It has been a long time since true criticism vanished from society. Not limited to social media, most platforms today are filled with either disparagement, empty praise, or the assumption of “meta-level” superiority. They are superficial and insular. The real question is: how can we listen so deeply that we immerse ourselves in another’s logic, yet still find the point where we diverge? The issue is not that depth is inherently virtuous, but rather that flippancy is disrespectful and a lack of constructive potential is a failure.
Engaging in deep discourse and truly listening requires a form of trust distinct from mere intimacy. It is not a matter of expertise, but rather the degree of intellectual stamina required to commit to self-effacement. To engage with profound arguments without injecting one’s own ego, and to devote oneself entirely to listening—this is a reciprocal relationship. When listening, one must let the other speak; when speaking, one must confront their own fears.
If a critical attitude is defined by a self-effacing posture in dialogue, then it can be called public discourse. On the other hand, it is human nature to desire private conversation. How, then, is dialogue possible in public spaces like social media? While the distinction between “public” and “private” here refers to one’s posture in dialogue, in reality, that judgment often depends more on the content of the conversation than on the attitude itself.
