Thinking Critically?

I've had just about enough of your Vassar-bashing, young man!

 

Ref, you will understand that I'm biased, as a university professor. That being said, what we in academe usually mean by "critical thinking" is really not a sort of moral brainwashing.

I'm in physics, and believe it or not, even the brightest students arriving at college have to learn new modes of collecting the facts, fitting them with models, finding holes in their own arguments, modifying those arguments, and then stating summary conclusions. I don't think that sort of thing is automatic in intelligent people. Some are better than others, but critical thinking is really something that gets better with intense practice. I wouldn't even say I'm that good at it outside of physics, to be honest (particularly here on the BBS where I crack wise and type at full speed).

Overall, when I think of "critical thinking," what I think of most is the ability of someone to criticize their own thinking, or their own acceptance of unsupported, or unanalyzed positions.

By the way, there are many deeply spiritual academics, but "thinking critically" IMHO just means a deeper, more meaningful faith. Someone decides not to accept what another person tells them without reflection. After reflection and an honest look at the world, that person decides to believe in God, for instance. Isn't that a more meaningful faith than faith obtained from laziness, fear, or complete ignorance? Just a thought.

 

Let me take this moment to give a shout out to a good friend's club at Berkeley. These are good examples of critical thinkers:

http://fiatluxclub.berkeley.edu/fl_home.html

The philosophical questions are great for thinking critically. I think that what was meant at Vassar was simply to challenge pre-existing beliefs, explore the possibility of alternate solutions to problems, and developing a set of mental constructs with which to analyze problems. It is a way of developing thought processes that go beyond simply following instructions or obeying orders. It challenges you to adopt new ways of approaching problems. It forces you out of your comfort zone to ensure that you are continually progressing intellectually.

 

There is an old and anonymous (I think) academic bit that goes along the lines of: "it is ridiculous to think that one can learn anything in only four years. All that can be done is to teach how to learn."

I think I messed it up, but i think that is in a similar light as the Vassar thing.

 

These are merely my thoughts and my observations. What are yours?

Pretentious. She should have said that Vasser students go there and suffer fools like her just to get a leg up on the state school students.

 

“Critical thinking” is an interesting phrase that decodes quite differently for different people. I think for many it means deconstruction (in the broader sense used to describe elements of post-modernism) without any thought to reconstruction (in the post-post-modern sense, not the right-wing Christian meaning). This can be very frustrating indeed for those who are looking for practical answers or at least practical discussion. Others see it as B-Bob has described it. Some see it as the former and don’t even know the latter exists. But even Jacques Derrida co-authored a paper with Jurgen Habermas recently where significantly agreed with Habermas’ long held position, so I guess there’s hope for everybody.

(That ought to flush some of the post-modernists out of the woodwork. )

 

That's just your average crappy education at a tree hugging hippie feminist school.

 

All right maybe my comments were a little harsh.... but thinking critically is a step away from the liberal arts, in that the liberal arts focus more on primary texts whereas critical thinking institutes focus more on criticism and sources. Its like a watered down version of liberal arts, which I don't care if you are neo hippie or not, its good to read source texts and to learn to think from them rather than to do it off critical analysis.

 

twhy,

I don't really understand your position. What "source texts" are you talking about? Is this just in literature? I guess I don't get it at all.

I guess you are connecting critial thinking to critical theory? If that is the case, then I strongly disagree, as they are not the same thing. Thinking critically is a mindset (think Socratic method) and a way of reading/absorbing information in a scholarly, academic way. Critical theory is a movement, for lack of a better word and it certainly doesn't involve moving away from the text (if anything it has expanded the text). And, of course, both are components of liberal arts.

If I am too confused to be making sense, let me know. I could go on, but probably shouldn't.

 

No, I don't think thinking critically is a bad thing, its just that it has become the sole purpose in modern universities...i.e. they've strayed away from the source texts in literature, in philosophy, political philosophy...even economics, before reading Plato's account of a communist nation, or Aristotle's critique, or Adam Smith's Invisible hand... they jump right into budget analysis and global market strategies...


They can tell you more about 30 mediocre writers from the past 10 years then they can a whole cannon of Henry James or cervates... Its just a general trend in colleges to focus on only that one part of liberal arts, the thinking part, while ignoring the tradition that has taught them to think that way... I'm tired of running into kids from HArvard and Vassar who haven't read Jane Austen of Dickens past their experiences in high school, or even glanced at the Odyssey or the Illiad....

 

ack no edit, that was meant to say Jane Austen OR Dickens, not of, we'll get over it together though.

 

OK, I understand what you are saying now. I agree to an extent, but think that most of the problem has to do with the specialization and vocationalization (if it wasn't before it is a word now) of colleges. Kids simply don't have time to read literature or philosophy because it won't help them get a job in their one very limited field. It is not until grad school that you really read.

I also agree that postmodern discourse has hurt the canon of literature, etc. and that has often been the point (which is fine for a certain, established audience, but is not really for mass consumption). However, again, I don't really think that undergrads even get exposed to much of that, either.

Don't mind me, though, I think that business schools should be separated from university campuses.

 

Oh yeah thats the other major problem in education today. I work at a non profit dedicated to getting rid of specialization in colleges, right now that is my job to research the problems with American history programs... Its a shame, thats where kids should be learning to think critically...to educate their souls...

 

Remember I'm the one who actually knew who Tzara was...dadaadadadadada

 

Yeah, you are part of the 1% of the population that has heard of him, I guess.

Education on all levels in this country just makes me sad.

Oh yeah, Derrida is one of the greatest readers in modern intellectual history, grizzled. Never mind that he has done a bunch of other useless crap. His examination of texts (early in his career) is second to none.

Also, can someone tell me why historians are obsessed with Habermas? Practically everything that has been written either argues for, against, or "expands" Habermas (the minority being filled by Marx and Foucault). Let it go. I am exaggerating, of course. I just like to make fun of historians because they are conservative and behind the hip post postmodern times.

 

edit: forgot to add , though, twhy, do you know enough of Tzara to understand my sig? Not much of a test, but still...

 

Not completely no, I've never read Tzara's actual work...

Historians should be obsessed with Strauss if they want to learn how to read. That guy could read a philisophical text like none other, I don't always agree with his outside philosophy's (ok I do agree w/ a lot of them) But I love people who read the cover, the dedication, and the all other parts of the book as a contigual whole.

 

I’m sensing that you’re quite a bit ahead of me on this topic. (Which is cool because it’s kind of a new area of thinking for me and I’m interested in what you have to say on it.) So I’ll engage in some Communicative Action and tell you my reasoning with full knowledge that the information I base it on is not complete. My understanding is that people refer to Habermas a lot largely because he has taken a strong leadership position in responding to the postmodernists. Taking that crowd on will typically bring on a barrage of harsh criticism, which is, after all, the very specialty of the postmodernists. So people lean heavily on Habermas to use some his responses as a starting point.

I know that Habermas doesn’t call himself a post-postmodernist, saying instead that he is continuing the cause of the enlightenment, but he also still calls himself a Marxist even though the believes very strongly in capitalism and democracy. This is not a contradiction, as you and I and Twhy77 and many others here will know, but you don’t have to go very far down the ladder of awareness of Marx before the symbols of “Marxism” and “capitalism” start clashing mightily in people’s minds. I suspect that he’s taking a similar position with the term “Moderism.” I’m not aware of any coherent body of literature on post-postmodernism (if you know of one I’d be very interested in hearing about it) but IMO it would be useful for Habermas to use the term to more clearly denote the differences in his position from that of what is typically understood as Modernism. (Language can be a tricky thing, tricky, thing.)

On Derrida and other prominent postmodernists for a moment, I think there are some extremely valuable criticisms there that I do not want to dismiss. It’s just that when you tear down without proposing an improvement or an alternative you are left with incoherent pieces, scraps for the next generation to pick up and put together in a better way. (Yes, I know that many postmoderists would say that the whole point of what they are saying is that there are no metanarratives. But of course there simply are metanarratives in society and there have to be for it to function. Somebody is going to shape then and if the postmoderists and their segment of the population abdicate any responsibility in that area, that role will be filled by the people whose worldview comes from more of a legalistic or even mythic perspective. There is a reason why reason came to be so highly valued, and that reason still exists today. We just need to make reason more reasonable and responsive societal problems and issues. And this is largely what Habermas is about, in my understanding.)

Since twhy77 is here too I’ll point out that there are different kinds of “reason.” This ides goes back at least to Kant but Habermas and Wilber and others lean on it heavily as well. So, reason does not preclude spirituality as is often thought. Indeed acknowledgment of the different kinds reaches to embrace spirituality, in Wilber’s and my point of view at least (even though I think Wilber confuses consciousness and spirituality and doesn’t really understand spirituality, but that’s another discussion). The reason that relates to the “I” or the “aesthetic” would certainly include spirituality IMO (and probably Wilber’s, but perhaps not Habermas’.)

 

The above post was a response to rimbaud’s post, so the “you” in the first sentence is directed at him. (Darn lack of edit )