Arun has a nice post on the varieties of dialog. It seems that Swami Dayananda Saraswati has classified the possibilities. The good:

Vaada: ".... a discussion involving two or more people who are interested in finding out the facts about a certain subject matter. They are all exploring. In this type of discussion, there is no teacher-student relationship. Each person is equally placed, even though one person may [k]now a little more than the others about the subject matter. They are all interested in understanding. This kind of discussion among equals, any collective study among students, for example, is called "vaada" and is naturally healthy."
The bad:
One is the dialogue that takes place between two people who are already committed to different beliefs. Such a discussion, called "jalpa", is governed purely by each person's wit. Any discussion between two fanatics falls into this category . . .
Or any discussion on the Fox News Network.

And the ugly:
He then mentions "vitandaa" where one person makes a statement and the other person always disagrees, merely because the other person said it. Such a discussion is also useless.
Which is what John Stewart was complaining about on CNN's Crossfire.

In any case Arun, when I say something here, try to think of it as samvaada ;)


Popular posts from this blog

The Worst

Quora: Why Are Physicists So Smart?