So why do these concepts matter? Adler believed that each idea would bring you face to face with the questions and issues that human beings have been wrestling with for centuries. He also believed that studying them would yield important connections between the concepts.
GOD: What is the prime reality? Does God exist? If so, what is He like? Is He personal or impersonal, infinite or finite, one or many? What relationship does God have to the cosmos, to human events, to people?
COSMOS: What is the nature of the external universe? Is it only matter, only spirit, or both? Is it basically orderly or chaotic? What causes events or changes in the world?
NATURE: What is the nature of humanity? Are human beings essentially personal or impersonal? Do people have control over their actions? What, if anything, is wrong with us? Is there a solution? What is it?
TRUTH: What is truth? What is the basis for human knowledge? How is it that we can know and know that we know?
GOODNESS: What is the basis for morality? Is morality the creation of an individual? Of society at large? Of a transcendent God? Is there an absolute good? Where is it found? When values come in conflict, how can the conflict be resolved?
BEAUTY: What is beauty? How should we evaluate what is fitting and appropriate?
TIME: What is the meaning of history? Does history have any meaning at all? Where did we come from? Where are we going?
Every trending topic and debated issue is infused with meaning by one or more of these concepts. Miss this and you'll struggle to make sense of the world. You’ll also find it nearly impossible to persuade people who don't already share your ground-floor assumptions.
Some examples:
Most political debates are really debates over authority, liberty, & responsibility.
Personal growth is deeply connected to concepts of agency, meaning, & desire.
Relational conflicts are complicated by conflicting concepts about change, responsibilities, & rights.
Of course, you'll also need to examine evidence: experience, testimony, and arguments. But the worldview you bring to that evidence is even more important. And it's largely shaped by how you understand these related concepts and how you resolve the tension between them.
You may think public discourse would improve if we just got beneath simplistic platitudes and trite tautologies and discussed real evidence and claims. But I think we’ll need to go deeper than that if we want to make progress.
To understand and persuade people with completely different beliefs and practices, you'll need to get to those ground-floor assumptions. What are the fundamental concepts that are driving those beliefs and practices? What worldview are they bringing to the discussion?