyDelete
  2. Aside from requiring a lot of humility and empathy,the socratic methOd (i believe) is very prone to mistaken as a battleground because whether we like it or not,someone would end up being better in terms of being more empathic. I guess aside from he other being humble,the other should also be more humble. Or perhaps,he was already more han humble to begin with?-james

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi James, I completely agree with your statement. Nice of you to leave a comment. Thanks so much.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As I read through the blog and the link on philosophical counseling, mutuality came to my mind. True enough, towards the end of the essay on philosophical counseling, the word "both" appeared. It goes, "In summary, the ultimate goal as a counselor is to help others understand themselves and their existence so they both may live to fully experience what it is to be human." The doctor is himself also constantly made healthy, living in the mutuality of love and realizing the potential that permeates all that exists.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @focolare.men.northeastmanila: Thanks for pointing that out. We can also describe the doctor-patient relationship as a dialogue, the I-Thou of Martin Buber. This approach is, in my opinion, the best for both parties who have no hidden agenda, who come to the table with no preconceived notions, hence, who have no idea what the outcome of the dialogue will be. They bring along the faith that 'truth shall set one free'. Thanks for leaving a comment

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have problems with labels since they would predetermine the kind of interaction that would ensue bet you and the other. But if I were to use a label, or model, for the kind of interaction that would work when I approach the other, I'd use the seeker-seeker model. Imagine two seekers at the foot of a mountain. Both want to reach the top where the truth is found. On the way there, they have a conversation. At one point, one plays doctor; at another point, one asks questions. Each is guided by a quest for the truth. What I'd do then, before I begin my interaction, is to convince the other of the merits of beeing both seekers. -- Raj

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi Raj
    Nice of you to post a comment. Always love to hear from you. I like your seeker to seeker relationship. By convincing the other of the merits of being seekers, one establishes trust from the very beginning. As much as I too do not wish to put labels on relationships (of course in an I thou sort of a relationship, labels wouldn't matter to either party), labeling may only serve the purpose of distinguishing relationship in order to show that there is another alternative to any derivative form of an I vs You, or 'they' vs. 'us'. There are, unfortunately, people who think there is only one and 'he is out to get me'. Thank you

    ReplyDelete