POSTSCRIPT:
WAS MY CONVERSATION WITH NORMAN WORTH 80 MINUTES?
“Should I keep talking to Norman?” I asked myself after feeling like I was “beating my head against a wall” for a half hour. No matter how many questions and hard-to-swallow implications I could bring to the table, it seemed like nothing would help Norman see that we can know some things about both science and morality.
To make matters worse, since John was contemplative, he could barely get a word in edgewise. Every time he opened his mouth, Norman would cut in and interpret for him. “This is what John means, and that affirms what I just said a minute ago…” and then Norman would continue on. I would stop Norman and say, “No, I really want to hear what John thinks.” Every time I redirected things to John, though, he would say a few words, then pause, thinking things through. This gave Norman an opening to redirect things back to himself.
If the conversation with Norman hadn’t led to my conversation with John (described in this month’s letter), would it have been worth it? Listening to someone like Norman is worthwhile on its face, since he is a human being with intrinsic value, but this principle doesn’t tell me how much time I should spend with him. I have to consider what time I have available to spend and who else may need my time. Norman seemed completely close-minded, so perhaps I should have ended the conversation sooner. I realized, though, that the conversation was worth having — for John’s sake. Because Norman’s confidence might have misled John after our conversation, abandoning the conversation and leaving arguments unanswered might have harmed John.
In contrast to Norman, John seemed to have his common sense still intact. He thought some things were actually, in reality, wrong. He thought some things could be known to be true. He was open-minded, but he didn’t seem easily persuaded by either Norman or me. So my goal was simple: I sought to put Norman’s views and my views side by side so that John could see them clearly. For example, I pointed out that my view of knowledge took rape seriously as a real moral evil and took kindness seriously as a real moral good. Norman’s view of knowledge, on the other hand, could not take these things in any serious way to be real evils or goods. Making opposing views clear is a modest goal you can aim for in conversations you have this month as well.
