خلاصه ماشینی:
"Given the immense significance of propagating ‘dialogue’ in place of ‘clash’ and ‘conflict’ as the best way of interaction between the nations, cultures, and civilizations, if the above argument has shed some light on the complexity of the notion of ‘dialogue among civilisations’ and the intricacies of finding proper instances for such an activity, then it seems it has served some useful purpose: much more urgent work is needed to turn the idea of ‘dialogue among civilizations’ into an effective and functioning construct.
This is because, under the interpretations given at the outset, we suggested that the question to be understood as either G Ì Dc, or G Î Dc. However, as the above analysis has shown, neither of these relations holds between G and Dc. In other words, if the analysis offered here is correct, then it means that G is neither a token of a general type Dc, nor a proper subset of a set Dc. It appears that G and Dc are two different socially constructed entities or two different sets, which have partial overlap and intersection.
However, for the second relation to hold, we need to show that G satisfies the sufficient and necessary conditions for the membership in Dc. In order to clarify the situation and come to a position to be able to answer the central question of the paper, we need, in the first instance, to make sense of the meaning (s) of the three main terms on which the question is based, namely ‘globalization’, ‘dialogue’, and ‘civilization’."