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.

Jesus was "Out of Touch with Reality"

Of all the teachings of Jesus Christ, the very best and the one that gives life to all his teachings and practices, is “Love Thy Enemy.”

Love your God, he says, with all one’s heart and mind and soul. To do so, you should also love your enemy. Otherwise, it is meaningless and hypocritical of you.

"They" say: Love your neighbor. That’s easy because your neighbor shares the same likes and dislikes (perhaps, even biases and prejudices). No effort in linking up with her. But, if there's no effort, then there's little or no moral value in loving a neighbor. Former US president Bush and Bin Laden love their kinds, but hate their enemies.

Loving your enemy is the greatest act of love - following Jesus's line of thinking and life. It demands that you put aside your biases and prejudices, and reach out to the one who holds different views and beliefs. In that case, Loving one’s enemy is an extreme act of self sacrifice, for love is an expression of self sacrifice.

If you truly love God, then the best way to show that is to love one’s enemy. But, if you think that’s too idealistic, too impractical - way out of touch with reality - too idiotic, then stop pretending to believe in Jesus Christ. He's way out of touch with reality; and you claim not to be.

Or, is he?

Who is out of touch with reality, Jesus or you?