by Napoleon Hill
Available in 122 free installments
Owner:
Let's start with a meeting of the minds. Now, fortunately, Dr. Fosdick was also an expert in the field of semantics. He knew from long experience that he could never really communicate with another person unless he understood exactly what that other person meant by the words he used. He also knew that it was necessary for the other person to comprehend his meaning. So instead of taking offense at the student's brash remark, Dr. Fosdick expressed a genuinely friendly interest in him and then asked, "Please describe to me the God you do not believe in."
The young man had to think, as everyone has to thick when he is asked a question that doesn't cause a reflex "yes" or "no" answer. Dr. Fosdick knew that the right question could sweep strong cobwebs of negative thinking out of the youth's mind.
After a little while the student began to try to describe the God he didn't believe in. In so doing he gave the minister a very clear picture of the God he rejected.
"Well," said Dr. Fosdick when the student had finished, "if that is the God you don't believe in, I don't believe in him either. So we are both atheists. Nevertheless," he continued, "we still have the
universe on our hands. What do you make of it ? its formation, its meaning?"
Before the young man left Dr. Fosdick, he discovered that he was not an atheist at all, but a very good theist. He did believe in God. Now Dr. Fosdick had not been thrown by the undefined use of a word. In this instance he helped sweep away the cobwebs of the young man's thinking by asking him questions. The simple, clear response as to what the young man didn't believe in was enough to allow a meeting of the minds. The second question directed the youth's thoughts into the proper channels. And it gave Dr. Fosdick an opportunity to explain his meaning of the universal God.
Frog legs taught him logic. As we have seen, the student reached two entirely different conclusions. Each was based on a different premise. Cobwebs will interfere with accurate thinking and cause you to reach a wrong conclusion when you start with a false premise. W. Clement Stone had an amusing experience with this which he describes as follows:
As a boy I enjoyed eating frog legs. One day at a restaurant I was served jumbo frog legs and didn't like them. Then and there I decided that I didn't like large frog legs.
Some years later I was at a quality restaurant in Louisville, Kentucky and saw frog legs on the menu. My conversation with the waiter was as follows:
"Are these small frog legs?"
"Yes sir!"
"Are you sure? I don't like the large ones.
"Yes sir!"
"If they're the small ones, that'll be fine for me." "Yes sir!"
When the waiter brought the entree, I saw that they were jumbo frog legs. I was irritated and said: "These aren't the small frog legs!"
"These are the smallest we could find, sir," the waiter responded.
Rather than be unpleasant I ate the frog legs. And I enjoyed them, so much that I wished they had been larger.
I learned a lesson in logic.
In analyzing the matter I realized that my conclusions about the merits of large and small frog legs had been based on the wrong premise. It wasn't the size of the frog legs that made them distasteful. It was the fact that the jumbo frog legs I had eaten the first time hadn't been fresh. I had associated my distaste for jumbo frog legs with size rather than with spoilage.
Now we see that cobwebs prevent accurate thinking when we start with the wrong premise. So many persons think inaccurately when they allow all-embracing word symbols to clutter up their minds with false premises. Such words or expressions as: always ? only ? never ? nothing ? every ? everyone ? no one ? can't ? impossible ? either... or ? are most frequently false premises. Consequently, when they are so used their logical conclusions are false.
Necessity plus PMA can motivate you to succeed. Now there is one word which, when used with PMA, motivates a person to honorable achievement. When used with NMA, it becomes the excuse for lies, deception, and fraud. Necessity is the word. Necessity is the mother of invention and the father of crime.
Inviolable standards of integrity are fundamental to all worthwhile achievement and are an integral part of PMA.
You will read many success stories throughout this book in which persons are motivated by necessity. And in each case you'll find that such persons achieved success without transgressing an inviolable standard of integrity. Lee Braxton is such a man.
