"Well," said the mathematician, "if you're confining your question to the realm of whole numbers, the answer is 4."
"Very good," replied the chairman. "Please send in the philosopher."
The philosopher sits down, and the chairman asks him the same question: "What is 2 + 2?"
"Ah yes," said the philosopher, leaning back and scratching his chin. "Assuming an objective reality exists, then 2 + 2 ought to be 4."
"Very good," replied the chairman. "Please send in the lawyer."
Like the others, the lawyer walks in to the room and takes a seat. The chairman asks the lawyer the very same question: "Counselor, what is 2 + 2?"
The lawyer looks at the chairman, then at the other members of the board. He leans forward conspiratorially. "That depends," he says, raising an eyebrow. "What do you want it to be?"
* * *
Some say the hallmark of good lawyering is the ability to argue any side to any issue. Maybe in developing that skill, we lose touch with objective reality.
That is assuming, of course, that there is one. Without any clients, I'm just not sure.