Abstract

This essay is a dialogical response to Professor Emily Tajsina’s essay, “Human Dia logue as a Human Essence? Reflections on Michael Mitias Concept of Human Dialogue”, published in Dialogue and Universalism, 2 (35), 2025. It is not intended to refute or win an argument, or advance a rival idea or view, but to converse rationally about the three main questions she raised in her essay. First, the basis and extent of the attribution of rationality to any idea, action, train of thought, or aspect of reality is commensurate with the measure of its conformity to the rules or principles of reason as a central faculty of human nature. Second, although the human essence is not a source in the absolutist sense of Origin, the way God is an absolute source, nevertheless, it exists as a sui generis type of reality; it is novel, unique, and incomparable in its identity or nature, so far as we know. We know the nature of the human essence in its concretizations, viz., the capacities of thinking, affection, and volition, and what these capacities realize in the world, that is, the whole sphere of human civilization. Third, human dialogue is not merely a conversa tion between human beings individually and collectively, but especially a rational con versation, one guided by the rules and light of reason. It is essentially inquiring, reasoning, and communicative, aiming at mutual understanding, unlike most conversations in social encounters, which are often either instrumental or idle talk. Accordingly, although human dialogue is a conversation, not every conversation is necessarily a human dialogue. Keywords: Dialogue, conversation, reason, human nature, human essence, origin.