Appendix, Page 1

Appendix

The Categorical Syllogism

If you had rather not get into abstract depths, you may want to ignore this appendix. But, if you do the work, it will be worth it. Do the exercises—paper is cheap.

Some years ago, I was summoned for jury duty. During the voir dire questioning, the prosecuting attorney asked my occupation. I replied, “philosophy professor.” Whereupon, he asked, “If you are selected to sit on the jury, will you decide the case using syllogistic logic?” My answer was, “No, I will not reduce everything to syllogisms, but I will use good logic in making any decisions.” (I wound up on the jury.)

What, you may ask, was the lawyer talking about? What is syllogistic logic, and what are syllogisms? This appendix is written to explain the nature and value of syllogistic logic.

First, we must locate the syllogism as one form of the Dialectic, specifically a form of deductive logic. As outlined in Part Two, deduction is that logic in which if the form is correct and the premises are true, the conclusion must necessarily be true with no possibility at all of being false. Notice that, like all logic, this rests completely on the “if.” If the form is correct, and if the premises are true, then, and only then, is the conclusion of the argument necessarily true.

Chapter 11, Page 1

Chapter 11

Truth, Treasures, and Dreams

You will use the Dialectic differently from other readers because you are different. Your background, beliefs, values, and goals are unique. We each have distinct personalities, perspectives, and possibilities. Our best thought must be consistent with who we are. There is a logic of life. We are the basis of our own thinking—the thesis, the major premise—therefore, we must each determine what that is to be. If we are to think with integrity, we must clarify our basic beliefs, values, and goals. We must know who we are.

Ideally, to do the best thinking, we must be or become good persons, persons of good character. So we must know ourselves, our personal and communal convictions and values. We must determine and give shape to our own unique character. We cannot do our best thinking until we know who we are and why, not until we can clearly and concisely state our starting position in life. If we don’t realize where we’re coming from, there is no telling what will follow. We must know ourselves, decide who we are, and who we intend to become, then live the life of that person. We must live what we believe, else life disintegrates.

All our thought is rooted in what we accept as truth. What do you believe? What do you believe to be true? What do you feel certain about? What do you accept without question? What are your convictions, that is, those things you are convinced of? These core beliefs form the basic theses of our lives. They are, consciously or unconsciously, the starting point of all our thinking.

Chapter 10, Page 1

Chapter 10

You Are the Thinker

Anyone can become a good thinker; anyone can become a better thinker, but if we are to be the best thinker possible, we must be people of good character. Our character precedes all our thought processes. We may develop the Dialectic as our habitual way of thinking; we might even do the necessary work and practice to learn some basic logic and use it when it is appropriate. More important, however, than the Dialectic and logic is the person doing the thinking. I hope this book doesn’t get into the hands of an embezzler or a burglar, a terrorist or a drug dealer, an unethical politician or businessman because I do not want them to become better thinkers at what they do. On the other hand, I suspect that if they became truly good thinkers, some of them would realize they needed to change their ways.

All our thought is ultimately determined by who we are. Have you ever taken time to think about who you are, about what has shaped your life thus far, and what you hope to become and accomplish. or have you gone with the flow, drifting through life? Do you know what things are most important to you? Among those things, do you know what is your ultimate concern? Do you know what you believe to be true? Do you have goals you are working toward? These things form your character, and your character determines the value of your thinking. This last part of the book concentrates not on how to think but on who the thinker is—who we are.

Chapter 9, Page 1

Chapter 9

Probable Truth

Induction

The philosopher Bertrand Russell told a story to introduce inductive logic. I have adapted Russell’s story for that same purpose. My version, however, is more elaborate than his.

In early May, Hoot Shoemake bought fifty two-day-old Rhode Island Red chicks, as he did every spring. When they outgrew the brooder, he moved them into a coop out in the barnyard. Every day about sundown, he would lock them in the coop so they would be secure from raccoons, coyotes, foxes, owls, and other nighttime predators. In the morning, a little before sunup, he would let them out, give them fresh water and feed, and let them run and play, scratch for bugs, and chase grasshoppers. In the evening, he would shut them back into their nighttime security. This was the daily pattern.

June came and then July. Life was wonderful, especially for the little chick that Hoot’s daughter, Kaycee, had named “Rhoda.” When it was dark, she was always securely locked in and huddled up close to the rest of the little flock. When it was light, she was always free to run, play, scratch, chase grasshoppers, and enjoy fresh water and all she wanted to eat. As far as she could remember, this had been the pattern for every day of her life. Therefore, inductively, when daylight came one morning and Rhoda heard Hoot’s footsteps coming, she knew what the day would bring. Except …

Except that all days are not created equal. Some days are exceptional. What little chicken Rhoda didn’t know was that this was Sunday, July 11, and the Shoemake family had invited the preacher to eat lunch with them. So she was surprised, no, shocked, when, as she

Chapter 8, Page 1

Chapter 8

Let’s Be Reasonable about It

Without logic, our thought is always at risk—the risk of inconsistency, the risk that our ideas will not fit together but rather will contradict each other, the risk of becoming a mere hobgoblin of ideas like a cluttered garage. Logic is about consistency, about how things do or do not fit together. Above all, it is about what can or cannot follow from any given starting point.

Contrary to popular belief, everything is logical. Later, I will have more to say about this claim. Meanwhile, since everything follows from something else, anything is open to logical clarification.

Logic is not different from the Dialectic. It is a particular and rigorous instance of dialectical thinking. (Interestingly, math is a particular and extremely rigorous instance of logic.)

If we are going to talk about good thinking, that means that we will of necessity deal with logical thinking. Conventional wisdom says that good thinking is either logical or critical thinking. Yes, but it is more than this. We have seen that good thinking is dialectical thinking, considerate thinking. Good thinking is OTOH, BOTOH. On the other hand, logic, like bipolar thinking, is a particular form of the Dialectic. Although critical thinking—a ubiquitous but ambiguous concept, however you define it—is not what good thinking is all about, it is one part, one that we shall ignore because it is already implicit in all this book says.

The Dialectic is the only way to become a good thinker, but, on the other hand, logic is a valuable assistant. As noted earlier, in the Sears, Roebuck and Co. catalogs of the 1930s and ’40s, many items were available in three different qualities and priced accordingly: good, better, and best. For instance, we could buy a “good” shirt, or a “better one,” or their “best.” The

Chapter 7, Page 1

Chapter 7

Magnetic Thinking

We seek stability. All our lives, we seek the security, comfort, and peace of stability. We don’t like uncertainty. We want things to be settled, to be definite, to stay in place. The Dialectic, however, is dynamic and is the only appropriate response to a dynamic world of uncertainty. There is a special class of relationships where we tend to claim certainty: things that we see as opposites, where we stand on one side or the other, where there is a distinct right and wrong, true and false, black and white, with no space between, no gray areas. We feel we must choose one pole or the other. I call this a bipolar tension. It’s a special form of the Dialectic: the Dialectic of bipolarity.

Definition

I use Dialectic in a broader and more inclusive sense than many others, but I use bipolarity in a narrower, more particular sense. In this chapter, I give it specific definition: It is a relationship between two seemingly incompatible opposites, a relationship in which neither pole is true by itself. It is not, as many say, a relationship of opposites in which both poles are paradoxically true. The poles are true only in the dialectical tension between them. Truth always lies somewhere between the poles, never at the pole. Sometimes, it is almost indistinguishable from a polar position, but still unpolarized, still in tension with the other pole.

Both or Neither?

So much for an attempt at definition. What am I talking about? The simplest approach to understanding bipolarity is to picture a magnet. We know that each pole of the magnet is

Chapter 6, Page 1

Chapter 6

The Medical Dialectic

In the summer of 2009, our daughter had four major surgeries to correct almost unbearable physical problems. It was a medically dialectical summer. The medical dialectic comprise three things: doctor/patient relationship; the doctor’s thought pattern, particularly in diagnosis and choice of treatment; and the nature of medications.

Doctors Are Not Gods

The Dialectic dictates that we live by dialogue with each other. In a medical situation, this means that: we should be prepared to tell the doctor clearly and concisely what we understand our problem to be; the doctor should be a good listener; and she should be prepared to engage her patient in question and answer dialogue. Too often we give our physician an incomplete and somewhat vague account of our symptoms and their history. If our problem is at all serious, we might be wise to take written notes with us lest we forget something important.

In Neil Ravin’s novel, M.D., he tells of a woman who after months of being treated for asthma, told her doctor that she only wheezed when she was in his waiting room, a room furnished with wool-upholstered chairs. And she was allergic to wool. When asked why she had never before mentioned this, she responded that he had never asked. Needless to say, her physician cancelled all her medicines and suggested she stay away from his waiting room. Who was at fault in this situation? Was it the doctor, or the patient? He had not asked, she had not told. No Dialectic at work.

Chapter 5, Page 1

Chapter 5

The Dialectic at Home

Home is where life gets itself together (or pulls itself apart). Home is our first school. Rebel against it as we may, the Dialectic of home life cannot be shaken. It shapes our thought, habit, and action more than we are aware of. We are much more like our parents than we suppose. On the other hand, to the degree that we rebel against parental example, it is that example that is calling the shots, telling us what we do not want to become. As with most of us, I was a parent, perhaps even a grandparent, before my dialectical relationship with home came into focus.

Are You Listening?

Deep into his sermon, he would lean over the pulpit and ask, “Dear hearts tonight, are you listening?” That was a long time ago, but I can still hear him addressing his congregation with these old-timey words of endearment. Daddy used the rhetoric of a bygone era, but everyone in the church knew that they were dear to him, and we knew he wanted us to pay attention because his sermons were punctuated repeatedly with, “Are you listening?” After all, what is the point of preaching if nobody is listening?

And what about us? What can we accomplish in our conversations if no one is listening? If we are going to live with each other, we will have to listen, hear, and acknowledge each other. If I don’t listen, or at least look, I may not realize when you are hurting and that you are about to go under unless someone comes to your rescue. If I don’t listen, I may not realize how much you

Chapter 4, Page 1

Chapter 4

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 such as 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. One speaker may have to say something other than he had first intended because what the other person has said requires a new response.

However, simply 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 interrupts us, we pay little attention to what he has to say. We are only waiting for a break in the other’s monologue so we can resume our own monologue. Although more than one speaker is involved, there is no interactive dialogue taking place.

Chapter 3, Page 1

Chapter 3

The “How” of Thinking

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, for his men to have 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. And, after you have read this book, you will know how to thin

Chapter 2, Page 1

Chapter 2

Thinking Made Easy

It is common to hear someone say, “Thinking is hard work,” but that is not so. Thinking is not that hard, if you know how to do it. Many things are hard work if you have no training and experience at the job, but not unusually hard once you learn the relevant skills, tricks of the trade, and have the right tools. For most of us, digging ditches would be grueling labor but the experienced ditch digger knows to sharpen the shovel before he begins work and to wear boots that have sturdy construction, particularly a heavy sole and good arch support.

Supposedly, the “work” that more people fear than any other is public speaking. However, almost anyone who has earned the right to speak on his topic, and is enthusiastic about letting others hear his ideas, can make a good speech. His passion will help override his stage fright, and his earned right to speak on the subject will supply the needed confidence.

Knowledge of a simple outline such as the following, can organize most speeches: Ho Hum, Point, Explanation, Example, So What? Assume your audience is half-asleep or disinterested (Ho Hum) and begin with something that will wake them up. Then state your Point clearly, Explain what it means, how it works, and so on, give a concrete Example or two, then let them know how you would like them to respond (So What?). With only a little experience of this approach, anyone can do a satisfactory job of speaking in public. And feel good about it.

Chapter One,...like an Octopus

Chapter One

Be Ye Not Mentally Lazy

You may have grown up, as I did, convinced that the authority figures in your world were telling the truth, at least to a degree. I sensed a core of truth in what they so dogmatically said, but I knew in my gut that at some points they were wrong. I recognized that, while maybe they were right, there was more to it than they let on, and often that "more to it" was what mattered most. I also knew that some people and the views they so strongly condemned were not as bad as they were made out to be.I knew that a lot of the wrongs they attacked were not always necessarily, totally wrong.Although at the time I could not have articulated it, I was developing a core of skepticism.

But I was well socialized, so never did I consider challenging any of this. They were bigger, older, smarter, richer, and they held the power to either punish or reward.There was no future in challenging their positions.

On the other hand I knew better than to trust my own mind. In school my classmates made better grades, were better athletes, better looking, and more popular. I was not a leader; no one ever followed or looked up to me. I was painfully aware of my own inadequacies, but although I was not fully conscious of it, I was also vaguely aware of the limitations of those in authority and even of my more popular and more gifted classmates.

I was nearly fifty-years-old before I realized the full implications of those childhood perceptions. Gradually I came to see that my tacit disagreement with society somehow comprised the elements of a more honest and complete approach to truth and life. The seeds of a new way of thinking had been planted; a way I much later came to call The DIALECTIC, the theme of this book.

After floundering through life for long years, I finally learned that it is easy to become a good thinker. Good thinking, however, is in short supply both because many of us are mentally lazy and because it requires something more than mere critical thinking, keen intellect, and formal education.

On the Other Hand

What it takes to become a good thinker is to make,"On the Other Hand," your habitual response to ideas, whether your own or those of others, spoken or written, in formal or in informal settings. No matter what is presented, always consider what might be "on the other hand," because no human statement is, by itself, ever complete, something is always left out, there is always more to be said, and it is always possible that what has been presented might be wrong. Develop a deep sense and appreciation of human limitations, determine to make "on the other hand" thinking second nature, and you are on the road to becoming a good thinker. Results will appear almost immediately. You will become a voice to be reckoned with.

Is that all there is to it? No, but if "on the other hand" thinking becomes a regular practice, you will quickly become a respected thinker. I remember from my youth that the Sears, Roebuck catalog offered a choice of merchandise at varying levels of quality: good, better, and best. You already have read enough to reach the genuinelygood level of thinker.

When you come to understand the larger dimensions of THE DIALECTIC--the proper name for "on the other hand thinking"--and when you add to that an elementary understanding of how logical thinking works, you will become a betterthinker.

And if you are still here when we come to the last pages of the book, we will consider how you can become the bestthinker that can be made out of your unique personality and place in the world.

Becoming a Thinker

Daddy was a workaholic and always gone, Mother was an old-fashioned housewife, a good one, busy doing all the work that entails, so I was pretty well left alone and by default became a lonely, lazy dreamer. I roamed the rivers, creeks, and hills, knowing I had been born fifty years too late to be the cowboy or mountain man that I read and dreamed of. I drifted mindlessly through the years until one day I found myself a high school graduate. I remember three graduation gifts, one of them in particular. Neither the creamy-yellow sport jacket nor the fancy corduroy shirt of many colors ever looked right on me, but somehow I have remembered them. More to the point was Mother's gift of a book of inspirational poetry and prose, Quests and Conquests. For years I enjoyed reading the book but was never inspired to actually do anything. The book didn=t change me, but Mother's inscription written in the front of the book, "Be ye not mentally lazy," haunted me.

Mother's admonition was based on accurate observation. I don't remember having ever thought much about anything for the first twenty years of my life, but when I read her inscription I knew immediately that I needed whatever it was that she was calling for. However, I neither knew what to do about it nor how. The problem was that I had no thinking equipment, skills, or coaching, and had no prior encouragement to think (few schools or homes teach us how to think).It would be long years before I made any progress in that direction, but Mother's words were never far from my consciousness; I felt their challenge continually.

Several years later, I found myself in a theological seminary studying to become a minister. There I heard professor Gordon Clinard declare that the greatest weakness of Southern Baptist preaching was shallowness.Immediately I vowed that my sermons would have depth. During seminary years, I worked, without adequate tools for thinking, at exploring the depths of God's word and of human experience. I was still depending on others, teachers and books, to do my thinking for me, and I still trusted them. Yet I knew they were missing it somewhere.

When I was given my first teaching position and found that I had to teach--and thus learn--logic, I discovered, finally, a method of systematic thinking.Logic, I came to realize, should be required of all high school graduates--not symbolic logic, but traditional, elementary logic.

Now, I was a beginning philosophy teacher and confident of my ability as a thinker. But I had a lot to learn. It took a half-dozen years of teaching philosophy before all of the above began to converge in the idea ofTHE DIALECTIC. I completely rewrote my philosophy courses, making the DIALECTIC central, and have taught it now for more than thirty years. Mother would be proud of her easy-going son because across the years, among faculty and students alike, I have gained a reputation for making people think.They tell me they now think about things they never thought about before, and from perspectives they would have never before considered. Let's talk about how you can improve your thinking ability and practice.

But on the Other Hand

The words of a Randy Travis song suggest the way. Early in his career Travis sang about a fellow who has just met an exciting woman. She has captivated his complete attention, has him almost spellbound. As he considers the possibility of spending the night with her, he sings, "On one hand I count the reasons I could stay with you . . . all night long . . . and on that hand I see no reason why it's wrong." That is one way for him to look at the situation. But the refrain reveals the rest of the picture, as he sings, "But on the other hand there's a golden band, to remind me of someone who would not understand." He has been tempted to forsake his marriage, and might have done so if he just looked at things from the most obvious point of view, the way he felt. He sings about a strong desire to stay, but the logic of marital love and commitment tells him that, "the reason I must go is on the other hand."

This indicates the importance of DIALECTICal thinking for even the most careless of us. On one hand--every day, throughout the day--we see things we believe to be right and that feel right at the time, but on the other hand there is always more to be considered. On one hand we are ready to act; on the other hand it is always possible that we might be wrong and regret what we did.

In life too much is at stake for our conduct to be decided by one-handed thinking. President Harry Truman once told his cabinet members that he wished they would find him a one-hand economist. He said that every economist that briefed him presented a good analysis of the economic situation, and advised an appropriate course of action. However, Truman complained, once they laid all this out, they would say: "But on the other hand . . . ," and proceed to build the case for a different analysis and course of action. He wanted someone who had the answer.

The truth is that no single way of looking at anything ever sees the whole picture. There is always more. Mortimer Adler made the strange claim that the greatest contribution Greek civilization ever made to our culture was the idea of men andde. These strange words are two little particles in the Greek language, commonly translated into English as on one hand/but on the other hand. When we think of Greek culture, sculpture, philosophy, and drama, we might wonder what Adler was thinking when he made such an audacious claim. Why would he say on the one hand/but on the other hand is the greatest contribution of the Greeks? Because it is a concise expression of that which this book is about, that which we call the DIALECTIC.

The DIALECTIC

The DIALECTIC will not make you a better person--that is a whole different issue--but it will make you a better thinker.It will keep you out of a lot of trouble. You will not be surprised easily or often. It will make it easier for you to understand and get along with other people. Others will begin to respect you and your ideas more than they have in the past. If you are a student, you will become a better learner, performing better in the classroom and making better grades, gaining broader understanding and deeper insight. If you are married, you will become a better and more appreciated spouse. If you are part of a team at work, you will become a better and more valuable team member.

If all this sounds as though the DIALECTIC is some kind of a magic pill or silver bullet, you are hearing it right. No matter who you are, what you are interested in, or what you do, it will fit you. It will apply directly to what you are about. All this, and it is easy to learn and put to use.

Think like an Octopus

"On the other hand." That's the silver bullet. That's all it takes to become a good thinker. It's that simple. But on the other hand, it helps to notice still another hand.

I was sitting at the breakfast table, reviewing plans for my first philosophy class of the day. I was thinking specifically about the dialectic. Then I remembered that I had a problem student in that class. I only had three problem students in thirty-some years of teaching. This was one of them. He was one of those back row, disruptive whisperers.I had spoken to him about it a couple of times, to no avail. He seemed to have a lack of respect for me. So I shifted my mind from preparation for class to preparation for dealing with this aggravation.

I spent two years in the army as basic training officer. I have experience in sounding tough, and I can make the appropriate face to go along with the speech.I=ve never used that style in teaching.However, that morning, I was considering it.On the other hand, I could quietly inform him that if the whispers did not cease, he would receive an "F" in the class. On the other hand, I wasn't sure that would be a fair course of action. In fact, he might dare me to try it (he was the kind to do that). On the other hand, I had to do something because he was disrupting the class. So, on the other hand . . . Wait a minute, how many other hands do I have?

On the other hand is the dialectical formula. It is the way. But on which other hand. Mentally, we have more than two hands. Our left hand has its own right and left hands, and they have theirs. We need to think on as many hands as possible. We need to learn to think like an octopus. An octopus can think "on the other hand" several times before he runs out of perspectives to consider.

The way to become a good thinker is to think like an octopus. Usually there are many hands to consider. Each hand has other hands itself. Don't forget the left hand. Like a construction supervisor, hire other hands if they are needed. Don't settle on an answer, conclusion, or idea until you have to because there are always these other hands to turn to.We will never have time to check them all out, but don't quit early, especially if there is much at stake.

Think dialectically, consider others, even your enemies, maybe especially your enemies, and think like an octopus thinking on all eight hands. However, if we seek to examine all hands, can we ever make a decision?

At some point we have to cut off thought and act on the best judgment we can make at the time, always realizing that what we do may turn out wrong. We have no choice, however, but to use our best judgment at the time, however incomplete it may be.

BLOG ARCHIVE

• ▼ 2011 (1)
  • ▼ May (1)
    • Chapter One Be Ye Not Mentally Lazy You may...

• ► 2010 (16)

• ► 2008 (3)

• ► 2007 (25)

Blog Termination?

I'm sure you've noticed months ago that I have stopped posting to this blog. The book I was in the process of blogging--Think Like an Octopus--has been published and is available from your book seller.

I may post occasionally to this blog as ideas of value come to me that are not covered in the book. i might not.