Aikin And Talisse's Analysis

We see in chapter one of Aikin and Talisse’s book that they state that there is reasoning behind humans and their arguments. They have based their conception off of Aristotle’s book called Politics; more specifically they based it from two of his more popular views of mankind, “Humans by nature are political creatures” and “Humans by nature desire to know”. They go on to elaborate on arguing and why it is such a vital necessity in everyone’s life. As the book progresses we get more into the importance of reasoning. When it comes to Aristotle’s theory on humans and the amount of interaction and dependability with others it sounds amazing and to an extent it is true. Talisse and Aikin go further and say that humans need others to need them as much as they need someone to depend on.

So I think that there are various exceptions to the rule, but they are right that co-dependence in life is necessary to some degree; we must be “properly human”. When it comes to the arguing and reasoning it is hard to grasp in context to the real life situations. On paper they have amazing ideas about our arguments as humans, but when it comes to real life I feel like a majority of humans do not meet the criteria that they have laid out. People do not always think rational or attempt to argue with sound logic. Obviously they have written this book to solve this problem, but it’s not enough to change some people’s minds. Too many factors stand in the way: upbringing, ego, stubbornness, intelligence, religion, and close-mindedness just to name a few. In conclusion I believe what they have written in the first chapter, but I do not believe in most people or their ability to change and apply these insights to their