The present issue of Dialogue and Universalism consists of two parts. The first is entitled Two Problems of Digitilisation—Virtual Negotiations and 4th Space, with Daniel Hardegger (ZHAW School of Management and Law, Switzerland) and Peter Boltuc (Warsaw School of Economics, Poland, and University of Illinois, Springfield, USA) as its guest editors. The second part—Varia— features papers on a variety of topics. There are three reasons why Dialogue and Universalism decided to publish the Two Problems of Digitalization—Virtual Negotiations and 4th Space collection. First, in publishing this block of texts, we are pursuing the fundamental role of philosophy. Contrary to some common beliefs, philosophy’s task is to explain the human world, which is dynamic and not frozen into one, single form although—it is believed—founded upon a constant ontic basis. Thus, philosophy is a vivid intellectual participant in the world and its meanders, a truth that has also been emphasised in the programme of the 13th ISUD World Congress. The two here-discussed digitalisation aspects—virtual negotiation and 4th space—are in their development phase, with only initial research carried out on them so far in philosophy. Basing on their observations of social praxis, the authors of the presented papers claim that the rapid evolution of virtual negotiation is an effect of the Covid-19 pandemic. As for the new idea of 4th space, which is related to the extended space conception, they claim it embraces the new dimension of the human world that has been created by digitalisation. This view is different from the one that says digitalisation has not only added a new dimension to the world, but has transformed the existing world in all its dimensions and throughout all its regions. However, both these rivalling theories must be approached with caution as the 4th space concept is only in its formation phase, with scholars split on the exact meaning of the term. In fact, there currently exist no one clear idea as to the true sense of “4th space.” Especially as this conception has no single, approved theoretical basis, because intuitions are dispersed and vague, and their transformation into conceptual systems and theoretical constructs—different. Consequently, current studies of the 4th space idea are ambitious interdisciplinary contributions which reveal its importance and inspire to further pursuit of the 4th space project, especially in philosophy. Secondly, although virtual negotiation and the 4th space idea (as well as the 4th space itself, if we agree with its propagators’ claim) are recent developments, both have from the very start functioned in the epicentre of the changes taking place in the world and have been in the foreground of the forces that are building the world’s future. The examination of both contributes to broader studies of the digitalisation of the human world, and, in a wider sense, to inquiries into the character and importance of the civilizational changes taking place today. Digitalisation progressively penetrates into more and more spheres of human life. It radically changes individual and collective awareness and individual as well as social life, and generally has induced a civilizational leap seen as revolutionary. Whereby digitalisation itself still remains in statu nascendi, gradually increasing and deepening its role and influence in the human world. This gives rise to the questions of importance not only to philosophy: How deeply has the digital revolution influenced the human world? Has it penetrated into the essence of the human being, pulled down its to-date form and created a new kind of man—transhuman or posthuman? Could the changes brought about by digitalisation be only seemingly fundamental, but in fact rather superficial— restricted to the form and instruments of human activity like individual conduct, social organisation, etc., and without transforming human nature or the nature of the human world into new, digital versions? One may especially ask if the virtual realities created with the help of computers are not constructs of the same general type as the realities found in novels, or in the myths handed down by word of mouth from generation to generation and embedded in the collective awareness of social communities, peoples and cultures from the dawn of humanity. Are the earlier fictitious and immaterial worlds created in books, myths, sagas and tales not also virtual worlds, only encoded and distributed by means of other instruments than computers (word of mouth, art, writing)? Could it not be that one and the other are simply immaterial realities, ideas created by human individuals or human groups that have gained autonomy by “freeing” them-selves from their creators, only constructed with the help of different means? Generally speaking, studies and further development of the 4th space idea are an important contribution to the reconnaissance and evaluation of the present changes in the human world. The third reason for launching the Two Problems of Digitalization… collection is that negotiation (one of its leading themes) is related to dialogue, and the study and the propagation of dialogue is the main objective of Dialogue and Universalism and its affiliate ISUD. Thus, because of its kinship with dialogue, negotiation has also found itself in our focus. The concept of negotiation is hazy. Some believe it to be a special kind of communication reserved for businessmen, others claim that it is a form of dialogue. According to the most widespread interpretation, negotiation is not dialogue, but neither is it restricted to business talks. Negotiation functions in a variety of other spheres, e.g. in politics, sometimes in courts, or in schools, and although two of the three accepted meanings of the term “negotiation” do not identify it with dialogue, they do postulate a relationship between the two. The disclosure of this relationship—including the differences between negotiation and dialogue—would certainly help in revealing their true nature. The main aim of negotiation is to secure the interests of the negotiating sides, and it is typically a platform where such interests collide (the interests of the negotiating sides are not identical and their simultaneous fulfilment is impossible, otherwise there would be no need for negotiation), putting the sides in rivalry. Whereas dialogue bases on an interest-free understanding between the sides, respect for their equal rights and the values they adhere to, and their readiness to fulfil the other’s needs. This is not the case with negotiation. Negotiation does not aim at true, well-intended compromise. Here, the compromise is imposed by the stronger side, and often—though usually covertly—reached in an atmosphere of bad faith. This kind of compromise is nothing but an ornament used to cover up the true intentions of the negotiating parties. Is, therefore, negotiation a battle despite the sides’ declarations of pursuing a collaboration? A battle in which there is a winner and a loser? The praxis of negotiation is moving away from the officially-professed principle that the negotiating sides are equal and should respect their mutual interests, because this runs against the self-interest that is the true driving force of negotiation. In the today’s communication praxis negotiation prevails over dialogue both in the public and private spheres. Although it must be said that this is most visible in Western culture, which, to further complicate the issue, is not a monolith and has its cultural outsiders. The transition from dialogue to negotiation is mainly the result of culturally-driven changes in human relations. Empathy is on the decline and seen as naïve, unrealistic, unproductive and contrary to natural survival laws. Also on the wane is the need to form truly egalitarian human communities. Instead of these seemingly outdated values, modern-day life is determined by competition and rivalry patterned on biological darwinism, and by a misguided individualism which becomes nothing but blatant selfishness. Negotiation is much better suited to contemporary values than dialogue. Does this mean dialogue is doomed to a marginal, sideline existence and ultimate demise amidst the civilisational changes that are taking place? Humanity has pursued interests from its very beginnings. Today, however, the pursuit of interests has either been largely excluded from the official value system, or the value system has become an instrument in the service of interests. It would be too one-sided and simple to say that the increasing presence of negotiation in everyday life and the progressing disappearance of dialogue from communication are the effect of the economisation of life imposed by capitalism, and especially the neoliberalism of the recent decades with its omnipresent rivalry, which has spread from the economic sphere to the entire collective awareness, through which it imposes individual lifestyles. I believe it would also be too simple to seek the reason in the presently dominating Western value system and its pragmatism, or, more precisely, neoliberal leanings. In fact, the atrophy of dialogue is the effect of not one, but several different factors. There is the urgent need for a philosophical conception of negotiation, one that would also examine the relation between negotiation and dialogue and the reasons why the first has become so widespread. There exists no such full theory at the moment despite the broad availability of non-philosophical literature devoted to negotiation which could serve as a good starting-point for philosophical discourse. At the moment negotiation studies are located somewhere on the fringes of philosophy, and are mainly focused on the internal problems of negotiation and negotiation techniques. The Dialogue and Universalism team hopes this issue, along with the valuable contributions in the Varia part, provides pleasure and intellectual inspiration to our readers.