The Misuses of "Criticism"

I don't have very much to add to any of this ... :dry:

It is rather sad (to me) that we really only have college-level books - or any other discourse - on critical thinking. It does not seem wholly impractical - and could very well show itself to be, in fact highly practical - to introduce some instruction in critical thinking skills to children of 8 or 9 years, and then for the remainder of their formal education thereafter. It would be nice to see education in philosophy come back to its more practical employ - that of helping us to live better by addressing the big questions we all have and probably always will - and less devoted to trivial academic minutiae that no one gives a f**k about, written into a 100 page thesis or not.

I'm done bitching now .... :blush:

Most of my professors during my recent return to graduate school were all about the minutia. When I questioned this, some admitted that they had forgotten that the purpose and goal of philosophy is happiness. As a college professor (and Jedi Knight) I believe the skill set of critical thinking is intended to assist the learner in practicing the virtues in order to live more happily.

Alan wrote: Most of my professors during my recent return to graduate school were all about the minutia. When I questioned this, some admitted that they had forgotten that the purpose and goal of philosophy is happiness. As a college professor (and Jedi Knight) I believe the skill set of critical thinking is intended to assist the learner in practicing the virtues in order to live more happily.

I actually prefer that professors stick the the minutia...

“A game master or teacher who was primarily concerned with being close enough to the "innermost meaning" would be a very bad teacher. To be candid, I myself, for example, have never in my life said a word to my pupils about the "meaning" of music; if there is one it does not need my explanations. On the other hand I have always made a great point of having my pupils count their eighths and sixteenths nicely. Whatever you become, teacher, scholar, or musician, have respect for the "meaning" but do not imagine that it can be taught.”
― Hermann Hesse, The Glass Bead Game

It is rather sad (to me) that we really only have college-level books - or any other discourse - on critical thinking. It does not seem wholly impractical - and could very well show itself to be, in fact highly practical - to introduce some instruction in critical thinking skills to children of 8 or 9 years, and then for the remainder of their formal education thereafter.

I agree.

However, I also think parents need to step up and make sure there child has critical thinking skills.

If schools cant ,or wont, especially, and honestly, its part of the job as a parent to make sure there child has skills outside of school that have just as much value, if not more.

Thats where I learned it, though I have always had a predisposition towards it.

The kind of Critical Thinking course that I teach identifies and distinguishes the characteristics of the elements of thought. College courses (science, social science, literature, philosophy, etc.) are each a systematic way of thinking about their particular subject matter. Critical Thinking is thinking about the structures that define thinking. The subject matter is one thing and how the ideas of a subject are organized is something else. Imposing the structure of one kind of thinking found in, for example, science, on another subject, for example, literature, is deeply flawed. That a college course has a distinct structure of organizing it's subject matter from another does not imply a greater value of one over another. Literature's logic of interpretation is not the logic of chemistry; religious cosmology found in myth is neither physics nor astronomy (a lesson some TotJO Guests could learn better is that the critical thinking implications of myth are ethical/moral and not scientific). My courses this Fall Semester have different subject matter yet the critical thinking lessons remain consistent whether its Philosophy of Religion, World Mythology, World Religions or Critical Thinking.

"Critical Thinking" for me is to ask questions and challenge current beliefs. Questions help you learn.

Khaos wrote: I actually prefer that professors stick the the minutia...

“A game master or teacher who was primarily concerned with being close enough to the "innermost meaning" would be a very bad teacher. To be candid, I myself, for example, have never in my life said a word to my pupils about the "meaning" of music; if there is one it does not need my explanations. On the other hand I have always made a great point of having my pupils count their eighths and sixteenths nicely. Whatever you become, teacher, scholar, or musician, have respect for the "meaning" but do not imagine that it can be taught.”
― Hermann Hesse, The Glass Bead Game

Not I. There is value in every subject and topic. Great or small.

The role of the instructor is not to teach the meaning, but to facilitate the thought process of others so they may understand the meaning for themselves. It's about discovery, exploration, wandering, wondering, and depth. Among many others.

To only teach (or present) for purpose of discussion the "grand" themes while forgoing the minutia would be a disservice. It is taking the hearts and minds of others for a leisurely stroll when they are capable of a much more rigorous pace.

And I would have to humbly disagree with the late Mr. Hesse. Discussing the meaning of music is a necessity. It is not an option or a secret and it does require the explanation of each individual - because each will be different - and that is the lesson.

I have enjoyed thinking about whether 'critical thinking' is the application of criticism, or is it the thinking types ans subjects of thought that are critical in the way that the blood is critical for human survival.

I was lucky to have been taught how to criticize at a young age by practicing looking for what evidence was available and applicable, evaluate it, and then form a viewpoint based on the best synthesis of data and analysis that I felt was possible. This is what I have come to think of a learning how to learn.

The most important thing I have learned so far in my practice of critical thinking is to always be critical of that very process and realize it is not always and forever the best approach to life or its questions or problems. This not infrequently the case and can be due to a lack of evidence available or applicable, incapability to meaningfully evaluate the evidence, or inability to synthesize the data and analysis in a useful or satisfying way.

The first time I realized the implications of this was the first time I ever became consciously aware of and communed with the Force (as far as consciousness can take us down that road, anyway). I will always love Socrates, one of the greatest examples of a critical thinker, for giving us the insight, 'All I know is that I know nothing.'

NB 'The impreciseness of the paraphrase of this as 'I know that I know nothing' stems from the fact that the author is not saying that he does not know anything but means instead that one cannot know anything with absolute certainty but can feel confident about certain things.' Stokes, Michael C. (1997). Apology of Socrates. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. p. 18. ISBN 0-85668-371-X.