Living the Lesson: Preparing for TEDx Sioux Falls

It was a studio of some kind. Home to a musician and photographer. I was working through an early version of my presentation in front of a small, diverse group, most of whom were also chosen to give talks. The others all had great material and were well on their way to a finished product. I went last. About half way through, the looks on their faces and the feeling in the pit of my stomach were clear. “Try to draw in the listener.” “The talk needs to address a general audience.” Other useful but difficult to hear suggestions were given. I had a long way to go before I would be ready. I had delivered a philosophy paper for a conference. I did not present a TED talk. Well, I’m a philosophy professor. That I would offer a philosophy paper was predictable. I was going to need much help if I was to create something worthy of the TEDx Sioux Falls event. Of course, that was why we had gathered. Eight of us were chosen to give talks. This was our first practice session. The director of TEDx Sioux Falls and some past speakers joined us for support and guidance.

Ironically, to create a talk appropriate for the event, I needed to live the content of my talk. I ultimately entitled the talk, “A Philosopher’s Approach to Not Being an Idiot.” Maybe a better, more positive, title would have been something like, “The How and Why of Open-Mindedness.” My goal was to consider three principles that express our need as human beings to engage the perspectives of other human beings, especially those with viewpoints other than our own. I named my principles, perspectival realism, communal rationality, and analytic creativity. Remember, philosophy professor? I ended the talk with a personal example about predators and parasites that I thought tied the principles together. 

Perspectival realism tells us that there must be a reality outside ourselves even though we can only interact with that reality through our own interpretation of it. Because of external reality, a question will have better answers and worse answers. A problem will have better solutions and worse solutions. There will always be better interpretations and worse interpretations of a situation. Rationality requires that we adopt the best perspective – seek the best answers, the best solutions, the best interpretations. The “best” here must involve, at least in part, that which most correctly represents reality. After that first meeting, it was easy to see my perspective on this talk was not the best.

Communal rationality tells us that we can each only be as rational as our social surroundings allow us to be. Since we can only encounter the world through our own interpretation of it, our only chance of adopting the best, or at least a better, interpretation is through the checks and balances that come from openly interacting with other interpretations. So, I listened intently to what my co-presenters and coaches were saying. I watched past TED talks and asked for advice from friends and colleagues.

Analytic creativity reminds us that the ability to create is fundamentally analytic. God created out of nothing. Humans create by modifying what already exists. Doing this well requires a thorough knowledge of what is to be used, modified, reorganized, recreated. As I watched my co-presenters, asked my friends and colleagues advice, watched past TED talks, I stole their best ideas. Okay, I used their best ideas as inspiration. I shared versions of my talk, then edited and reedited the script based on the feedback. 

I decided to end the talk with a personal example. Over the past few years, I have become increasingly uncomfortable with contemporary discussions of predatory lending, predatory priests, predatory cops, and sexual predators. When I, and most people, think of a predator, we think of apex predators like lions and tigers. There is a mystique surrounding these splendid animals. When a person engages in sexual misconduct, for example, we should not liken him or her to the king of beasts. If we want to use ecological language, considering the perspectives of the victims would more fittingly focus on associations with parasites not predators. Instead of the allure of the predator, parasites elicit revulsion, and revulsion is the proper response to the behaviors we have heard so much about in recent years. The connotations of predator undermine the analytic creativity needed to find innovative solutions to social parasitism because it skews individual perspectives within a less than effective communal irrationality.

Waiting backstage for my turn to present, that feeling in the pit of my stomach was back. This time it was only the expected nerves that came before stepping onto a stage in front of 800 people. Now I can say it was only nerves. At the time, I thought I was going to die. But, I had a confidence grounded in my preparation that included expanding my perspective through interaction with others who knew my task better than I did and a creative process built on the great ideas others have offered before me. You decide how the talk went. 

About Dr. Paul Anders 

Dr. Anders holds the Sr. Wilma Lyle Chair in Philosophy at Mount Marty University. His research interests lie at the intersection of religion, science, and ethics. He has taught philosophy at the university level for over twenty years and is the author of numerous articles, book reviews, and conference papers.