Denver: A Dialogue
or
"Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Flattery"
May 16, 2016
G.D.O’Bradovich III
introduction
Leo Strauss suggested that the Platonic dialogue is the highest form of western literature. Although Platonic dialogues are typically centered around one explicit topic, such as justice or love, the form of repeated questioning and the use of reason can be applied to any topic.
High school youths are typically encountered by Yours Truly on Friday afternoons. Public venues are not an acceptable location to discuss controversial or delicate inquiries. We are confident that these youths, with their never ending contentious subject matter, do not know that Socrates was executed for corrupting the youth.
Except for the initial inquiry, the remainder of the dialogue is fictional, although the one word responses are quotes.
High school youths are typically encountered by Yours Truly on Friday afternoons. Public venues are not an acceptable location to discuss controversial or delicate inquiries. We are confident that these youths, with their never ending contentious subject matter, do not know that Socrates was executed for corrupting the youth.
Except for the initial inquiry, the remainder of the dialogue is fictional, although the one word responses are quotes.
the dialogue
“What’s your opinion on gays?”, asked Denver. [Now, Denver is an inquisitive youth, however, I do not know why he would make inquires of opinions.]
I don’t know how to respond, because you have not defined or explained the term “gay”.
Huh?
Allow me to explain-I know what leprechauns are, but if I discuss the topic of leprechauns with individuals who incorrectly believe that leprechauns protect diamonds or silver, our discussion will eventually encounter difficulties based on various assumptions.
I understand.
So, from the beginning, we need to explicitly state that Leprechauns are associated with gold, and not another precious metal.
Yes.
Of course, for any disagreement, we only have recourse to books.
Huh?
I mean we can't reason or demonstrate that Leprechauns protect gold.
Huh?
Since the nature of Leprechauns are only found and described in books, and are not found in Nature, we cannot reason that they guard anything but gold, although it would not be against reason to suggest they hoard other valuables.
OK.
Also, we cannot go into the woods and demonstrate, or show, leprechauns and their wealth.
I see.
Such are the limitations of the discussions when dealing the topics that are only found in books.
Huh?
If we look at the world and attempt to explain what we see, would you suggest that a leprechaun created our visible world?
No, that’s silly, because Leprechauns don’t make worlds, they hoard gold.
Yes, that is true, as far as books are concerned. But books, by their nature, are limited tools of understanding. The mind, however, can reason, and books are not reason, nor are they a substitute for reason. Also, books may be in error, while using reason either keeps falsehoods at a comfortable distance or eliminates them.
OK.
Now, Denver, you may claim that the Great Leprechaun of the Universe created the world, and you may sincerely believe it, but if I ask for either evidence for your belief or a reasonable explanation for your belief, can you offer either?
No.
Then, I think you understand my meaning. Let us return to your initial inquiry about my opinion on gays.
Sure.
First, let me tell you a story about a man who once drank a great deal of adult beverages and passed out. Would you describe him as a drunk, in the continuing sense of the word, or describe him as being drunk, as in the past tense of the verb.
He was drunk?
If we were asked, “Is this man a drunk?”, how should we answer?
I’m not sure.
Is it possible that many times stories, or events that have been related, do not have enough information to form a definite conclusion?
Huh?
I mean from the limited story, we can not be certain if the gentleman was drunk once, or if he is a continuous drunk. Many times people expect conclusions from listeners when not enough information is provided to reach a conclusion.
I see.
And too often listeners provide conclusions that cannot be justified.
OK.
Would you reason that since this drunken episode happened only once, we cannot be certain if he is a drunk?
Yeah, we can’t be certain.
Denver, I agree with your conclusion, because of reason and the limited evidence.
Let us inquire: if the man in our example became sober and never drank again, would you say he was drunk, but now is not a drunk?
It would seem so.
Yes, it would, however, I suggest that we have an informal and inexact ways of speaking.
Huh?
I believe that people have given too many assumptions for the word “drunk”.
What do you mean?
Let me ask: are drunks drunk all the time or are drunks drunk some of the time?
Huh? All the time?
Alright, so when people say that I am a researcher does that mean I am only a researcher and nothing else while I am awake, or that research is an important aspect of my being.
You don’t research all the time, so I’d say it is only an aspect.
When you consider all of my waking hours, research should be described as a minor aspect, right?
Yeah.
So I am still a researcher, even if I don’t research during the course of an entire day?
Yes.
Am I still a researcher if I don’t write for a week?
Yes.
What if I don’t research for a year? Am I still considered a researcher?
That’s a hard question. I guess you’ve have to do it at least once a year to be considered a researcher.
Alright, we agree that one must do something at least once a year to be described by that activity. Of course, we have arbitrarily accepted one year for our definition. I would suggest that if one is always looking for interesting topics, and spends time looking for exciting subjects, then they have the mind of a researcher, regardless if they act on their research or not.
OK.
Denver, such is our way of speaking that it creates a great deal of uncertainty. Firstly, our uncertainty increases when we do not define terms, secondly, when we carelessly use words in the common manner of speaking and, thirdly, we don’t use reason.
Yes.
As I understand the world, there are facts that are found in books, facts that are derived from reason and opinions. Of course, most of the world consists of opinions.
Yes.
And these opinions can be either true or false?
Yes.
And we can only rely on reason to understand the true nature of our inquiries?
Yes.
And there is only one standard of reason?
I don’t understand.
The ability to reason correctly is a universal characteristic of the human condition; unlike extraordinary talents that Nature dispenses only to a few individuals.
I get it.
Yet, most people do not reason correctly and, in turn, reach faulty conclusions.
That’s true.
Let me suggest that anything, or any idea, that is not found in Nature is, by its unnaturalness, subject to opinions, whereas anything found in, or any idea derived from, Nature is not subject to opinions.
I don’t follow.
If we speak of a good pair of shoes, then everyone has their own opinions, since shoes are unnatural. Shoes may be described as good regarding their good fit, good price or good color. If we were to discuss justice or equality or any other human invention, we can never be certain that we correctly understand either the intention or the meaning of the word.
Yes.
Ultimately, Denver, opinions on any subject are open to change and opinions are not the preferred choice of topics for discussion. The order of preferred subjects is ideas first, then events and, finally, people.
But opinions aren’t on the list.
Exactly. The standards of correct reasoning are unchanging and are valuable; opinions are always open to the possibly of revision and are worthless. Therefore, Denver, can you tell me one indisputable fact regarding my, or anyone’s, opinions?
Opinions are worthless?
Yes.
But, what about the difference between informed opinions and uninformed opinions? Can we find the terms “informed” and uninformed” in Nature?
No.
Therefore, all opinions are...
...worthless.
I don’t know how to respond, because you have not defined or explained the term “gay”.
Huh?
Allow me to explain-I know what leprechauns are, but if I discuss the topic of leprechauns with individuals who incorrectly believe that leprechauns protect diamonds or silver, our discussion will eventually encounter difficulties based on various assumptions.
I understand.
So, from the beginning, we need to explicitly state that Leprechauns are associated with gold, and not another precious metal.
Yes.
Of course, for any disagreement, we only have recourse to books.
Huh?
I mean we can't reason or demonstrate that Leprechauns protect gold.
Huh?
Since the nature of Leprechauns are only found and described in books, and are not found in Nature, we cannot reason that they guard anything but gold, although it would not be against reason to suggest they hoard other valuables.
OK.
Also, we cannot go into the woods and demonstrate, or show, leprechauns and their wealth.
I see.
Such are the limitations of the discussions when dealing the topics that are only found in books.
Huh?
If we look at the world and attempt to explain what we see, would you suggest that a leprechaun created our visible world?
No, that’s silly, because Leprechauns don’t make worlds, they hoard gold.
Yes, that is true, as far as books are concerned. But books, by their nature, are limited tools of understanding. The mind, however, can reason, and books are not reason, nor are they a substitute for reason. Also, books may be in error, while using reason either keeps falsehoods at a comfortable distance or eliminates them.
OK.
Now, Denver, you may claim that the Great Leprechaun of the Universe created the world, and you may sincerely believe it, but if I ask for either evidence for your belief or a reasonable explanation for your belief, can you offer either?
No.
Then, I think you understand my meaning. Let us return to your initial inquiry about my opinion on gays.
Sure.
First, let me tell you a story about a man who once drank a great deal of adult beverages and passed out. Would you describe him as a drunk, in the continuing sense of the word, or describe him as being drunk, as in the past tense of the verb.
He was drunk?
If we were asked, “Is this man a drunk?”, how should we answer?
I’m not sure.
Is it possible that many times stories, or events that have been related, do not have enough information to form a definite conclusion?
Huh?
I mean from the limited story, we can not be certain if the gentleman was drunk once, or if he is a continuous drunk. Many times people expect conclusions from listeners when not enough information is provided to reach a conclusion.
I see.
And too often listeners provide conclusions that cannot be justified.
OK.
Would you reason that since this drunken episode happened only once, we cannot be certain if he is a drunk?
Yeah, we can’t be certain.
Denver, I agree with your conclusion, because of reason and the limited evidence.
Let us inquire: if the man in our example became sober and never drank again, would you say he was drunk, but now is not a drunk?
It would seem so.
Yes, it would, however, I suggest that we have an informal and inexact ways of speaking.
Huh?
I believe that people have given too many assumptions for the word “drunk”.
What do you mean?
Let me ask: are drunks drunk all the time or are drunks drunk some of the time?
Huh? All the time?
Alright, so when people say that I am a researcher does that mean I am only a researcher and nothing else while I am awake, or that research is an important aspect of my being.
You don’t research all the time, so I’d say it is only an aspect.
When you consider all of my waking hours, research should be described as a minor aspect, right?
Yeah.
So I am still a researcher, even if I don’t research during the course of an entire day?
Yes.
Am I still a researcher if I don’t write for a week?
Yes.
What if I don’t research for a year? Am I still considered a researcher?
That’s a hard question. I guess you’ve have to do it at least once a year to be considered a researcher.
Alright, we agree that one must do something at least once a year to be described by that activity. Of course, we have arbitrarily accepted one year for our definition. I would suggest that if one is always looking for interesting topics, and spends time looking for exciting subjects, then they have the mind of a researcher, regardless if they act on their research or not.
OK.
Denver, such is our way of speaking that it creates a great deal of uncertainty. Firstly, our uncertainty increases when we do not define terms, secondly, when we carelessly use words in the common manner of speaking and, thirdly, we don’t use reason.
Yes.
As I understand the world, there are facts that are found in books, facts that are derived from reason and opinions. Of course, most of the world consists of opinions.
Yes.
And these opinions can be either true or false?
Yes.
And we can only rely on reason to understand the true nature of our inquiries?
Yes.
And there is only one standard of reason?
I don’t understand.
The ability to reason correctly is a universal characteristic of the human condition; unlike extraordinary talents that Nature dispenses only to a few individuals.
I get it.
Yet, most people do not reason correctly and, in turn, reach faulty conclusions.
That’s true.
Let me suggest that anything, or any idea, that is not found in Nature is, by its unnaturalness, subject to opinions, whereas anything found in, or any idea derived from, Nature is not subject to opinions.
I don’t follow.
If we speak of a good pair of shoes, then everyone has their own opinions, since shoes are unnatural. Shoes may be described as good regarding their good fit, good price or good color. If we were to discuss justice or equality or any other human invention, we can never be certain that we correctly understand either the intention or the meaning of the word.
Yes.
Ultimately, Denver, opinions on any subject are open to change and opinions are not the preferred choice of topics for discussion. The order of preferred subjects is ideas first, then events and, finally, people.
But opinions aren’t on the list.
Exactly. The standards of correct reasoning are unchanging and are valuable; opinions are always open to the possibly of revision and are worthless. Therefore, Denver, can you tell me one indisputable fact regarding my, or anyone’s, opinions?
Opinions are worthless?
Yes.
But, what about the difference between informed opinions and uninformed opinions? Can we find the terms “informed” and uninformed” in Nature?
No.
Therefore, all opinions are...
...worthless.
conclusion
We remind the Gentle Reader that Platonic dialogues are often erroneously understood on the first reading, whereas subsequent readings tend to either clarify or bring to the reader's attention issues that were initially deemed to be trivial.
We hope that this attempt at flattery will challenge certain youths to use reason to guide their decisions and actions. We look forward to Denver’s progress: acquaintance, long term acquaintance, potential Apprentice, Apprentice, Occultist, and Great Occultist, but, of course, not the Greatest Occultist of the Twenty First Century.
We hope that this attempt at flattery will challenge certain youths to use reason to guide their decisions and actions. We look forward to Denver’s progress: acquaintance, long term acquaintance, potential Apprentice, Apprentice, Occultist, and Great Occultist, but, of course, not the Greatest Occultist of the Twenty First Century.