Two Reasons (Really Just One) to End a Conversation

If I were being honest, I would have to say that when I first picked up my friend’s book, Tools for Young Philosophers: The Elements of Philosophy by Dr. Paul T. Jensen, I was a little disappointed. It is TINY in stature—small pages in size, only 129 in total. Was it really worth the $18 I shelled out for it? (I wanted to support my friend, but really? Was it worth it?)

Yes. Yes. A thousand times yes. If you have always wanted to understand logic, epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and analytic philosophy, but you never knew where to start, then this is the book for you.

Every word is essential. It’s like the converse of my writing! (Blah blah blah. Oh. Maybe a worthwhile point. More blah blah.) Plus, just as Dr. Jensen used to say as he graded our papers and exams way back during my college days:

That’s how I feel as I read this book. Plus, I laugh too. Take just one paragraph in one chapter and you’ll see why. This is from the chapter on logic. He has some pretty extensive sections on the topics of premise and conclusion, deduction and induction, valid and sound, fallacy, principles of thought, necessary and sufficient, and theoretical reasoning and practical reasoning. And under “fallacy,” he has this delightful little one paragraph summary of “identity”:

“Metaphysical formulation: What is, is.

Epistemological formulation: If any statement is true, then it is true.

Could a rational person be mistaken about this? It’s hard to see how. No dialogue can occur between two people unless both accept the truth of the principle of identity. If someone were seriously to deny this principle, changing the subject politely would be the best procedure. Before doing that, however, you might take a stab at offering an illustration such as “If the United States is in North America, then the United States is in North America.” Or, “If Aristotle was the teacher of Alexander the Great” is true, then “Aristotle was the teacher of Alexander the Great.” If anyone objects to these, waste no more time. Talk to someone else.”

I remember him teaching this point to our class way back in 1989 and the teenage me kind of (internally) balking at the point. (“Isn’t that proud? Judgmental? Who am I to say it is a waste of time to talk to any person?”) But now I see how wise a point it is.

If you cannot even agree on what is being what is, communication is simply not possible. (That’s one of the reasons why, by the way, so much “discussion” these days is really just the glorified name-calling of arguing ad hominem. The speakers never even agree on their terms. How could they possibly listen to one another or (shocking!) convince one another of the strength of their arguments and positions?)

I thought about all of this today because of this post by Michael Hyatt:

It’s a difference in topic, to be sure, but the conclusion is similar:

“It quickly became apparent that he didn’t want to change. In fact, the entire conversation was about why he couldn’t change, why he didn’t need to change, and why he wasn’t responsible for the results he was getting. Ten minutes into the discussion, I realized I was dealing with a fool. There was no point in continuing the conversation. More talk would not change anything.”

Did that mean that Mr. Hyatt gave up entirely on the person? No. He goes on to talk about what would be helpful (rather than mere talk). It’s a brief article (like all of this posts), but definitely worth the read.

OK. Now I’m REALLY going to head into my day because my cute, bed-headed husband just came into the room.

Happy Thursday!
– Tara B.