A programmatic philosophical reflection of dialogic thinking in the 20th century has been developing remarkably, tied to the greatest crises in the history of Western society. The origin and continued development of an European philosophy of dialogue represents a sensitive and radical intellectual reaction to the two most tragic events in the 20th century — the crisis of spiritual values brought about by the First World War and the profound shock to democracy by the rule of totalitarian dictatorships.

In Western thought, the dialogic philosophy of Franz Rosenzweig, Ferdinand Ebner and Martin Buber — having originated in the early 1920s — constitutes the first systematic awakening of an awareness of the irreducible dimension of "You" or "Thou" in the ontology of human relations. The tragic objectifying of "the other one" and his or her degradation into cannon-fodder for the great power interests has its spiritual roots in a seemingly unchangeable, and for centuries ingrained, theoretical reduction of one’s being to its non-relational parameters. This thought of man only in the third or first person: He, She or I, and the other as my "other self". The lack of relational receptivity and the spiritual dominance of European selfhood in ordering the world eventually caused a profound crisis of European humanity. It has been precisely the "solipsism" of philosophical thought, its neglect of the relational dimension, that has proved to be the weakest spot in the modern concept of humanity. This manifests itself in its deficiency at a time when "I" becomes capable of bestially turning against its own "You". The philosophers of dialogue, shocked by the experience of the catastrophic war and out of the depth of their spiritual conviction, demonstrated that the main condition of humanity is my relationship to "You". The "I" is not a centre of the universe, but a gift from my Creator to You.

The two microcosmos of personal relations and of social entities comprehensively affect one another. If a personal relation to God and to one’s neighbor, which is the foundation of Judaeo-Christian spirituality, vanishes from the soul of modern Europe, then the whole design of the world is marked with this deficiency and the entire praxis will have corresponding consequences. This reflection by the first generation of the philosophers of dialogue was radically deepened after the second recent catastrophe in European history — after Auschwitz and the Gulag. After the collapse of Nazi totalitarianism, Emmanuel Lévinas began systematically elaborating the ethical dimension of "I and You", shifting the focal point of this relationship still further towards "the other one" and reflecting personal responsibility as the deepest substratum of social justice. He analyzed the genesis and function of totalitarianism as such and radicalized the awareness of the "otherness" as a redeeming transcendence against immanent, horizontal being. Till now, his philosophy has been the last and strongest word coming from this line of philosophy.

The crisis, which is a challenge to dialogic thought at present, is no longer describable in terms of apparent liquidation of other human beings, but in terms of a simple passive collapse of human relations. This collapse is sometimes diagnosed as a negative phenomenon accompanying postmodern radical pluralism.

The postmodern era was one of civilizational and cultural recapitulation. Its synchronic pluralism was a projection of the diachronic pluralism of traditions, which were revived in the postmodern era and which meet one another. The resultant plurality of convictions, values and norms that find themselves in the most different interrelationships (from convergence to conflict) is a stimulus and subject of various modes of communication. In a situation where their common context is reduced to an utterly abstract principle of unbridled plurality, born out of the levelling off of all temporal-spatial factors, the very possibility of communication cancels itself out. This obtains not only between different traditions, but often within the framework of one and the same tradition. This is due to the fact that the modes of its interpretation, not being guided by any delevelling criterion of correctness, become instrumental not in the development of that tradition, but in its collapse. Thus, the criterion for the correctness of any statement or act becomes this statement or act itself. In this way, the principle of unconditional individuation turns into a mechanism of gradual but endless decomposition because once arisen a thing is not subjected to the need to be bound to anything outside itself. At the same time to seek a criterion of correctness in oneself means a new explosion of plurality of possible self-interpretations which, once again, are not guided by anything external to themselves, and so on and so forth.

This process has fatal consequences in dehumanizing everyday relations, invariably turning its edge, with cruel clockwork tenacity, against that which is not (in an ever narrowed down sense) "our own", but "the other one". A counterpoise to this process may only be a movement proceeding from the potentialities of dialogue. This can be linked to the fact that its contextual prerequisites lie in the very principle of plurality.

Dialogue springs from the same trans-immanent nothingness into which the postmodern infinite differentiation collapses. Although not coming with ready criteria, it restores the possibility of communication, thus transforming the levelling-off disintegration into new creation. Emerging out of the latent nothingness "before Creation", it has its telos from that, namely, to put everything into the relations mediated through this purifying and substantiating nothingness in which, particularly at the time of crises or catastrophes, we finally come to enquire why we really are, what we were born for. Such a contingent plurality of human singularities, which is capable of reflecting autonomously in its members the nothingness of one own’s isolated being, is also capable of turning towards mutual incontigent relatedness. Through nothingness which underlies our being we drop out of ourselves into relationship with the other one and becoming capable of togetherness.

The part of our postmodern humanity which is capable of being dialogically transformed can be a new starting point for a constructive movement.

Dialogue is left as the only chance for communication in situations where the possibility of understanding another person utterly fails: where it is impossible to place that person into the same order in which I myself am placed, or at least, to find some constructive connections between him and "my" order. Furthermore, only when this possibility is out of the question, is there chance for a "pure" dialogue in the true sense of the word, or, to be exact, does dialogue reveal its most profound potentialities. It is apparent that in this most intrinsic sense dialogue is communication which breaks through the boundaries of mere comprehension: "dia-logue" is a penetration beyond my or our order of thinking, towards the living reality of the other one.

In this way, the transcending nature of dialogue eliminates the idolatry of any construed meaning and makes it possible to accept meaning which, on the contrary, constitutes and transforms us. Its source is the Infinite of which I catch a glimpse through the slits in my order, through nothingness and absurdity.

In a "space" of transcendence thus opened, an unconditional openness is possible — not as a senseless disintegration, but as an act of acceptance of the Other one — into Meaning which touches both of us. This character of dialogue spells out the simple fact that the core of dialogue takes place outside the sphere which is humanly disposable. Interaction which wants to preserve the character of dialogue should not take anything for granted.

The development of postmodern society has been aiming at an ever greater distancing from all the ideal models of the communication community through which modern rationality has ever more been enclosing itself into the ghetto of its deontological fictions. It is hopelessly burning out within, while life continues. On many occasions it seems to be going down towards the bottom; but at the bottom of life one finds not ideas, rules or exchange of arguments, but integral human communication into which Transcendence may enter.

The vertical openness of dialogue relativizes the horizontal criteria of a discursive consensus. A discursive effort to attain relationless formal universality which, through its emptiness, eventually allows any formally endowed acts of arbitrariness, is surpassed by dialogue and subordinated to the relational search for content for universality. Its infinite fullness is granted according to the so-called principle of grace: at its own discretion and independently of human ambitions. Seen from this viewpoint, dialogue is a way to opening, of subordinating an anthropological action perspective to one that is theological.

Unlike artificial human universalities, the genuine universality of this perspective brings an intrinsic confirmation of each uniqueness: it is universality that creates not generalities, but relations. Not representing any abstract pattern, it is a point of encountering virtually all singularities. Dialogue is an entrance to this relation which is opened without any restrictions, and hence always the same in an infinite plurality of unique dialogical encounters. The integrating effect of the dialogue principle on all the spheres of human experiencing and thinking is conditioned by its transcendent nature. In it, the horizontal movement "towards" is always synthesized with the vertical movement "through" and "above". In dialogue, each particularity is thus rendered transparent and is elevated into a universal relational context.

Dialogue liberates and transforms, being liberation and transformation itself. In it there is an outgoing interaction underway between all the dimensions of the human, an interaction which does not cancel differences and which respects mystery. This is what creates productive unity. It can be observed that dialogue is, to a greater or lesser extent, a hidden driving force of all the modes of human communication as long as their goal is to overcome the mortifying self-sufficiency in this or that sphere of human life. Only certain pseudo-communicative structures of self-absolutized human power, whose feedback is just an impetus for a more perfect act of subjugation, are thoroughly closed to transcendence.

Dialogue, transcendence and creative humanity belong to one another. They express three different aspects — communicative, theological and anthropological — of the same productive relational mutuality between the relative and the absolute. Through dialogue each human singularity takes a share in the universal fullness of being. Through dialogue it bypasses, opens up and surpasses each case of the totalitarianism of systems and each act of terror committed in enclosed worlds. But by overstepping the horizontal order, it does not find itself in a horizontal chaos but rather in a vertical order of love. The theological dimension of dialogue is a source of strength to attain freedom — not only freedom, however, but also responsibility.

As a result, dialogue is a mode of emancipation of the human which does not turn against impersonal necessities and pressures with the same impersonality of the discursive and manipulatory approach. Eventually this succumbs to, and reproduces, what it originally wanted to oppose. But, by itself, dialogue shapes and embodies an alternative which is untouchable and unconquerable by any tendency to impersonalization since this alternative has its starting point, and is anchored radically, outside that area.

By not reducing the truth to a consensual formulation, dialogue opens up each consensus to what transcends it — to what there is. In this way, it also goes beyond the horizon of postmodern relativism. By insisting on the unimageability of truth, it stimulates the truthfulness of human attempts at its imaging. Thus, it becomes a permanent spiritual being on the journey, a never ending shared pilgrimage after the gradual fulfillment of the relation to all. Standing in humility before the mystery of being, any system of ideas and any world of experiences ceases to be a prison for man and becomes an instrument, an open opportunity.

The liberating importance of aiming towards the truth is based on dialogical respect for what I do not understand, and yet do not want to lose my relation to. Therefore, dialogical knowing has the nature of a patient, loving adventure in which I voluntarily give up my self-assurance; courageously I subordinate myself to the unknown. Dialogical relation to this has neither a speculative nor an observatory nature. It is an intrinsically engaged total conversation, a transcending flare-up, a purified identification with what I yearn to know.

The communicability of the truth known through dialogue, just as the very linguistic mediation of dialogue, makes it imperative to assume an unreduced attitude to language itself.

In dialogue, language as a system of signs is just an aid to relation, which permeates language, appropriating it and creatively working with it. Despite modern linguistic reduction, he who speaks and that which is spoken of does exist outside language. The possibility of linguistic creativity is conditioned precisely by this fact. In case the world is identified with "the world of language", there is nothing to conduct genuine dialogue about and no one with whom to conduct it.

In dialogue, language is adjusted to relatedness, not the other way round. Language receives its life from dialogue; without contact with what there is, it dies. Even my speaking Self becomes real or unreal depending on the extent of the reality I allow to enter into my words. If I am more my own myself in dialogue, this is because in it I intrinsically stand up for that which is — and then also my language meets its intrinsic destination. If I transcend it with a genuine contact with reality, it, too, will transcend me with a genuine contact with that with whom I want to speak. This transcendent character of dialogue is transferred onto everything that may serve it.

The freer we are from language, the freer our language is itself. The system of signs can function only in relation to an indisposable reality. In the opposite case, it does not "mean" anything, but ceases to be itself.

In the end, the predominance of relation over language means that a dialogic relation may cover more than could be communicated by language.

The principle of dialogue can be perceived as an initial principle of ethics. It establishes the moral endeavor in an unconditional respect for the non-I in love. It systematically concertizes its imperative as respect for otherness, as a relational decentering of the I and as a shifting of the centre of gravity into You, independently of whether it will ever be reciprocated or not. Dialogic ethics is not exhaustible by rules, which it goes beyond. Its practice does not deal only with what still is morally permissible and what no longer is. It does not move at the lower threshold of the norm and does not bargain over the possibilities of its violation. Dialogic ethics can rather be called an attitude which looks out in the opposite direction: how to do for You more than is obligatory.

Sociological, epistemological, linguistic and any other forms of unrelatedness are an impoverishment of humanity. Basically these are deprived of altruistic dynamism and its transcendent motivation. In egoisms, the forms of human existence and mutual contact, however comprehensive they may be, are analogous to subhuman animal, vegetative or mechanical forms of existence and contact. In this context, the growth of the dialogic potential within the individual, group and social life looks like a mode of redemption. Dialogue replaces solipsist idolatry with a relation to reality. It transforms destructive, entopic plurality into a productive, creative one; the enclosed space of human immanence is opened to that which transcends it.

The dialogic fullness of humanity thus attained has an almost infinite number of mutually inspiring and potentiating dimensions. At the level of philosophical abstraction the following aspects emerge:

- intrapersonal: Dialogue confirms personal humanity in its integral quality. Unlike all the other modes of communication, it confirms not only its "horizontal" or immanent dimension, but also its "vertical" or transcendent dimension.

- interpersonal: Dialogue allows for the constitution of a fruitful, internally differentiated "we": acceptance of the otherness of the other one eliminates both a rift and unity at the cost of reduction.

- anthropological-theological: Dialogue is established as a synthesis of relations of the "communio" and "religio" types. Rendering human relations transparent for a relation with God brings them infinite enrichment, permanence and basic support vis-a-vis all the factors of life operating against relatedness.

- humanistic-realistic: Dialogue balances the interrelation between the personal and the impersonal in human life without the personal being reduced and the impersonal neglected. The independence of dialogic humanity, based in an asymmetry of relation between transcendence and immanence, allows for the same creative asymmetry in human relation with subhuman realities.

- intercultural: Dialogue renders any cultural plurality productive. It maintains positive relations even beyond the bounds of mutual understanding. Through variety it makes it possible to derive mutual enrichment.

- intracultural: Dialogue is an embodiment of the full synthesis of European spirituality. The idea of dialogue was born out of the need of this century, brought to a head by crises, to overcome the dichotomy of the personally relational and the impersonally substantial model of Western thought in favor of the regulative position of universally humanizing relatedness.

6. R.P. Blackmur, "The artist as hero", in: Art New, 1961, September, p. 20.

7. "La crise du concept de literature", in: Nouvelle Revue française, February, 1924.

8. J.P. Sartre, on the literary courage of the Czech author Milan Kundera.