One of my early graduate professors had a favorite saying about amateur philosophers.  The difference between a drunk in a bar with an opinion and a true scholar was the ability to publish a quality book. Mr. Truant seems to prove that point all too well.  In fact, by the end of page two, I could tell that somehow I had been cornered by the know-it-all drunk and had no way to escape until last call.

Thankfully, the "book" is short (I've seen brochures for motorcycles that had more words) and the reading level reached in this book hovers somewhere around junior high locker-room. The author attempts to be funny and give us another "common man's" version on the meaning of life. In a way, that is the real good of this book.  It is a great way to see that an opinion is really worthless unless you can back it up with some truth.  To simply make the statement is not enoug, according to George W. F. Hegel, a German Philosopher who tended to write books a bit longer than 11 pages.

According to Hegel, there is a triad approach to finding truth about any statement or belief (within philosophy of this type, at least). The first step is performed here by M. Truant, and that step is to make a statement or create the thesis.

 what Socrates would call establishing the thesis is an intellectual proposition.  For this book, let's take out "intellectual" and simply say that is an unsubstantiated statement of alleged fact, which must now be proven to be true. That is where the second leg of the triad comes into play.  It the antithesis, and according to Hegel is simply a negation (opposite statement) of the original thesis.  Others say that the antithesis is a reaction to the thesis.  In these simple approaches we can how the first two steps work.

Let's take the broad statement that the "universe doesn't give a flying ..." [insert you own intellectual equator here] "... about you."  For this to be true (the thesis) then the antithesis might be as easy as to say that the universe does give a lot more than a flying anything about you.  In this approach, we might say that for "A" to be true (that the universe doesn't care about you) then would -- by consequence of the truth of the thesis - be no antithesis. Unfortunately, most of our statements about the universe, life, and even ourselves do not have absolute truth.  So we have to examine it, which is know as the synthesis.

Socrates gave us a great line for this action.  He said, "A life unexamined is not worth living."  In that way, we can at least say that Mr. Truant has tried to make an examination; he simply didn't have the tools to reach an absolute truth. So let's take a small chance that this critique will actually fill more space that the books does and look at the concept of the synthesis.

The synthesis seeks to solve the common conflicts between the thesis and antithesis.  Let's stay with Mr. Truant's statement of truth.  It is is true (A) then there is no antithesis (B), and for that reason there is no reason to conduct an evaluation further; therefore, there is no (C).  We have reached the truth. But remember, the truth also requires truth so that others can see it and recreate it.  That is the common test in academia.  You make the statement/thesis, give the arguments (antithesis), work through the conflicts (synthesis) and do this until you've reach a conclusion.

Let's try another one.  All young people commit crimes.  This is an overly broad statement, as most will recognize right away, and therefore falls simply because of the fallacy of breadth.  Since we can't account for everyone then we have a problem.  This initial thesis will fall apart simple because the antithesis is that we have not sufficiently accounted for everyone.  We can't do that, sincere there are more than 330 million souls just in the U.S.  What we can do, though, is try to find the number of people we must interview or survey that will give us a valid number of a smaller number known as the sample. This is one reason that so many researchers use quantitative methods for testing their hypothesis.

My Truant does not of that here. My suspicion is while he has a strong, and maybe valid opinion, he has no way to actually prove his truth.  What he -- and all those that write in support -- are happy with is simple anecdotal evidence and the fallacy of numbers.  If I can get enough people to agree with me then I must be true. The dangerous part of this approach is that it often leads, in a social or philosophical argument, to less than -half-truths, but becuase the maker or the statement knows his or her audience, the thesis is never tested except to get enough people to agree and then win by sheer numbers ... not absolute truth.

I know I've spent more time writing my review than in reading the whole book.  That should tell you a lot. Funny thing is, that if you've got by the new Read club program you can get more than 10,000 books written by much smarter people than either Mr. Truant or myself.  In fact, I just finished "Summa Theologica" (for free) written by St Thomas Acquinas, and while he used a lot more than 11 pages, his work was substantially more appropriate in proving the belief about the universe.  Of course, you probably shouldn't read Acquinas while drunk, let's same Mr. Truant's book for that moment. ; - )
One of my early graduate professors had a favorite saying about amateur philosophers. The difference between a drunk in a bar with an opinion and a true scholar was the ability to publish a quality book. Mr. Truant seems to prove that point all too well. In fact, by the end of page two, I could tell that somehow I had been cornered by the know-it-all drunk and had no way to escape until last call. Thankfully, the "book" is short (I've seen brochures for motorcycles that had more words) and the reading level reached in this book hovers somewhere around junior high locker-room. The author attempts to be funny and give us another "common man's" version on the meaning of life. In a way, that is the real good of this book. It is a great way to see that an opinion is really worthless unless you can back it up with some truth. To simply make the statement is not enoug, according to George W. F. Hegel, a German Philosopher who tended to write books a bit longer than 11 pages. According to Hegel, there is a triad approach to finding truth about any statement or belief (within philosophy of this type, at least). The first step is performed here by M. Truant, and that step is to make a statement or create the thesis. what Socrates would call establishing the thesis is an intellectual proposition. For this book, let's take out "intellectual" and simply say that is an unsubstantiated statement of alleged fact, which must now be proven to be true. That is where the second leg of the triad comes into play. It the antithesis, and according to Hegel is simply a negation (opposite statement) of the original thesis. Others say that the antithesis is a reaction to the thesis. In these simple approaches we can how the first two steps work. Let's take the broad statement that the "universe doesn't give a flying... " [insert you own intellectual equator here] "... about you. "  For this to be true (the thesis) then the antithesis might be as easy as to say that the universe does give a lot more than a flying anything about you. In this approach, we might say that for "A" to be true (that the universe doesn't care about you) then would -- by consequence of the truth of the thesis - be no antithesis. Unfortunately, most of our statements about the universe, life, and even ourselves do not have absolute truth. So we have to examine it, which is know as the synthesis. Socrates gave us a great line for this action. He said, "A life unexamined is not worth living. "  In that way, we can at least say that Mr. Truant has tried to make an examination; he simply didn't have the tools to reach an absolute truth. So let's take a small chance that this critique will actually fill more space that the books does and look at the concept of the synthesis. The synthesis seeks to solve the common conflicts between the thesis and antithesis. Let's stay with Mr. Truant's statement of truth. It is is true (A) then there is no antithesis (B), and for that reason there is no reason to conduct an evaluation further; therefore, there is no (C). We have reached the truth. But remember, the truth also requires truth so that others can see it and recreate it. That is the common test in academia. You make the statement/thesis, give the arguments (antithesis), work through the conflicts (synthesis) and do this until you've reach a conclusion. Let's try another one. All young people commit crimes. This is an overly broad statement, as most will recognize right away, and therefore falls simply because of the fallacy of breadth. Since we can't account for everyone then we have a problem. This initial thesis will fall apart simple because the antithesis is that we have not sufficiently accounted for everyone. We can't do that, sincere there are more than 330 million souls just in the U. S.  What we can do, though, is try to find the number of people we must interview or survey that will give us a valid number of a smaller number known as the sample. This is one reason that so many researchers use quantitative methods for testing their hypothesis. My Truant does not of that here. My suspicion is while he has a strong, and maybe valid opinion, he has no way to actually prove his truth. What he -- and all those that write in support -- are happy with is simple anecdotal evidence and the fallacy of numbers. If I can get enough people to agree with me then I must be true. The dangerous part of this approach is that it often leads, in a social or philosophical argument, to less than -half-truths, but becuase the maker or the statement knows his or her audience, the thesis is never tested except to get enough people to agree and then win by sheer numbers... not absolute truth. I know I've spent more time writing my review than in reading the whole book. That should tell you a lot. Funny thing is, that if you've got by the new Read club program you can get more than 10,000 books written by much smarter people than either Mr. Truant or myself. In fact, I just finished "Summa Theologica" (for free) written by St Thomas Acquinas, and while he used a lot more than 11 pages, his work was substantially more appropriate in proving the belief about the universe. Of course, you probably shouldn't read Acquinas while drunk, let's same Mr. Truant's book for that moment. ; - )