Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Critical Thinker Habitually Pulls Back the Curtain

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Critical Thinker Habitually Pulls Back the Curtain

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Critical Thinker Habitually Pulls Back the Curtain

I guess, for all of us, a meme that gives impetuous to much of our behavior is the "capitalism is good" meme. This meme, with its closest suburbs, probably represents a fundamental element of the dominant ideology of western culture.

This cluster of memes contains the wonderful "doing good by doing well" meme. This is the rascal that allows us to follow our imperialistic impulses. This meme allows us to invade Iraq under false pretenses, it allows us to open our borders to those who will work cheap, it allows for the "trickle down" economic theory, it allowed the Nineteenth Century imperialism practiced by our European cousins, etc.

Most of the memes we live by have never been examined by any of us. I suspect this one, in particular, needs to be placed on the table for close individual examination.

We saw the Nineteenth Century birth of a new economic entity, the corporation. A recent delivery of a new economic entity has occurred. This is the corporation-state. The new supranational corporation is here and on a fast freight. I suspect all these things happened too fast for a liberal democracy to encompass; so much for liberal democracy.

CT is about analyzing and understanding.

One thing I have learned about playing chess is that for almost every move there is a bad judgment a good judgment and a better judgment. And I also learned that one pays a price for each bad judgment.

In life we are constantly making judgments. There is an art and science for judgment making and it is called Critical Thinking. Our schools and colleges have prepared us to make good judgments about special matters as it might pertain to our job but have done little to prepare us for the constant judgment making. CT is about learning how to think.

@coberst phil,

The first ability of the CT is to accept criticism is not the builder of models..It is a destructive urge more than a desire for improvement.As a moaning old git, i should know..

@coberst phil,

Well I don't really have much to add to this. It is quite solid and there is no playing the devil's advocate for me. I would just have to say I like your idea of CT here. If we do not question our boundaries then how do we know there is an existing boundary at all? Furthermore, if you were a Nazi in 1942 it might have been in your best interested morally to inwardly criticize the actions of Hitler.... Razz

@coberst phil,

A good examination of critical thought (ala Bertrand Russell) can be found here

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

A good examination of critical thought (ala Bertrand Russell) can be found here

Excellent reference!

@coberst phil,

My problem is I do "critical thinking" too much - it's like I can't turn it off - I find myself analysing the daftest things in great detail, like whether to reach for the milk or the sugar first, etc, and have to force myself to just grab one LOL.

As for capitalism, I'm not really interested in it. I recently gave a company an idea that I know they'll make millions off of, because the thought of selling intellectual property is distasteful to me. Then again, judging by the wording of your post it seemed to be aimed at Americans, and maybe that is why I don't think the same. Granted most Englishmen could probably be described as capitalist and very similar to Americans, but then I've always been the odd one out Smile

@Stickman,

What I'm not getting here is why capitalism is contra-critical thinking. That is making an ethical claim from a non-ethical process. The capitalists making money etc... s/he thinks critically or s/he doesn't make money. Critical thinking has no goal, it is a process, the goal is provided by the thinker. If the thinker's goal is the betterment in some way of humanity maybe capitalism is not the way to go, but saying that a "successful" person wrapped up in capitalist culture does not think critically is simply not the case. S/he is simply not thinking with the same goals in mind that you might want her to have.

A problem I see quite frequently on this site is that people do not really know what rational thought is. Rational thought is thought that is internally logical given a certain set of axiomatic principles. What I see is people saying, "these are my axiomatic principles, if you don't agree with them you are irrational." It is a convenient way to slander people with whom your disagree but I think, in itself, it is somewhat ethically bankrupt.

@coberst phil,

(gah, you finally got me to post...)

In any event, I am trying to make sense of the original poster's comments; the arguments themselves and their coherence would finely illustrate GoshIsDead's point that Rationality and Critical Thought itself are self-contained and therefore only make sense to the either implied or explicated axioms set therein.

I do not know what the Original Poster refers to with 'judgment' - is he talking in a legalistic sense? Is he referring to the Kantian definition? It must be taken from within the cultural context of the rant itself to even make sense. Why does capitalism exclude judgment (Assuming we use the Kantian definition here)

The original poster also assumes that "Analyzing and Understanding" must preclude "Bad Judgement", to which I ask:
When looking at Critical Thought as a process, can we yet come to a stage where we can at all qualify judgment? Rather, we can only add qualities once we have established a definite goal, which is irrelevant to the particular act of "Critical Thought", as critical thought is just the process itself which is ideally isolated from its circumstances and axioms and treats them all generically and equally without adding bias to a certain attribute due to pre-judice (never mind that this absolutely never happens, but this is a different discussion).

Some responses in this thread have been statements of the respective poster's empathy with the original poster, and have all included other epithets which again only mirror the axioms upon which Critical Thinking may indeed operate, but never critical thinking itself. Ideally Crtitical Thinking is a mechanism and its goals are always defined (whether explicitly or implicitly) but they are never derived from the actual thought process, since in that case it would no longer be critical and would rather be speculative or sensory.

The real problem here is what our subjective and personally influenced notions tend to set aside as our ideals and goals for critical thought, and even given the same external axioms, there will always be a leakage of sorts or even an explicit impact in forms of analoguous or aphoristic notions which will conceptually and literally (depending on the case) actually influence critical thought. For the capitalist, it goes in terms of money and productivity, for the communist the goal is somewhat more scientific or ideologically based and therefore will lean towards a different implementation, but they are all standardized within the standard interface of critical thinking and the solution and stated goal set beforehand.

However critical thinking in general, that is, critical thinking with meta-goals, with ontological eschatology are by definition variant and clashing among cultures and even individuals (given that the solution or set of axioms is de-abstracted far enough into personal experience and far away enough from collective experience or Class-based discourse).

@coberst phil,

Coberst,

What exactly are you arguing? Try to be specific, summing up the issue you're raising in a few sentences (fewer the better).

Are you to say that this:

Quote:

We saw the Nineteenth Century birth of a new economic entity, the corporation. A recent delivery of a new economic entity has occurred. This is the corporation-state. The new supranational corporation is here and on a fast freight. I suspect all these things happened too fast for a liberal democracy to encompass; so much for liberal democracy.

didn't require critical thought? That's absurd.

In layman's terms, what Baal notes is: One can critically think for different reasons, goals. If you're somehow implying all whom follow a capitalistic society do not critically think, you couldn't be further from correct.

Let's be clear: Critical thinking is not about judgment making, at least not in any ethical sense; it's about impartiality. The process of critically thinking does not net your claim, or any claim; it's a weighing of all claims, an unbiased critical analysis. You come to the claims after the fact.

What it appears you've done it develop an ethical claim - that it's "wrong" to abide by a capitalist society - and then blamed it on the process of critical thought. Note that your ethical claims have nothing to do with lack of critical thought per se (and I say per se, because with further critical thought you could come to other insights, leading to ethical claims - this seems almost unavoidable). One can critically think their entire lives and not come to the ethical conclusion you have (if you actually are coming to an ethical conclusion; you never actually state your claim).

So, let's try to flesh out your proposition here: What exactly are you arguing?

@coberst phil,

I am arguing that Critical Thinkng is the art and science of good judgment.

CT is an acronym for Critical Thinking. Everybody considers themselves to be a critical thinker. That is why we need to differentiate among different levels of critical thinking.

Most people fall in the category that I call Reagan thinkers-trust but verify. Then there are those who have taken the basic college course taught by the philosophy dept that I call Logic 101. This is a credit course that teaches the basic principles of reasoning. Of course, a person need not take the college course and can learn the matter on their own effort, but I suspect few do that.

The third level I call CT (Critical Thinking). CT includes the knowledge of Logic 101 and also the knowledge that focuses upon the intellectual character and attitude of critical thinking. It includes knowledge regarding the ego and social centric forces that impede rational thinking.

Most decisions we have to make are judgment calls. A judgment call is made when we must make a decision when there is no "true" or "false" answers. When we make a judgment call our decision is bad, good, or better.

Many factors are involved: there are the available facts, assumptions, skills, knowledge, and especially personal experience and attitude. I think that the two most important elements in the mix are personal experience and attitude.

When we study math we learn how to use various algorithms to facilitate our skill in dealing with quantities. If we never studied math we could deal with quantity on a primary level but our quantifying ability would be minimal. Likewise with making judgments; if we study the art and science of good judgment we can make better decisions and if we never study the art and science of judgment our decision ability will remain minimal.

I am convinced that a fundamental problem we have in this country (USA) is that our citizens have never learned the art and science of good judgment. Before the recent introduction of CT into our schools and colleges our young people have been taught primarily what to think and not how to think. All of us graduated with insufficient comprehension of the knowledge, skills, and attitude necessary for the formulation of good judgment. The result of this inability to make good judgment is evident and is dangerous.

I am primarily interested in the judgment that adults exercise in regard to public issues. Of course, any improvement in judgment generally will affect both personal and community matters.

To put the matter into a nut shell:

Normal men and women can significantly improve their ability to make judgments.
CT is the domain of knowledge that delineates the knowledge, skills, and intellectual character demanded for good judgment.
CT has been introduced into our schools and colleges slowly in the last two or three decades.
Few of today's adults were ever taught CT.
I suspect that at least another two generations will pass before our society reaps significant rewards resulting from teaching CT to our children.
Can our democracy survive that long?
I think that every effort must be made to convince today's adults that they need to study and learn CT on their own. I am not suggesting that adults find a teacher but I am suggesting that adults become self-actualizing learners.
I am convinced that learning the art and science of Critical Thinking is an important step toward becoming a better citizen in today's democratic society.

@coberst phil,

Hey Coberst, well met

I share - and agree - on your statements of the importance and worth of Critical Thinking. I actually believe that were we to more embrace CT, many of our problems wouldn't be quite so large. I also agree to your sentiment of Capitalism - in a general sense.

But you've not shown how - as Gosh put it - CT and Capitalism don't mix. I'm not sure they do, truth be told, but I'd love to hear your reasoning: How is Capitalism representative of a non-CT mindset?

Thanks

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

Hey Coberst, well met

I share - and agree - on your statements of the importance and worth of Critical Thinking. I actually believe that were we to more embrace CT, many of our problems wouldn't be quite so large. I also agree to your sentiment of Capitalism - in a general sense.

But you've not shown how - as Gosh put it - CT and Capitalism don't mix. I'm not sure they do, truth be told, but I'd love to hear your reasoning: How is Capitalism representative of a non-CT mindset?

Thanks

I think that social theory becomes ideology when people lack Critical Thinking skills. Few Americans have been taught CT and as a result ideology is often encountered in the US. I suspect that capitalism is one of the dominant ideologies in the US.

CT teaches a person how to become critically self-conscious. A professor of philosophy once told me that philosophy is about radically critical self-consciousness. I would say that CT is philosophy lite.

@coberst phil,

Coberst,

I wonder if a more accurate meme that you are describing is the "growth is always good" meme rather than the "capitalism is good" meme that gives rise to our impetuous behavior. This idea that growth is always good came out of neoclassical economics during the 19th century around the time that the concept of modern corporations was born.

I do not think that capitalism is necessarily a bad thing, but instead the model of capitalism that neoclassical economics promotes is severely flawed. It ignores to many consequences for its own good, and as we can now see as a result, it ends up undermining itself.

@coberst phil,

coberst wrote:

I think that social theory becomes ideology when people lack Critical Thinking skills. Few Americans have been taught CT and as a result ideology is often encountered in the US. I suspect that capitalism is one of the dominant ideologies in the US.

CT teaches a person how to become critically self-conscious. A professor of philosophy once told me that philosophy is about radically critical self-consciousness. I would say that CT is philosophy lite.

Ideology, in general, is what you're contesting?

Critical thinking does not replace ideology, and I haven't a clue how you've come to this conclusion. Every culture has some some identifiable "comprehensive vision", ideology, with which all participants of that society are aware or can be aware of (participation is not always necessary). Americans who critically think will not find themselves castrated from society (that is, they aren't removed from any capitalistic components of said society), and becoming "self-conscious" will not necessarily remove any political or social ideologies. Capitalism could easily exist in a society of critical thinkers - remember, we are not applying any ethical propositions, so whether you think Capitalism is "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant.

But let's get to the crux of your argument:

A.) X doesn't critically think.
B.) If someone doesn't critically think, ideology exists.
C.) Therefore, ideology exists because X doesn't critically think.

First, I'd like you to explain why you've attached a negative connotation to all "ideology", and more importantly, how you believe "ideology" can be removed completely from society (presumably, in your eyes, this would be a society composed of only critical thinkers)?

Next, I'd like you to explain premise B.) - How does ideology logically follow from a lack of critical thought? Is it impossible that an ideology follow from critical thought? I think not. Remember we've noted previously: One can critically think for different reasons, goals. These reasons and goals, after the process of critically thinking, could lead to an ideology. Even with the definition of critical thought you provided, "radically critical self-consciousness", one could still be a capitalistic. Is a self-conscious capitalistic impossible?

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

Coberst,

I wonder if a more accurate meme that you are describing is the "growth is always good" meme rather than the "capitalism is good" meme that gives rise to our impetuous behavior. This idea that growth is always good came out of neoclassical economics during the 19th century around the time that the concept of modern corporations was born.

I do not think that capitalism is necessarily a bad thing, but instead the model of capitalism that neoclassical economics promotes is severely flawed. It ignores to many consequences for its own good, and as we can now see as a result, it ends up undermining itself.

You make a very good pont, But is it not the case that captalism demands constant growth? Obviously the logic of constant growth is the consumption of the planet.

---------- Post added at 05:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:14 AM ----------

Zetherin

First, what is CT (Critical Thinking)?

CT is the art and science of good judgment, CT is the study of the self, i.e. "know thyself", the structuring of character, the development of a healthy attitude. I would say that CT is philosophy lite. Philosophy is a radically critical self-consciousness and CT is critical self-consciousness.

Ideology is a veil of self interest and often group psychology that inhibits a clear undistorted view of reality.

Without a clear view of reality unhindered by self interest and group psychology social theory morphs into ideology.

@coberst phil,

coberst wrote:

First, what is CT (Critical Thinking)?

CT is the art and science of good judgment, CT is the study of the self, i.e. "know thyself", the structuring of character, the development of a healthy attitude. I would say that CT is philosophy lite. Philosophy is a radically critical self-consciousness and CT is critical self-consciousness.

Ideology is a veil of self interest and often group psychology that inhibits a clear undistorted view of reality.

Without a clear view of reality unhindered by self interest and group psychology social theory morphs into ideology.

The underlying issue people are having with this defenition of critical thinking is that you have imbued it with a preconcieved ethical stance. In the defenition provided above you qualify CT as "good Judgement". Good for whom? Good for the environment, good for the individual, good for society? Good how?, is it logically sound? is it fiscally sound, is it morally sound? what exactly is good?

To be critical of one's self one must possess an ideological base from which to form a critique. A person cannot all of the sudden become a blank slate and critique. One first must have a pool of experience to critique, which is in istelf a sort of ideology, then one must also have a pool of ideas from which the critque stems, which is also an ideology or at the very least fromed from an ideology. To use the CT process/method with no ideological base and goal must by its own process become a tautology of most mastubatory type it comes from nothing and can only end with nothing over and over again, in other words it only serves to fortify opinions of what is already there.

The next underlying problem is that if CT done right will lead to the betterment of anything, an axiomatic assumption of the "real" has already been made. If ideology has clouded the real but CT will break through the ideology to the real, you have already assumed what the real will be before the CT is employed as a method, especially since you have defined CT as the art of good judgement, because you have already defined Good, which goes back to everyone's original objection that a method is not theory, a method cannot be theory. A method necessarily has an axiomatic base and most often needs ideological guidance to use.

@Stickman,

Stickman wrote:

My problem is I do "critical thinking" too much - it's like I can't turn it off - I find myself analysing the daftest things in great detail, like whether to reach for the milk or the sugar first, etc, and have to force myself to just grab one LOL.

But trying to maximize your efficiency in everthing is an usefull art! I usually try to make all food-types on my plate end at the same time during lunch, while eating then at a somewhat constant rate Smile

coberst wrote:

CT is an acronym for Critical Thinking. Everybody considers themselves to be a critical thinker. That is why we need to differentiate among different levels of critical thinking.

I doubt you will ever be able to convince someone of that they are in an inferior level of critical thinking, and due to this such distinction is mostly useless. Also, we cannot know how the mind of someone else trully works.

coberst wrote:

Most people fall in the category that I call Reagan thinkers-trust but verify. Then there are those who have taken the basic college course taught by the philosophy dept that I call Logic 101. This is a credit course that teaches the basic principles of reasoning. Of course, a person need not take the college course and can learn the matter on their own effort, but I suspect few do that.

The third level I call CT (Critical Thinking). CT includes the knowledge of Logic 101 and also the knowledge that focuses upon the intellectual character and attitude of critical thinking. It includes knowledge regarding the ego and social centric forces that impede rational thinking.

I didnt understand anything of this, please give some examples

coberst wrote:

Most decisions we have to make are judgment calls. A judgment call is made when we must make a decision when there is no "true" or "false" answers. When we make a judgment call our decision is bad, good, or better.

Many factors are involved: there are the available facts, assumptions, skills, knowledge, and especially personal experience and attitude. I think that the two most important elements in the mix are personal experience and attitude.

When we study math we learn how to use various algorithms to facilitate our skill in dealing with quantities. If we never studied math we could deal with quantity on a primary level but our quantifying ability would be minimal. Likewise with making judgments; if we study the art and science of good judgment we can make better decisions and if we never study the art and science of judgment our decision ability will remain minimal.

Math is objective, we can learn how to deal with numbers by ourselves or we can learn it from somewhere else, what we learn is objective so we can be sure it is correct or incorrect. But methods on how to think are something that we can doubt off, both the ones we are taugh and the ones we make up for ourselves.

CT as I understand it is not something that can be taugh, only encouraged.

@manored,

I don't know if anyone has addressed this yet, but I have also noticed the original person refer to Critical Thinking as Art, and I am trying to understand what exactly he means by this:

Is Critical Thinking an Aesthetic? and if so, does it really then become some kind of fundamental principle in any society? If this is an aesthetic then it must appeal to some people while not be appealing to others, and furthermore because it is merely an Art (before we begin to indulge into the contents or demonstrations of this Art), it does not have any universal imperative whatsoever. In other words, Critical Thinking, as the original poster describes it, is not an Universal Absolute and is not something which is necessitated in any way whatsoever, but it is rather an additive, a perspective and almost a form of indulgence and reflection; it is something which forms a metadiscourse upon that which is not Critical Thinking, and thus Critical Thinking has no beginning and no end, but merely an end in itself; it edifies itself in the mind as reflection begins upon the mundane and then spits out what it has been fed in an ordered and artistic fashion.

In such a manner, Critical Thought contains truly only that which is thought about, and only that of which is Critical about the preliminaries of this thought. Even critical thought qua process, when presented with content and not in its purely formal and abstract form, that is, even when it is presented with seemingly neutral objects, assumes a form and an aesthetic about neutrality and thus becomes the anti-environment and the anti-Art, while becoming an art in itself; hence the Art and Meaning of the world around is juxtaposed upon that which is Non-World and Non-Experience, or Non-Prejudice. In simpler terms, that 'Neutral' Critical Thought is an aesthetic in itself; while neither being capitalist nor communist, while being devoid of ideology altogether, still idealizes that which it takes as its environs, and then ideo-logizes (Logos) the environment as a formalism, as an aesthetic within itself.

Thus when we say critical thinking, we exclude the possibility of art inherently; and I say only inherently because exherently there is the possibility of critical thought pertaining to art, if something artistic is indeed the goal here, but to call something as both an Art and as something which is Asbolute and Universal seems contradictory.

@Baal,

I thought i new what it meant till i read this thread now im totally confused..So ill reconfirm, it is the non dogmatic view we must always maintain in the search for truth.Never ever take the accepted attitudes as an absolute, always be open minded..Am i wrong?

@xris,

xris wrote:

I thought i new what it meant till i read this thread now im totally confused..So ill reconfirm, it is the non dogmatic view we must always maintain in the search for truth.Never ever take the accepted attitudes as an absolute, always be open minded..Am i wrong?

No, I don't think you're off really. I poked around a bit and found a good definition here (emphasis mine):[INDENT]"People who think critically consistently attempt to live rationally, reasonably, empathically. They are keenly aware of the inherently flawed nature of human thinking when left unchecked. They strive to diminish the power of their egocentric and sociocentric tendencies. They use the intellectual tools that critical thinking offers - concepts and principles that enable them to analyze, assess, and improve thinking. They work diligently to develop the intellectual virtues of intellectual integrity, intellectual humility, intellectual civility, intellectual empathy, intellectual sense of justice and confidence in reason. They realize that no matter how skilled they are as thinkers, they can always improve their reasoning abilities.. ...They strive never to think simplistically about complicated issues and always to consider the rights and needs of relevant others. They recognize the complexities in developing as thinkers, and commit themselves to life-long practice toward self-improvement..." -Linda Elder, from Critical Thinking.org
[/INDENT]A key part of what defines the critical thinker is the ability to "self criticize" in order to get to a 'cleaner' sense of the truth. For many, the ego prevents us from being able to see what's 'truer' or 'better' because we're too busy - too ready - to defend our own views. The Critical Thinker realizes their flaws and does their best to analyze their own thoughts, their own notions of right, wrong, truth, justice. I fear most people are far too narcissistic, egocentric and insecure to admit the possibility that something they think or believe could be wrong. The critical thinker, inside their own head and in their exchanges uses humility to squash the ego that prevents learning.

But yea we're kind of all over the place in this discussion. Critical thinking is obviously one topic we're discussing while some connection of the lack of CT to capitalism is another.

Baal wrote:

I don't know if anyone has addressed this yet, but I have also noticed the original person refer to Critical Thinking as Art, and I am trying to understand what exactly he means by this

Agree... I wouldn't see it as an art but I understand how someone else could. If we look at it as a process of examination that has a flow of thought - examination and analysis of those ideas - the process by which this is done by the thinker could, imho, be considered an 'art' of sorts.

coberst wrote:

I think that social theory becomes ideology when people lack Critical Thinking skills. Few Americans have been taught CT and as a result ideology is often encountered in the US.

Yes, I think this is true too - but no more or less than any other country, really. In my travels I do sense that americans are very egotistical, as compared to other nationalities, but this is by no means absolute. Everyone could benefit from being a little more critical of their own closely-held biases.

coberst wrote:

I suspect that capitalism is one of the dominant ideologies in the US.

Yep - I think that's common knowledge. But there's still no connection; at least no more of a connection than perhaps, Critical Thinking and Soft Drink Selection or Critical Thinking and Religion. The point I'm making is that CT could be used in *any* decision or analysis.

I sense your point is that '... capitalism is bad and one of the 'reasons we swallow it' is due to our lack of CT'. Is this where you're going?

Thanks

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Critical Thinker Habitually Pulls Back the Curtain

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Critical Thinker Habitually Pulls Back the Curtain

Quick Links

My Account

able2know