On Becoming a Leader: Warren G. Bennis

Warren Bennis is an American scholar, organizational consultant and author of a multitude of books. In this entry we will look at his book On Becoming a Leader and the section about personal habits. Bennis talks about freeing ourselves from habits and to become masters rather than slaves of our own lives, but I believe our habits are how we learn to become who we really are. Bennis states, that “we must first see and remember, and then forget” (p. 63). I agree with Bennis that we must first see and remember, but I disagree that he believes we must forget. It is the very reason that we learn certain things, whether they are true, false, or even absurd, that we become who we are today. However, it is important that we be aware of what we are retaining so that we don’t become victims to false details in the world.


Bennis talks about having to unlearn certain habits we have created in our lives. Is it true that it is necessary to unlearn things? We should not be so quick to say that we should actually have to unlearn things in our lives, but rather, we should learn further on certain things. For many children throughout their high school years there are several things, especially in history classes that may be over-looked that when they grow older they have learned about differently. I mention history because many teachers, and the text books used, portray America as the “winners” or the “rulers” of the world. While, on the other hand, in college, you learn about different arguments and hypotheses on the same topics. College, is a time to teach your mind how to work abstractly, to use it on your own, and not just regurgitate information back to one another. Bennis states that “every time we teach children something, rather than helping them learn, we keep them from inventing themselves” (p. 63). However, there must be a starting point for the children’s mind where he or she can expand from. This would be where Bennis would explain that “every great inventor or scientist has had to unlearn conventional wisdom in order to proceed with his or her work” (p. 63). It is understandable that if you learn something that has trained you to believe or work in a particular fashion, and later in life you learn it’s wrong or foolish, that you would have to learn the truthfulness of the matter, but what was originally taught should not necessarily be forgotten. Would it then not be foolish to not ask why one was taught such a false accusation? This could actually be an advantage for someone to use their mind in their own way to find the answer. However, we should not be accepting of everything we hear or everything we are taught. Bennis points out, the famous quote from Socrates, “The unexamined life is not worth living” (p 62). Every person has the ability to stretch their thinking abilities far and beyond what they are taught, and like I said before, there must be a starting point, even if it is feeding your mind unwise data. Something may spark, causing an interest, leading to further studying on the topic, where now the person is learning on his or her own.


Most people are raised not by a matter of choice, but how their parents bring them up. In many cases this results in cultural habits and beliefs, which may or may not be accurate to the actual purpose of traditions. Religion, for example, has been vastly morphed to better suit peoples lives. Most people may never realize the falseness in the beliefs the carry. However, some people, like myself, just happen to fall into a Religious Studies college course that opens their eyes to the Truth. With this, people may be led down a path of their own independent study, to ask their own questions, and to rationally find the answers. We would never say that we had to unlearn the things our teachers, parents, church leaders, or friends have taught us; we merely have continued to learn new things. If we do forget those things we were taught, then we would not be able to steer people away from those paths and show them that they may have become a believer of the typical, though false, ways of thought. However, Bennis does seem to agree with this idea as well when he states that “any gaps in your education can be filled, whatever your age or situation, by reading and thinking about what you read” (Bennis, 76). There is truth to that statement; however, it is unfortunate that many people in the world today don’t take the time to read, let alone to think about what they have read. The whole idea of our life is to learn, examine and grow. If we do not do these things, we become accustomed to believing the world’s lies, while battling the daily struggles of right and wrong. We cannot sit back and let others do the examining for us; we must all seek for knowledge by examining and rationally interpreting our experiences.

Right vs. Wrong: Why lie When you Know the Turth?

Determining whether an action is right or wrong is one of the more, if not the most, difficult decisions many humans will ever have to decide. Whether this decision is rationally thought through, or just the way someone feels because one way may be easier than the other, when a moral theory is applied to an action, sometimes feelings don’t always matter. Sometimes the easy things aren’t always the right things.

I want to take a look at right vs. wrong actions, specifically in lying and the truth. Immanuel Kant was an 18th-century German philosopher who is regarded as one of the most influential thinkers of modern Europe and of the late Enlightenment.

Kant has 3 arguments to deduce how to do the right thing. His reasons and principles emphasizes on the intentions of these actions. Kant states that people cannot always control the consequences to actions, but people can control their intentions. It is our obligation to have the intention to do the right thing. I will briefly explain his theory and the 3 arguments, but for a more detailed explanation I suggest you go to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

The first of Kant’s three formulas states that if you cannot make something a universal law, it is not the right thing to do. For example, a man cheating on his wife, according to Kant, it would never be possible to make adultery acceptable for everyone to do so it should never be done. A person would not say, I hope, that “you can cheat on me because I did it to you.” If something cannot be made a universal law, it is wrong.

Kant’s second formula says that you are to not use a person as a mere means to an end. This is because every human is a rational being who has dreams and goals just like any other person; henceforth, it would not be acceptable for another human to take that away from another.

His third formula is called The Kingdom of Ends. This means that your actions and intentions are a role model for all of humanity.

Using this theory, lets take a look at truth vs. lies.

When a person decides to create a lie rather then tell the truth they are then deciding what is their form of the truth. What we have come to understand, through the use of reason and general revelation, is that there can only be one truth. Why should this person who tells the lie be able to manipulate and deceive to other so they can better themselves? Because when we do tell a lie, what is the reason behind it? More often than not, it is because we have done something wrong and do not want to get caught for it. Are the consequences of telling the truth worse than morphing the truth? Where is it that we develop the right truth? For many people, as it should be, this is found from the teachings in the Bible. But if someone is a skeptic and chooses to not understand the Bible, where are they to find their parameters? There are many philosophical theories out there to help people figure out what is right and what is wrong. Kant’s, I believe, is one of the most difficult, and one of the strongest.

Say for example, someone is involved in car accident. The person, who was in the wrong, chooses that it is better for him or herself to drive off. What was, at the moment, thought to be their only option then turns into a dense web of lies. This person has now created their own form of the truth. What these people who lie don’t initially realize, is that one lie, no matter how minute, spirals into a negative change of life. The liars become the lie. Things become so complex that they must live the lie. Eventually resulting in a loss of what is rightfully true.

Kant would say, that hit and runs can never be made a universal law, and that this action is a mere means to an end, the liars end, and the liar could never be a good role model. Therefore, we shall never leave the scene of an accident.

Some say that when a lie is created to protect another person this is acceptable. However, let’s look at an argument of someone who has been kidnapped. Say the kidnapped person escapes and they are hiding in your home. Eventually, the kidnapper comes to your house asking if you’re hiding anyone; is it acceptable to lie and say you are not hiding anyone? If you think all forms of lying are wrong you would not lie to the kidnapper. However, does this mean you should say “yes, I’ve got your person right here in my closet!” There are ways to get around the question where you would still not be lying. Because consider that you told the kidnapper, “No, I’m not hiding anyone. There is no one in this house”, then the kidnapper would move along and continue to look for that person. But what if the person that was hiding left your house and was running down the street and the kidnapper found him after he left your home. Lying to the kidnapper still did not accomplish anything. Therefore, we can say that lying is never acceptable, even if you think it’s to protect someone.

Many people think Kant’s philosophies are too strict or too hard to follow, but in many cases, the easy things are usually the wrong things. Life wasn’t meant to be easy, people are meant to question, to ponder, to make mistakes; but in the end, learning and growing are the greatest things life offers. Through learning and growing, discovery takes place, discovering our inner selves, our true beliefs. Some things in life may be hard, but if people can get through those things by making the right decisions, what a great accomplishment to have gotten through something so difficult.

So whether someone believes in the teachings of the Bible or not, we should all be able to agree that lying, in the case of protecting yourself, and even others, is not the right choice. Lying creates false truths. Lying creates people who can no longer see right from wrong. They only see what is right for themselves. In the end, lying doesn’t result in helping anyone, even the liar.

Kuyper, Warfield, and Van Til

Abraham Kuijper generally known as Abraham Kuyper, was a Dutch politician, journalist, statesman and theologian. He founded the Anti-Revolutionary Party and was prime minister of the Netherlands between 1901 and 1905. Kuyper is well known for having started the discussion about "worldviews." He identifies people into two categories, the believers and non-believers. He argues that the non-believers are in a state of believing propositions that are false. He argues that both the believers and non-believers think they are doing what it takes to gain knowledge; however, according to Kuyper, these two people have two different basic principle views. These principles are not “common sense” and are not agreed upon by all humans. He states that because these two kinds of people have two different starting points, they in turn will have two different conclusions.

What are the implications for reason and common ground if worldviews are each based on starting points that are irreconcilable? According to Kuyper, he does not believe that there are two different kinds of logic; he argues that there is only one kind; therefore, the unbelievers are not following the “right reason.” This logic does not make the first principle in the same way reason would because logic can only manage once there is the application from which to make the conclusion. This means that the two worldviews are contradictory and that they both cannot be true and they both cannot be false. Since Kuyper uses logic for the starting point, these lead to different conclusions, therefore there can never be a common ground between these two worldviews (believers and non-believers).

Benjamin Warfield, the principal of Princeton Seminary from 1887 to 1921, also agrees that there are two different worldviews. While he believes that the Christian worldview is the only rationally correct view, Warfield argues that the unbeliever is inconsistent in believing what their basic belief is. The unbeliever claims to still be using reason, but reason must also be consistent, which the unbeliever fails to be. Since the unbeliever is not consistent, Warfield believes that there is one common reason that will lead to one common truth and worldview.

Cornelius Van Til, a Christian philosopher, Reformed theologian, and presuppositional apologist, argued that starting points (presuppositions) cannot be proven, they must be assumed without proof. He did not believe that this starting point leads a person to coming to have knowledge. Van Til instead argues that the interpretations of such assumptions are what lead people to have knowledge. The method Van Til used was called “presuppositional”. This is when the apologist will locate and challenge the first principle, which is a person’s most basic belief, on which the non-Christian view hinges. VanTil states that “To argue by presupposition is to indicate what are the epistemological and metaphysical principles that underline and control one’s method.” Does Van Til's position end in fideism? Is there any way out of this problem? It does seem as though his position ends in fideism, however, we need to understand that reason is to be used as the laws of all thought, not a presupposition precisely because reason is needed to establish any meaningful presupposition.

Van Til maintained that Adam and Eve had a direct, immediate, intuitive relationship with God before the Fall.

Does the temptation reveal that such a relationship is insufficient? How should Adam and Eve known God? If an intuitive relationship was insufficient then, what are the implications about knowing God now?

Although Adam and Eve were with God intuitively and immediately, this relationship appears to be insufficient because of the way they responded to the temptation. Van Til argues that fallen humans suppress what they know, in the sense of both knowing and trying not to know at the same time, resulting in the problem of desire. This means that a person knows that God is the source of all things good, but does not want the good. In knowing God, one knows that God is good; when someone fails to know this of God, they are failing to know God.