More of the Story
As noted earlier, Mortimer Adler has said that the Greek words, men and de, are the greatest contribution the Greeks made to civilization. Quite a claim. A DIALECTICal claim. These words are commonly translated, “on the one hand,” “but on the other hand.” In a Greek text, the little particle, men, may show up in an unexpected place. It is not always necessary that it be translated at all, but it always indicates that a particular aspect of something is being presented. When, somewhere later in the text, de, shows up, it indicates that we are looking from a different perspective.
Whatever is being presented, the good thinker’s characteristic response is, “But on the other hand.” The DIALECTIC warns us to never forget there are other perspectives; it reminds us to remain constantly aware of the other side.
Paul Harvey’s The Rest of the Story is an instance of the DIALECTIC. “ For more than sixty years on the radio he told us stories, true stories, but saved a surprising twist to end with. When he had told this last information, he ended saying, “And now you know . . . the rest of the story.” On one hand was the story; on the other hand we learned the rest of the story.
There is always more to be said. In a sense, the scholar’s footnotes are the same sort of thing. There are many kinds of footnotes. Sometimes they tell us the source of the noted material, sometimes they refer us to other pages or other books that will tell us more about what has been noted in the text, and at other times they add explanation, definition, or asides.
The DIALECTIC is the language of relationship. It keeps us from forgetting others and our relationship to them. It strikes out against monism, individualism, isolationism, absolutism, and all self-centeredness. The DIALECTICal ear is always listening, the DIALECTICal eye is constantly searching, the DIALECTICal voice is always considerate of the listener. Whether we think of family or workplace relationships, love or any other of life’s relationships, they are bound to disappoint, disintegrate, diminish, or fail without the DIALECTIC.
DIALECTICal thought is always in process, never complete. “What have I left out, what have I not considered?” These questions become routine. “What if my presuppositions are wrong?” Part of the processive character of the DIALECTIC is that it is always developing, alternately expanding, then focusing. It grows and is enriched, it sharpens and clarifies.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Chapter 4/2
Dialectic
The DIALECTIC is rooted in the idea of dialogue. The core idea is that other perspectives, positions, and possibilities must always be taken into account. The DIALECTIC seems to be rooted in a principle that can be expressed in three differing ways.
• No human statement is ever complete by itself.
By the word statement we should understand this is not necessarily a single sentence. Sometimes a paragraph makes a single statement. A speech may do that, as may a book, a law, or a television program. Whether a statement is simple or elaborate, it remains true that no human statement is ever complete by itself, and therefore, is never the whole truth.
• There is always more that can be said.
Always there is something else no matter what we are talking about. Some aspects have been left out. The world, and our life in it, is too complex to be reduced to a single statement.
• It is always possible that we might be wrong.
In whatever we think or say, we could, on occasion, be wrong. To believe otherwise is to claim that we are infallible, that we are never mistaken. But humans are not infallible. We do make mistakes, and often.
So the DIALECTIC grows out of the realization that there is always another side, another perspective that must be taken into consideration if we are to approach the full truth. To think DIALECTICally is to always consider the possibility of our own error and then to examine our thought to see where the flaw might be. We can never take it for granted that what we think, is the truth, and certainly not that it is the whole truth. (At one point I considered using “Considerate Thinking” as the title of this book. Consideration is what it is all about.)
Several months after an automobile accident with a driver in a stolen car, the accident that totaled our Buick, the police finally found the offender and a date was set for his trial. I was called to court as a witness. Judge Ellis’s docket was full, so I sat through two afternoons of trials by the judge before they got to our case. As I listened, I began to realize that being sworn in was going to present me with a problem. As a philosopher, I realized that I could not tell the truth about the accident because it all happened so fast and so much was involved that I had the truth only as I remembered it. Moreover, I was not in position to know the whole truth. And again, I knew that it was always possible that I, as a human being, could be wrong. How could I swear “to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” (whether with God’s help or not)?
In a court of law, we may “swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” but the truth is we cannot do what we swear to do. We can never know the whole, and often, unintentionally, some of what we say may be in error. The DIALECTIC automatically searches for other ways of looking at the same thing. In its most active form, the DIALECTICal thinker seeks out those who hold different views and asks for their response to his own ideas, with the expectation that these voices from another side will lead to some modification of his own thought.
One task of a courtroom is the effort to determine, as best is possible, what the truth is. It should not be assumed that any one witness could establish the irrefutable truth. Fortunately, I never had to face the issue because the case was settled out of court. I was saved from confrontation with the traditional oath.
The DIALECTIC is rooted in the idea of dialogue. The core idea is that other perspectives, positions, and possibilities must always be taken into account. The DIALECTIC seems to be rooted in a principle that can be expressed in three differing ways.
• No human statement is ever complete by itself.
By the word statement we should understand this is not necessarily a single sentence. Sometimes a paragraph makes a single statement. A speech may do that, as may a book, a law, or a television program. Whether a statement is simple or elaborate, it remains true that no human statement is ever complete by itself, and therefore, is never the whole truth.
• There is always more that can be said.
Always there is something else no matter what we are talking about. Some aspects have been left out. The world, and our life in it, is too complex to be reduced to a single statement.
• It is always possible that we might be wrong.
In whatever we think or say, we could, on occasion, be wrong. To believe otherwise is to claim that we are infallible, that we are never mistaken. But humans are not infallible. We do make mistakes, and often.
So the DIALECTIC grows out of the realization that there is always another side, another perspective that must be taken into consideration if we are to approach the full truth. To think DIALECTICally is to always consider the possibility of our own error and then to examine our thought to see where the flaw might be. We can never take it for granted that what we think, is the truth, and certainly not that it is the whole truth. (At one point I considered using “Considerate Thinking” as the title of this book. Consideration is what it is all about.)
Several months after an automobile accident with a driver in a stolen car, the accident that totaled our Buick, the police finally found the offender and a date was set for his trial. I was called to court as a witness. Judge Ellis’s docket was full, so I sat through two afternoons of trials by the judge before they got to our case. As I listened, I began to realize that being sworn in was going to present me with a problem. As a philosopher, I realized that I could not tell the truth about the accident because it all happened so fast and so much was involved that I had the truth only as I remembered it. Moreover, I was not in position to know the whole truth. And again, I knew that it was always possible that I, as a human being, could be wrong. How could I swear “to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” (whether with God’s help or not)?
In a court of law, we may “swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” but the truth is we cannot do what we swear to do. We can never know the whole, and often, unintentionally, some of what we say may be in error. The DIALECTIC automatically searches for other ways of looking at the same thing. In its most active form, the DIALECTICal thinker seeks out those who hold different views and asks for their response to his own ideas, with the expectation that these voices from another side will lead to some modification of his own thought.
One task of a courtroom is the effort to determine, as best is possible, what the truth is. It should not be assumed that any one witness could establish the irrefutable truth. Fortunately, I never had to face the issue because the case was settled out of court. I was saved from confrontation with the traditional oath.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Chapter 4/1
The Dialectic
Exactly what is the DIALECTIC? It can be most easily understood by contrast, the contrast between dialogue and monologue. A monologue is an extended uninterrupted speech by a character in a drama, often a one-person monologue spoken to an audience. In a monologue only one person speaks. No response from others is allowed. You are probably familiar with the dramatic monologue as a form of popular entertainment featuring someone like Bill Cosby, Jerry Seinfeld, David Letterman, or Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof.
In contrast, a dialogue includes at least two speakers responding to each other. What each says is influenced by what the other has said. They may have meant to say one thing but had to change because what the other person has said requires a response other than what they had intended.
However, just because two people are in a conversation with each other doesn’t necessarily mean they are having a dialogue. Often our interchanges are merely reciprocal monologues. We each are attempting a fundamentally uninterrupted and extended speech. We have something we want to get said. When someone else interrupts us, we pay little attention to what they have to say. We are just waiting for a break in their monologue so we can resume our own monologue. Although more than one speaker is involved, there is no interactive dialogue taking place.
Exactly what is the DIALECTIC? It can be most easily understood by contrast, the contrast between dialogue and monologue. A monologue is an extended uninterrupted speech by a character in a drama, often a one-person monologue spoken to an audience. In a monologue only one person speaks. No response from others is allowed. You are probably familiar with the dramatic monologue as a form of popular entertainment featuring someone like Bill Cosby, Jerry Seinfeld, David Letterman, or Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof.
In contrast, a dialogue includes at least two speakers responding to each other. What each says is influenced by what the other has said. They may have meant to say one thing but had to change because what the other person has said requires a response other than what they had intended.
However, just because two people are in a conversation with each other doesn’t necessarily mean they are having a dialogue. Often our interchanges are merely reciprocal monologues. We each are attempting a fundamentally uninterrupted and extended speech. We have something we want to get said. When someone else interrupts us, we pay little attention to what they have to say. We are just waiting for a break in their monologue so we can resume our own monologue. Although more than one speaker is involved, there is no interactive dialogue taking place.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
A Responsibility to Think
We Have a Responsibility to Think
Thinking is not what life is all about, but it is a vital part of it. Thinking shapes our decisions, and our decisions shape our actions. Thought seeks truth in order to make decisions as a basis for action, as an aspect of living and understanding the meaning of our lives. Whatever else might be involved, thought includes, at least: analysis, synthesis, comparison, contrast, implication, evaluation, imagination, arrangement, and review. Our study will enhance all these.
Better thinking leads to better living. Just as certainly as every normal person can walk and talk, so everyone can think--and, you can, without question, learn to be a much better thinker.
Not only is it in our own best interest to become better thinkers, we have a moral obligation to think more clearly in order to make better moral decisions. Many of the bad things that happen in the lives of both individuals and society are because, as a blundering friend of mine says from time to time, “I just didn’t think about that.” We have a moral and social, as well as prudential obligation to think about that.
A dominant reason for the prevalence of divorce is that there are many important things people just don’t think about before marriage. I am sure that Garth Brooks’ song, “Unanswered Prayers,” resonated for a lot of people. The song tells of a fellow who, in high school wanted a particular girl so much that he prayed God would let him have her. But he didn’t get her. Years later, with his wife, he saw her at a football game, and, seeing the changes in both her and in him, wound up extremely grateful that God had not answered his prayer.
(God was good to me; I got the one I prayed for, and have been grateful for almost sixty years).
Whether we think about marriage and family or other social issues, one of the major ways to develop a better society filled with good people is to learn and determine to think more clearly, completely, and creatively. I hope you share that conviction and dream.
Thinking is not what life is all about, but it is a vital part of it. Thinking shapes our decisions, and our decisions shape our actions. Thought seeks truth in order to make decisions as a basis for action, as an aspect of living and understanding the meaning of our lives. Whatever else might be involved, thought includes, at least: analysis, synthesis, comparison, contrast, implication, evaluation, imagination, arrangement, and review. Our study will enhance all these.
Better thinking leads to better living. Just as certainly as every normal person can walk and talk, so everyone can think--and, you can, without question, learn to be a much better thinker.
Not only is it in our own best interest to become better thinkers, we have a moral obligation to think more clearly in order to make better moral decisions. Many of the bad things that happen in the lives of both individuals and society are because, as a blundering friend of mine says from time to time, “I just didn’t think about that.” We have a moral and social, as well as prudential obligation to think about that.
A dominant reason for the prevalence of divorce is that there are many important things people just don’t think about before marriage. I am sure that Garth Brooks’ song, “Unanswered Prayers,” resonated for a lot of people. The song tells of a fellow who, in high school wanted a particular girl so much that he prayed God would let him have her. But he didn’t get her. Years later, with his wife, he saw her at a football game, and, seeing the changes in both her and in him, wound up extremely grateful that God had not answered his prayer.
(God was good to me; I got the one I prayed for, and have been grateful for almost sixty years).
Whether we think about marriage and family or other social issues, one of the major ways to develop a better society filled with good people is to learn and determine to think more clearly, completely, and creatively. I hope you share that conviction and dream.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Chapter 3/3
Good thinking at its best, includes considerations of three different but interconnected sorts. First we must consider perspectives other than our own: we must think DIALECTICally. Further, we must consider the implications of our ideas: we must think logically. Finally, we must consider our own mind, heart, and aim in life: we must think purposively. In keeping with these three essential Good thinking at its best, includes considerations of three different but, the book comprises three parts.
Part One lays out the basics of the DIALECTIC and explores its fundamental nature, which is consideration of others and other ways of thinking and living. It expands DIALECTICal thought and shows how it is involved in all aspects of our daily lives and what it can contribute to those lives. It also introduces the concept of bipolar understanding. When we become aware of the bipolarity that pervades our world, many of our disturbing dilemmas and contradictions evaporate. Our lives adjust to a more rhythmic and harmonic resolution of common tensions.
Part Two offers a user-friendly survey of the most useful elements of logical thinking. Much of part two we already know as commonsense, but it will help to bring that commonsense into sharper focus. It describes the fundamental nature of logic: a method of assuring consistency in what we say, how we think, and ultimately, how we live. It distinguishes, in clear and simple language, the difference between deductive and inductive logic.
Part Three addresses the content and purpose of our thinking. As I said earlier, the DIALECTIC is the key to good thinking; it is the heart of the book. Logic sharpens the abilities of the DIALECTICal thinker. It makes you more than a good thinker; you become a better thinker. But neither of these tells you what to think nor even why you think, any more than a pencil or a word processor tells you what to write or for what purpose. Neither the DIALECTIC nor logic has any content. They can be used effectively by both the scoundrel and the saint--as well as the rest of us.
If we are to become the best thinker possible, we have to consider who we are and what we are about in life. Part Three helps us clarify what we believe to be the truth about life, what we are personally convinced of: our basic convictions. In part three we will become more aware of our personal values--not only what we believe to be true, but what we believe to be important and worth giving ourselves to. It challenges us to determine and decide what we want out of life, and more importantly, what we want to become. Finally, it shows that all our thinking, DIALECTICal and logical, is rooted in and aimed toward the things emphasized in Part Three. In the end, it pulls the entire book together, correlating the elements that go into making us the best thinker we can possibly become.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Chapter 3/2
It Is Not too Late
As I said, I was almost forty-years-old. You are not too old; it is not too late. You can learn to think. And again, it is easy.
I have heard that if you can walk you can dance, if you can talk you can sing, and if you can write you can draw. To my amazement I learned, in middle-age, that all this is true. I am not a good dancer, but I can dance; only a fair singer, but I sing; and I’ve learned to draw quite well. I had never thought I could. I have also learned that if you think at all, you can become a good thinker–probably not an Einstein, but a respected thinker nonetheless.
What You Will Gain from this Book
Skill in developing, correcting, and expanding your own ideas and insights.
Skill at critiquing what you hear and read from others.
Skill in functioning as an effective team or committee member.
You will become a more convincing and respected speaker and writer.
You will begin to persuade your critics to seriously consider your position.
You will become more logical in all you think and do.
You will easily spot the illogical and inconsistent in all you hear and read.
You will learn to see more clearly where others are coming from.
You will easily distinguish mere probabilities from inescapable necessities.
Your use of language will become increasingly clearer.
You will come to think before you speak.
You will come to know yourself better.
You will come to see more clearly where your thought is coming from.
You will come to see more clearly where your own thinking is headed.
You will learn much about the DIALECTIC of life itself.
You will develop a greater appreciation of other people.
You will become a wiser and more considerate person.
Your life will become richer, more productive, and more wonder-filled.
YOU WILL BECOME:
A person whose ideas must be reckoned with.
A person of greater integrity.
A person who is rarely blind-sided.
A better conversationalist
A better learner.
More honest, modest, and moderate.
More confident
More respected and more respectful.
More patient and appreciative.
More open to change
More courteous, considerate, and sympathetic.
More patient and less arrogant.
More aware, and less apt to go off half-cocked.
We think in order to clarify, comprehend, and create--ultimately in order to decide, to appreciate, and thus, to act and become. If we don’t think, we live muddled, uncomprehending lives, stuck in the habitual and overwhelmed by a complicated world. We make wrong decisions, appreciate little, do things we regret and that harm us, and never become persons of character and wisdom.
As I said, I was almost forty-years-old. You are not too old; it is not too late. You can learn to think. And again, it is easy.
I have heard that if you can walk you can dance, if you can talk you can sing, and if you can write you can draw. To my amazement I learned, in middle-age, that all this is true. I am not a good dancer, but I can dance; only a fair singer, but I sing; and I’ve learned to draw quite well. I had never thought I could. I have also learned that if you think at all, you can become a good thinker–probably not an Einstein, but a respected thinker nonetheless.
What You Will Gain from this Book
Skill in developing, correcting, and expanding your own ideas and insights.
Skill at critiquing what you hear and read from others.
Skill in functioning as an effective team or committee member.
You will become a more convincing and respected speaker and writer.
You will begin to persuade your critics to seriously consider your position.
You will become more logical in all you think and do.
You will easily spot the illogical and inconsistent in all you hear and read.
You will learn to see more clearly where others are coming from.
You will easily distinguish mere probabilities from inescapable necessities.
Your use of language will become increasingly clearer.
You will come to think before you speak.
You will come to know yourself better.
You will come to see more clearly where your thought is coming from.
You will come to see more clearly where your own thinking is headed.
You will learn much about the DIALECTIC of life itself.
You will develop a greater appreciation of other people.
You will become a wiser and more considerate person.
Your life will become richer, more productive, and more wonder-filled.
YOU WILL BECOME:
A person whose ideas must be reckoned with.
A person of greater integrity.
A person who is rarely blind-sided.
A better conversationalist
A better learner.
More honest, modest, and moderate.
More confident
More respected and more respectful.
More patient and appreciative.
More open to change
More courteous, considerate, and sympathetic.
More patient and less arrogant.
More aware, and less apt to go off half-cocked.
We think in order to clarify, comprehend, and create--ultimately in order to decide, to appreciate, and thus, to act and become. If we don’t think, we live muddled, uncomprehending lives, stuck in the habitual and overwhelmed by a complicated world. We make wrong decisions, appreciate little, do things we regret and that harm us, and never become persons of character and wisdom.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Chapter 3/1
General George Patton’s Advice
General George Patton said: “Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.”
That depends on the people and the task. I am certain that General Patton always made sure before taking his troops into battle that they had been taught “how” to aim and fire their weapons, how to disassemble and clean them, and how to operate and maintain their tanks and other vehicles. He wanted, as a minimum, that his men had been through basic training in military “hows.”
Patton did not take raw recruits straight from the streets, schools, factories, and farms, put them on the battlefield, and then order them to defeat the enemy. He did not win his great victories simply by telling his soldiers what to do and leaving it up to their ingenuity to figure out how to do it.
We often follow Patton’s advice. We tell people to “Think about it,” or “Think it over,” and we ask, “Why didn’t you think?” But we cannot assume that, left to their own ingenuity, people will know how to think. They may not. But they can learn. After you have read this book, you will know how to think.
Needed: a Method
We don’t require much instruction before we can use a computer effectively, but we do need to be taught how to perform a few simple procedures. We don’t need much instruction before we can drive an automobile, but we do need some instruction and practice before we can safely drive a car. We do not need much instruction before becoming able to think better than most people. Although some of us might be good thinkers by nature, most of us require, and all of us can benefit from some special instruction and practice.
After reading and practicing the next chapter, you will have completed basic training as a thinker. That will be enough to satisfy some of you. That may be all of this book you read. Learning how to read easy music and play the piano was enough for me. That was all that I had serious interest in learning. No advanced musical training for me, no long hours of practice. Just occasional playing, usually with one finger on the right hand, for my own ears is good enough for my own entertainment.
If, however, you want to become good as a thinker, you will find benefit in every chapter. You may find yourself living on higher ground than you would ever have imagined possible. What makes me suggest that?
I assume you are not like dim-witted Harry Robarts in Patrick White’s novel, Voss. Harry was “glad to offer his services to someone who might think for him.” On the contrary, you are already a thinker of some sort or you would not have picked up this book. If you are already a good thinker, you will rapidly improve all your thought processes. Whatever your situation, you can do it.
No, this is not a gimmick, not a “limited time only” offer, not a trick of some kind. I am not a writer looking for an idea to sell; I am a teacher. I don’t deal in gimmicks and commercial ideas. For the past thirty years I have dealt with ideas and thought; I am a philosophy teacher. My students have dug into Plato and Aristotle, Kant, Kierkegaard, Comte, and Nietzsche. They have investigated epistemology, existentialism, ontology, and axiology (language you won’t find used in this book). The clue to good thinking isn’t a passing fad. It has been tested rigorously for centuries. Now I make it available to you, without big words and without any need on your part to know and understand philosophy.
My entire reputation--limited as it is to a small area of central Texas where I have chosen to quietly enjoy life-- has been built on my ability to teach people to think. When students leave my classes, they often say I am the first teacher in all their schooling who has made them think, and who has helped them learn how to think. When I speak in public, the most common responses are, “I’d never thought about that before,” “You make us think,” and, “You gave us something to think about.” The other common response is, “You make it so easy to understand,” and “You make it so simple.” That is what I can do for you. I have written this book because, after spending my whole career in the classroom at a remote little university, my students have insisted that I need to write so I can teach the process of good thinking to a larger classroom. One that includes you.
Before you have finished reading the next chapter, you will have the tool that will change and improve the way you think. You can put that tool to work immediately. If you read no further than that, you will be well on your way to developing a reputation as a good thinker. People will begin to recognize that your ideas are a force to be dealt with. Of course I hope you read the rest of the book. Reading it will help you understand what you are working with, and it will show you how to use the DIALECTIC in all areas of life.
I know you can do it because I have been teaching DIALECTICal thinking for more than thirty years and have seen all sorts of people become good thinkers. Many of them became better people in the process. Some didn’t. Their thought processes were improved, but their character was untouched. Jesus, in a story about a sower who lost three quarters of the seed he planted, seemed to tell his followers to expect only limited success. But he said that where there was appropriate response, success would be astounding. I hope for something like that for my readers.
General George Patton said: “Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.”
That depends on the people and the task. I am certain that General Patton always made sure before taking his troops into battle that they had been taught “how” to aim and fire their weapons, how to disassemble and clean them, and how to operate and maintain their tanks and other vehicles. He wanted, as a minimum, that his men had been through basic training in military “hows.”
Patton did not take raw recruits straight from the streets, schools, factories, and farms, put them on the battlefield, and then order them to defeat the enemy. He did not win his great victories simply by telling his soldiers what to do and leaving it up to their ingenuity to figure out how to do it.
We often follow Patton’s advice. We tell people to “Think about it,” or “Think it over,” and we ask, “Why didn’t you think?” But we cannot assume that, left to their own ingenuity, people will know how to think. They may not. But they can learn. After you have read this book, you will know how to think.
Needed: a Method
We don’t require much instruction before we can use a computer effectively, but we do need to be taught how to perform a few simple procedures. We don’t need much instruction before we can drive an automobile, but we do need some instruction and practice before we can safely drive a car. We do not need much instruction before becoming able to think better than most people. Although some of us might be good thinkers by nature, most of us require, and all of us can benefit from some special instruction and practice.
After reading and practicing the next chapter, you will have completed basic training as a thinker. That will be enough to satisfy some of you. That may be all of this book you read. Learning how to read easy music and play the piano was enough for me. That was all that I had serious interest in learning. No advanced musical training for me, no long hours of practice. Just occasional playing, usually with one finger on the right hand, for my own ears is good enough for my own entertainment.
If, however, you want to become good as a thinker, you will find benefit in every chapter. You may find yourself living on higher ground than you would ever have imagined possible. What makes me suggest that?
I assume you are not like dim-witted Harry Robarts in Patrick White’s novel, Voss. Harry was “glad to offer his services to someone who might think for him.” On the contrary, you are already a thinker of some sort or you would not have picked up this book. If you are already a good thinker, you will rapidly improve all your thought processes. Whatever your situation, you can do it.
No, this is not a gimmick, not a “limited time only” offer, not a trick of some kind. I am not a writer looking for an idea to sell; I am a teacher. I don’t deal in gimmicks and commercial ideas. For the past thirty years I have dealt with ideas and thought; I am a philosophy teacher. My students have dug into Plato and Aristotle, Kant, Kierkegaard, Comte, and Nietzsche. They have investigated epistemology, existentialism, ontology, and axiology (language you won’t find used in this book). The clue to good thinking isn’t a passing fad. It has been tested rigorously for centuries. Now I make it available to you, without big words and without any need on your part to know and understand philosophy.
My entire reputation--limited as it is to a small area of central Texas where I have chosen to quietly enjoy life-- has been built on my ability to teach people to think. When students leave my classes, they often say I am the first teacher in all their schooling who has made them think, and who has helped them learn how to think. When I speak in public, the most common responses are, “I’d never thought about that before,” “You make us think,” and, “You gave us something to think about.” The other common response is, “You make it so easy to understand,” and “You make it so simple.” That is what I can do for you. I have written this book because, after spending my whole career in the classroom at a remote little university, my students have insisted that I need to write so I can teach the process of good thinking to a larger classroom. One that includes you.
Before you have finished reading the next chapter, you will have the tool that will change and improve the way you think. You can put that tool to work immediately. If you read no further than that, you will be well on your way to developing a reputation as a good thinker. People will begin to recognize that your ideas are a force to be dealt with. Of course I hope you read the rest of the book. Reading it will help you understand what you are working with, and it will show you how to use the DIALECTIC in all areas of life.
I know you can do it because I have been teaching DIALECTICal thinking for more than thirty years and have seen all sorts of people become good thinkers. Many of them became better people in the process. Some didn’t. Their thought processes were improved, but their character was untouched. Jesus, in a story about a sower who lost three quarters of the seed he planted, seemed to tell his followers to expect only limited success. But he said that where there was appropriate response, success would be astounding. I hope for something like that for my readers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
