Professor: And is that important?

Tina: Yes.

Mark: It is- to her (Mark points at Tina).

Tina: It sure is- my scholarship is riding on that grade!

Professor: And why do you think there are scholarships for students to continue their education?

Tina: I guess so they can get a job.

Professor: And why does anyone care if you get a job?

Tina: No one really does, do they?

Professor: But you just said one reason for offering scholarships is so people can get jobs.  Is the entire society that works toward providing scholarships irrational, or do you think they have reasons for helping people get jobs?

Tina: I see where you’re going- people don’t do things for no reason, at least not rational people, so I suppose either Mark and Sue are irrational, or there is a reason they are arguing.  Look, I have to go!

Professor: OK Tina- we’ll continue next class (The two smile and wave good-bye).

Mark: See, Tina finds our discussion unimportant, but I like it, and you seem to find it important. So there are clearly people with different perspectives, and she is just as right as anyone else.

Professor: Let’s stick to the topic, Mark.  We can discuss perspectives later.  For now, we are discussing opinions.

Mark: I don’t see the difference- that’s just my opinion (he smirks)- and what I think is just as valid as anyone else’s opinion.

Professor: Well Mark, I want us to be clear. Let’s define perspective and see if it is the same as opinion, OK?

Mark: Well, whatever we decide, who is to say we are right? Maybe one means something to you but not the same thing to me.

Professor: Do you agree that if we did not have at least somewhat common ideas about words then we could not communicate?

Mark: (Chuckling) What do you mean by ‘communicate’? (Professor smiles and is about to speak … ) I’m just kidding, OK go ahead!

Professor: Let’s define perspective as ‘the way an individual apprehends an experience, conditioned by their senses, upbringing, education, etc.’

Mark: So you agree everyone sees things in a unique manner?

Professor: Perhaps, but my point relates more to opinions.

Mark: I don’t see how you can agree that people can see things differently but one of them you claim is more right.

 Professor: As for perspectives, Mark, I will agree that we all have unique apprehension of our surroundings.  Where I don’t agree with you is that all of our opinions based upon these unique perspectives are equally isomorphic with external reality, or that our reasoning processes flowing from our perspectives yields equally valid, accurate, or beneficial opinions.

Mark: Professor, can you translate that from professor-speak into English!

Professor: (Smiles) What I mean to say is that people may see colors differently; their bodies may interpret a loud person as aggressive or fun, based upon their childhood and other experiences, by producing either adrenaline or dopamine.

Mark: You’re making my case . . .

Professor: . . . However, it is not their apprehension that I am contesting.  Those apprehensions are simply their conditioned response to external stimuli. At that point, they may form their opinions. I am arguing that their opinions may be very good, or not so good.

Mark: But you just said that they might not have had full control over their upbringing and that they really do see things differently than other people!

Professor: Yes, they may see things differently, but I am arguing that they might not be right.

Sue: So Professor, are you saying that everyone can have different input from their environment because of their different senses and upbringing- like the child of an alcoholic or someone with PTSD might get jumpy at loud noises, while another person might be reminded of parties when they were kids and really enjoy loud noises?  So while both types of people hear the same noises, each type of person’s body reacts differently.

Mark: Again, I’ve been saying this and you two have been arguing with me.

Professor: Mark, and Sue, I agree that people apprehend, in this case the loud noises, differently. But once they form opinions, one person may be more right.

Mark: How so?

Sue: Let me see if I understand (Professor nods). Let’s say the person who was raised in an abusive home hears a loud noise and becomes jumpy. They may form the opinion that the source of the noise is detrimental. If the other person heard the noise they may assume the noise was a sign that someone was having fun.

Professor: More or less.

Mark: But each of their opinions makes perfect sense from their perspectives! You guys are killing me!

Professor: But whose opinion is better, and how would we know?

Mark: Each of their opinions is exactly right, to them! You just said so a minute ago!

Professor: What I said was that each of them was conditioned to apprehend their experiences in a manner unique to their upbringing. However, when they form opinions based upon their apprehension, and make claims on the external world- even if their logic is sound- they may be wrong.

Mark: That makes no sense at all. How can their logic be sound but you say they are wrong? Now you sound unreasonable to me. And that makes you unreasonable- to me.

Sue: So no one’s opinion is any better than yours?

Mark: Maybe there are better opinions, if you think there are, but who is to say whose is better? And everyone’s opinion is the best, to them, or they wouldn’t think it- right?

Sue: Are you kidding! When you hurt yourself, do you ask for your mechanic’s opinion or your doctor’s opinion about how to get well?

Mark: I go to my doctor, but she is not always right.  Once I told my mechanic about a sunburn I had and he gave me a great recommendation about how to make it feel better.  So my doctor’s opinion can be wrong, and my mechanic can be right.

Sue: Agreed, but who do you generally go to for medical advice?

Mark: My doctor, but I just told you, sometimes I ask someone who is not a doctor and they have good advice.

Sue: How do you know when an opinion is good?  How do you know whose opinion to choose?

Mark: I test them and pick the one that works best.

Sue: So there is a best?

Mark: Sure, to me.  But some other opinion may be best for you.

Sue: But you agree there is a best opinion for any one person, at any given time?

Mark: I don’t know- who is to say whose is best?  Like I just said, sometimes my doctor is wrong about medical stuff.

Sue: OK, but what is the goal of the medical profession?

Mark: I see where you’re going! Socrates went through this in chapter One of the Republic. Yes, I know, the goal of the medical profession, strictly speaking, is in the interest of the patient. But they are not always right.

Sue: What do you mean by “right”?

Mark: What I think is true.

Sue: Is what you think to be true, always true?

Mark: It is to me.

Sue: Have you ever been wrong about anything?

Mark: Sure, but when I thought it was true, it was.

Sue: So you think the truth changes?

Mark: Obviously! It changes all the time. First it was true that the earth was flat. Then it was true that it was round. Now with string theory, who knows what it is!

Sue: Whew! Where do I start?  When you say it was true that the earth was flat, then it was round, do you mean that is used to be flat but then changed shape?

Mark: Yes, to the people who thought it was flat, it was flat.  But when people thought it was round, it was round.

Sue: Are you kidding!

Professor: Now Sue, let’s stick to the method.  You’re doing fine.

Sue: OK. If an outside observer were looking at the earth from afar and heard some people claim the earth was flat, then some claim the earth was round, which people do you think the outside observer would agree with?

Mark: I don’t know.

Sue: You really don’t know?

Mark: OK, you want me to say the outside observer would agree with the ones who said the earth was round. But I really don’t know who he would agree with. And just because he shared an opinion with one of the two doesn’t prove that the minority opinion was wrong.

Sue: So you think someone could be wrong?

Mark: That’s not what I meant.

Sue: Then what did you mean?

Mark: Look, for the people who thought the earth was round, the earth was round. For the ones who thought the earth was flat, it was flat. The outside observer could have his own opinion.

Sue: And they are all true?

Mark: Yes, to them.

Sue: So what do you mean by the word “true”?

Mark: To me, “true” means my perspective on the world- the way I see it.

Sue: And you think everyone sees things differently?

Mark: Yes, clearly- look at us (laughs).

Sue: But do we all see everything completely different, or do you mean we have slightly different interpretations of what we see? For example, when you and I watch a car speed through a red light, it is true that one of us can assume the driver was being bad and dangerous, but the other might think the driver has an emergency and needed to get through the light fast.

Mark: Yeah- so they are not seeing the same thing.

Sue: Maybe they are not interpreting each thing the same, but one of them is right. Either the driver ran the light because there was an emergency and he needed to get through the light fast, or maybe he wasn’t paying attention because he was a bad driver.

Mark: You’re making my case for me again! You agree that both can see the same event but see it differently!

Sue: Yes, they see it differently; I’m not arguing that they don’t.  I am claiming that just because they see it a certain way doesn’t mean it is that way. 

Mark: Sure it is; the person who thought the driver was a bad driver lives in a world where there are bad drivers. The person who thought the driver was trying to fix an emergency lives in a world where people rise up and handle emergencies.

Sue: Really Mark, the world has both of those people, in our particular situation?

Mark: Yep.

Sue: How so?

Mark: We just discussed this, Sue.  To the person who saw a bad driver, the world has bad drivers. To the other one, the world has heroes.

Sue: And to an outside observer?

Mark: Here we go again.

Professor: Now we all agree that each of these people will make decisions in this world as if it contained the kind of people they think live here, like a bad driver or a hero.  But does that mean these people will be affected by bad drivers or heroes?

Sue: Only if bad drivers or heroes actually existed!

Mark: They do exist- the Professor just acknowledged that! For the one who sees bad drivers, bad drivers exist.  For the person who sees heroes, heroes exist.

Sue: So if I thought I saw aliens, then aliens exist- and don’t say “For you they do”!

Mark: Well, it would be true then.

Professor: In a few moments I want to discuss the bigger picture here, and why this conversation matters a great deal, even in practical terms. But for now I would like to pursue one issue and see if we can establish some common ground.

Mark: OK, let’s see if we can both say “Yes” or “No” to the same statement.

Sue: We’d still have to make sure we all agree on what the statements meant before our agreement or disagreement on them could be helpful.

Mark: At least we could agree to what we see as the meaning of the statement.

Professor: Sue, let me interject for a moment. Mark, do you think it would be possible to communicate if no one agreed upon any words at all?

Mark: We don’t always agree upon words, but we do manage to communicate.

Sue: But we have to agree on some words. At least we have to agree on some basic characteristics associated with words as they identify concepts.

Mark: Yes, but a word you and I agree relates to a concept may signal completely different concepts.

Sue: What do you mean?

Mark: Well, when I say I like the color blue, you might actually see a different color than me but call it blue, also.

Sue: So what?

Mark: So we might think we agree on a concept but really be talking about different things.

Professor: Mark, why would one person call a particular color blue but another person call a different color blue?

Mark: Lots of reasons. Not only would definitions not disappear, but here would be lots of them.

Sue: What do you mean by definition?

Mark: What someone thinks a word means.

Professor: OK, if everybody has different definitions of every word, do you think communication would be possible?

Mark: How can I know that? Maybe.

Sue: Here you go again- God!

Professor:  Mark, do you think there is such a thing as knowledge?

Mark: Sure.

Professor: Do you think there is such a thing as having knowledge?

Mark: Sure.

Professor: When someone claims they have knowledge, what do you think they mean.

Mark:  As I keep saying, I cannot know what they mean. But if you press me, I’d say they maintained that their thoughts were true.

Sue: True?

Mark: Yeah- you know what I mean.

Sue: I, know, what you mean?

Mark: Look, all I’m saying is that everyone sees things differently and who are we to claim that one perspective- I mean opinion- is best or right or true or knowledge, or whatever you want to argue?

Professor:  Do you think that two people may have different opinions about whether someone is a hero, or mean, or beautiful?

Mark: Obviously.

Professor: OK, do you think that these two opinions may be completely opposite?

Mark: What do you mean?

Professor: I mean, do you think one person could say someone is mean, but another person could say that they are not mean, but are in fact very nice?

Mark: Yes.

Sue: So Mark, you’re saying someone can be opposite things at the same time.

Mark: I said someone can be one thing to one person, and another thing- even the opposite- to someone else.

Sue: That doesn’t make any sense!

Mark: Oh yes it does- my grandmother was super nice to my sister, but really mean to me. She was both nice and mean.

Sue: That’s not at all what I am talking about. When you say she was nice to your sister, was she nice to your sister?

Mark: What? Of course, that’s why I said it.

Sue: And when you say she was mean to you, was she . . .

Mark: Yes!

Sue: So she was nice to your sister- a true statement- right?

Mark: To me, yes.

Sue: If there was a concrete definition of the word “nice” you are saying your grandmother fit it with respect to your sister?

Mark: According to some definitions, yes.

Professor: So Mark, you would agree that given a particular definition- whatever it may be- there are criteria that can be said to meet that definition, and there are criteria that will not meet it, and maybe criteria that partially meet it?

Mark: Sure, whatever.

Sue: But if your grandmother liked you, but you claimed she was being mean to you, don’t you think you could talk to her and maybe show her that you were interpreting her actions as being mean?

Mark: I’m sure she did think she was being nice- but I thought she was being mean.  So she was both being nice and being mean.

Sue: Mark, that doesn’t make sense. If she cared and wanted to be nice, but you took her actions to be mean, don’t you think she would want to know so maybe she could change?

Mark: This whole conversation doesn’t make any sense. We are arguing over things that don’t mean anything!

Sue: Why don’t you think our discussion means anything? We are trying to clarify a concept.

Mark: But who cares about this stuff- it isn’t practical!

Sue: It isn’t?

Professor: Mark, let’s pick a topic you find to be practical and see where we can go.

Mark: OK, how about the economy, or the war on terror.

Professor: OK, let’s pick one.

Mark: The war on terror.

Professor: OK, do you think the people who flew planes into the twin towers were terrorists or something else?

Mark: Most Americans thought of them as terrorists, but they thought they were freedom fighters.

Sue: So who was right?

Mark: They both were. We think the people who flew planes into the twin towers were terrorists, but they saw themselves as freedom fighters. So they were both terrorists, to us, and freedom fighters, to themselves.

Professor:  Mark, let’s consider your statement that those people who flew planes into the world trade center were both terrorists and freedom fighters.

Mark: OK.

Professor: Do you think the people who flew the planes considered themselves freedom fighters?

Mark: I don’t know- I guess so.

Professor: Do you think they considered themselves terrorists?

Mark: How should I know?

Sue: Come on, Mark.

Mark: OK, no, they probably only see themselves as freedom fighters.

Professor: So they didn’t think they were both freedom fighter and terrorists?

Mark: No.

Professor: How about most Americans? Do you think they thought those people were both freedom fighters and terrorists?

Mark: No, most Americans think they are terrorists, but I’m an American and I think they can be both. Some of them might even think they were using terror tactics in the cause of freedom, so they were both terrorists and freedom fighters.

Professor: OK, so you acknowledge they had specific ideas as to what each term means- good. Now, let me try another approach. Mark, do you think those people who flew planes into the twin towers have the same definitions of “terrorist” and “freedom fighter” as most Americans?

Mark: No! They defined themselves as freedom fighters but most Americans define them as terrorists (see Appendix B).

Professor: How do you think they think of themselves- that they are freedom fighters or terrorists?

Mark: How should I know?

Professor: Come on now, Mark, really- you don’t have any idea? You just said you thought they probably saw themselves as freedom fighters.

Mark: OK, they probably think of themselves as freedom fighters.

Professor: And how do you think they would define a freedom fighter?

Mark: I don’t know. But if I had to guess, they probably think a freedom fighter is someone who fights for freedom.

Professor: Do you think that they think their cause is honorable and righteous?

Mark: Sure, everyone thinks their cause is right. The people they fight against- us- also think we are right.

Professor: OK, so would you say that each side in this situation thinks they are honorable and right, while the other side is wrong?

Mark: Sure, which is why I said they are both freedom fighters to them, and terrorists to us. They are both at the same time.

Professor: How do you think Americans would define a freedom fighter? Do you think Americans think freedom fighters are honorable, while terrorists are not?

Mark: Yes.

Professor: And do you think the people who flew the planes into the twin towers think they are freedom fighters?

Mark: Yes.

Professor: And would you say that those people who flew the planes considered themselves honorable, while the people they attacked were not?

Mark: Yes.

Professor: So you agree that Americans think freedom fighters are right and honorable, and that those who flew the planes into the twin towers considered themselves freedom fighters and honorable. So Both Americans and those who flew planes into our buildings agree upon a definition of freedom fighter.

Mark: No, they defined themselves as freedom fighters, and Americans as guilty.

Professor: Maybe, but you agree that both Americans and these others consider freedom fighters to be right and honorable in their cause, even though both sides think they are the freedom fighters and thus right and honorable.

Mark: I guess so.

Professor: And how about a definition of terrorist- do you think Americans and those who flew the planes have the same, or similar, definitions of “terrorist”?

Mark: Why don’t you tell me- you seem to have all the answers.

Sue: Mark- why are you being defensive? All the professor is doing is asking you questions.

Mark: He’s being confusing, twisting my words.

Professor: Sorry, Mark.  Let me be more clear. Let’s consider the definition of “terrorist” for a moment. How do we Americans, generally speaking, define the concept?

Mark: I don’t know how everyone defines it- there are lots of definitions.

Professor: Do you think most Americans have an idea of what someone means when they use the word?

Mark: Maybe.

Professor: How do you think we should define the concept of a terrorist?

Mark: To me a terrorist is someone who uses terror to make a point or get what he wants.

Professor: Do you think the people the terrorists terrorize deserve the treatment?

Mark: I don’t know- who am I to say?

Professor: Would you call someone a terrorist if they defended an innocent person from being harmed?

Mark: Who am I to determine who is innocent?

Professor: That wasn’t my question. Let’s suppose you know for sure- or have a lot of evidence- that someone is innocent of the charges leveled at them by an attacker. Would you think the person defending the innocent person is a terrorist if they use force or scare the attacker?

Mark: Well I don’t know how you expect me to answer that since we can’t know who is innocent and who isn’t.

Professor: We can get to the definition of the concept of “innocent” later. But suppose we really did know.

Mark: Then I suppose you want me to say the defender is not a terrorist.

Professor: Mark, I don’t want to put words in your mouth. Tell me if you think a person who scares off the attacker of a truly innocent person fits the definition of a terrorist.

Mark: I suppose not, but I still don’t see how we can judge who is innocent.

Professor: Let’s see what we’ve established so far.

Sue: I can recap.

Professor: OK, Sue, what have we established?

Sue: We have all agreed- even Mark, reluctantly- that both Americans and those who attacked us have similar if not identical definitions of freedom fighter and terrorist. A freedom fighter is someone who fights for freedom against non-innocent people, and whose cause is righteous and honorable.

Mark: Yes, but both sides see themselves as freedom fighters!

Professor: Are they both right?

Mark: Yes- that’s what I’ve been trying to say!

Sue: Here we go again! Can’t you see that we can’t both be right?

Mark: But who is to decide? We are right, to us, and they are right, to them.

Sue: So how are we supposed to make good decisions? How do we know what the right thing to do is?

Mark: We do what we think is right, and they do what they think is right.

Sue: Arrggg!

Professor: Mark, do you think that any decision anyone makes will yield exactly the same results as any other possible decision that person could have made?

Mark: What?

Sue: Do you think about the consequences of your actions before you act?

Mark: Usually- it makes sense.

Sue: Why?

Mark: So I don’t do anything too stupid!

Sue: And what do you mean by stupid? Are you saying there are more desirable outcomes?

Mark: Sure- sometimes things happen that I didn’t want to happen but I was foolish and didn’t think the whole thing out before I acted.

Sue: So given a couple of options, you agree that one might be better than another.

Mark: Yep- to me.

Sue: OK, do you think that if another person knew what you wanted- say you told them- that another person could help you think through your decisions so you can get what you want?

Mark: How could anyone really know what I want?

Sue: Let’s say you wanted to get a certain job, but decided to wear jeans and a t-shirt to the interview. Suppose a friend of yours knew the company usually hired people who wore suits. Would you want to know this information?

Mark: Maybe they would pick me anyway. Besides, I don’t want to change for anyone so I’d say forget them.

Sue: But say this was a job you really did want, and they required that their potential employees dress like their employees- in suits.

Mark: Well, it’s not a hundred percent that they won’t hire me if I don’t wear a suit. I could be the first!  But I know what you want me to say, so yes, I would want to know that information so I could have a better chance of getting the job. So what?

Sue: So you agree that your individual, subjective goal can be objectively discernible and you could be wrong about the best way to obtain it?

Professor: Sue- very impressive!

Mark: Whoaa! You’re getting ahead of yourself! Just because I think something will work for me, or someone else thinks it will help me, doesn’t mean it will!

Sue: What if I said ‘to them it would help you’ but ‘to you it wouldn’t’?

Mark: What are you talking about?

Sue: In this case with the job and the company that requires suits- if you knew the company required suits, and that your chance of getting the job would be diminished if you didn’t wear one, you admit you would want to know that?

Mark: OK, and . . .

Sue: Well suppose another person said you don’t have to wear a suit because they didn’t know the policy and couldn’t imagine it were true since they thought very highly of your cool t-shirts. Would you admit they were wrong?

Mark: To me, maybe, but not to them.

Sue: So to them the company would hire you even without you wearing a suit; you’d have the same exact chances of getting hired?

Mark: Maybe.

Sue: In this case, would you wear the suit or not?

Mark: If I really wanted the job and I trusted the source of the information, I would wear the suit. But that doesn’t mean my friend who liked my t-shirts was wrong to himself.

Professor: What would you say about the advice from this friend who liked your t-shirts?

Mark: I’d say they were right to them, but the advice wasn’t good for me.

Professor: So could we call a decision “right” when it brings the most good?

Mark: You could.

Professor: What would you call a “right” decision?

Mark: There are a lot of definitions.

Sue: What is yours?

Mark: Why would it matter to anyone besides me?

Professor: So others could help you get what you want.

Sue: Ahh! Mark- what ‘ave ya got to say now?

Mark: I don’t know. I still think just because I think something is right for me doesn’t mean it is right for anyone else.

Professor: But you agree someone else could help you decide what is right for you?

Mark: Let me think about this- you are getting me all confused!

Sue: Professor- this method works!       

Mark: Let’s get back to the terrorists and freedom fighters.

Professor: Yes, let’s get back to the topic. If the people who attacked the twin towers thought they were freedom fighters, and most Americans thought they were terrorists, we have to figure out if their actions fit the definitions we agreed earlier are shared by both them and us.

Mark: I am not a hundred percent in agreement on that, but so far you seem to be dragging me along.

Sue: You are free to make up your own mind, but until you have a reasonable and coherent counter, let’s move along.

Mark: OK boss!

Professor: So, we defined a terrorist as one who promotes the use of terror against innocents for political gain.

Mark: Well, OK, but I really only said a terrorist uses terror to make a point or get something he wants.

Professor: Good enough; and the people who flew planes into America’s towers thought they were acting honorably by promoting an idea and defending themselves against what they perceived to be enemy combatants.

Mark: Yes, what they perceived . . . Are we going backwards?

Sue: No! We have already agreed that people perceive things differently. What is up for debate is their opinions that often follow from their perceptions.

Professor: Exactly.

Mark: But if their perspectives are different, which you both admit, then their opinions will be different! I just don’t know where you guys are going with this!

Sue: Where we are going, and I think I can speak for us both (Professor nods in agreement), is that even if their perspectives lead them to a particular opinion- even one that makes rational sense- this does not mean that the thing they think is right, is right.

Professor: Well said Sue!

Sue: Thanks Professor!

Mark: But how can you say that you know whatever they think is really right or not!  Who made you the judge of all things!

Professor: Well, we have rational minds and can evaluate evidence- both logical and empirical- no?

Mark: Sure, but other people might come to different conclusions based on their perspective.

Professor: Remember the friend who thought your t-shirts were fine for the job interview?

Mark: Yes.

Professor: Do you think his opinion, based on his perspective, was right, or good?

Mark: To him it was.

Professor: To you?

Mark: Well, I guess not if my goal was for me to get the job.

Sue: See Mark- regardless of what that person thought, the actual world did not work that way.

Mark: I get what you’re saying, but it isn’t always so obvious, and sometimes someone like him is right. I really might have gotten the job even if I wore a t-shirt.

Professor: Sure Mark, humans do have freewill. But think about healing your body, or trying to develop an airplane, or anything that is not a matter of human freewill. Will you concede that at least these things are incontrovertible?

Mark: Yes, and I don’t even know what that means. (They all smile)

Sue: Let’s for the moment concede that the physical world is not up for debate concerning outcomes, and try to figure out human concepts.

Mark: Sure. But people can have different opinions about either one.

Professor: This is a good time to delineate the difference between an opinion and a perspective.  We have defined ‘perspective’ as the way an individual apprehends an experience, conditioned by their senses, upbringing, education, etc. Correct?

Mark: Yes, that is what you (Sue: We!) … fine, we, said it was earlier.

Professor: OK, now we alluded to an opinion being a mental operation, often acting as a judgment, after we have had the experience of our perspectives.

Mark: What?

Sue: Yeah professor, can you say that again. I mean in another way?

***   You can continue this dialogue with your own discourse buddies!  ***