We had barely managed to forget the conflict to the point of division between pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine voices, and here we are again.

The Russia-Ukraine war is the new issue on which we have found a way to split into pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian camps.

Is there something in the Greek DNA that makes us split over every issue until we are divided? Of course not. So why do we divide so easily?

What exists is our bad self. Everyone thinks they possess the truth. They do not seek the truth. They possess it. Everyone says, "I tell the truth," as if the other side is lying. And often they will not take any correction from anyone. In other words, everyone defends their position, usually without arguments. They defend it even when it clashes with facts or logic.

Perhaps behind division lies our inability to dialogue. We all invoke dialogue, and at the same time we all monologue. We invoke dialogue and glorify monologue. In fact, we have become so used to it that we believe monologues are dialogue.

Why does this happen? Perhaps because we were never taught how to dialogue. Not at home, not at school, nowhere. Instead, from a young age we learn monologue.

Moreover, by watching the monologues of politicians in Parliament and on television, we learned to regard monologues as dialogue. The poor politicians could hardly imagine that they serve as a school and an example for citizens. They cannot imagine it, because their imagination is consumed by party monologues and by their mutual conflict. Their goal is to retain or gain power, so they can enjoy the privileges that come with it.

The glorification of monologue, which is labeled dialogue, dominates public life, as in student factions, unions, and Parliament. Party factions, in every space, do not want dialogue. They want to impose their view. All parties deceive everyone.

Whoever monologues does not consider truth to be truth. Truth is whatever matches their views and serves their interests. If someone is bound by stereotypes, prejudices, and fixed ideas, they will not find the truth. With closed eyes, no one can see what is plainly visible.

Moreover, as Greeks we are emotional. But dialogue requires logic and arguments, not emotional outbursts.

None of the above means that we all need to agree on an event, such as the Russia-Ukraine war. Even partners, siblings, and friends disagree on matters large and small. It is right to have our own views, as long as we support them with logical arguments. The problem begins when we blindly split into camps and insult one another.

As for the question of whether Greece should send aid to Ukraine, the answer is not easy; it has many dimensions. The "correct" answer is not found in our positive or negative views about Russia and the United States. It is found in whether this decision serves the national interest or not. In this case, whoever justifies Russia's intervention in Ukraine, is he perhaps, unwittingly and by analogy, also justifying Turkey's intervention in Cyprus?

Does the alignment of part of the right and part of the left, together with admiration for Putin, prove the correctness of their views? If the criterion of correctness is the freedom of the West and Putin's authoritarianism, then it probably proves the opposite.

It is not easy to overcome fixed beliefs that have taken root within us. They are one's convictions. But each person's convictions are convictions, and they do not necessarily match the truth.

Truth is discovered, or more accurately approached, through dialogue. Dialogue based on reason and arguments. Dialogue is difficult, like childbirth. It requires letting go of certainties, of convictions. It requires synthesizing different but correct views.

Can we dialogue? We can, if we want to. So the question is: do we want to dialogue?

Pavlos Marantos

marantosp@gmail.com