On Ambivalence Towards Critical Thinking

Aspazia here, grateful for the opportunity to fill in at Lindsay's blog.  I had originally intended to write a witty post, but did so over at my blog, Mad Melancholic Feminista (MMF) yesterday.  So, be warned, this is a bit pensive.

Lindsay mentioned in her invitation-to-join-her-blog message that we could feel free to post on topics she doesn't usually discuss, including Continental Philosophy (she may regret this). Lindsay's blog makes clear that she is devotee of Analytic Philosophy, which split off from Continental Philosophy in the early 20th Century, or perhaps we can say they broke up with each other.

I am trained in Continental Philosophy. What this means to those unfamiliar with the distinction is that I am still hung up on existential questions. More specifically, I spend a lot of time thinking about how we tell our own stories, how we make sense of our lives, and how we ought to live our lives. Obviously, the last question is a moral one. And, while I am quite familiar with the various moral theories we can use to clarify our moral choices: deontology, utilitarianism, natural rights, virtue ethics . . .etc., at the end of the day, I tend to see most moral decisions as ambigious.

When I teach moral theory to students or critical thinking skills for that matter (how to spot fallacies, construct valid/sound arguments, evaluate evidence), I rarely change a student's perspective on the world, or make that student more empathetic to other peoples' situations. I usually make them smarter at articulating the worldview that they inchoately held before. Hence, smart Catholic students who believe that abortion is absolutely wrong or neo-cons who believe in the doctrine of pre-emptive strike leave my class better able to defend these views. As a teacher, I regularly give my enemies tools to win arguments against less articulate folks who share my basic intuitions about the world.

In a post I wrote last week, my colleague, who is an Analytic Philosopher, responded that: "EVERYONE needs critical thinking . . ." The idea here is that if people use logic and fair rules of argument, then we will make much more headway in our political discussions and come to better reasoned, defensible positions. My sense is that critical thinking doesn't make people better people, it just makes them better at playing the game. In fact, this realization is why I turned away from Analytic Philosophy in the first place. It stopped asking the big questions, which were probably too fuzzy anyway, and went in search for better foundations and better methods of seeking truth. They began to focus more on verifiable methods for evaluating truth claims than asking what is the direction of my life?

My love affair with Continental Philosophy has waned in the years since I became a full-time teacher and scholar. I never really went in for the nauseating jargon of the post-structuralists. I loved the phenomenologists, that is the thinkers who were trying to develop accounts of human experience and human identity. Granted, even their texts leave me a bit cold now. But, what has stuck with me is the insight that we learn much about ourselves through the stories of others.   And, frankly, I would rather read people's stories and personal accounts than I would read Heidegger or Husserl.

To clarify, I want to mention a lovely post that I read over at the Happy Feminist on body image yesterday (she always has great personal stories). The further I read, the more deeply I began to identify with her story. I actually poked my head up at one point and said, outloud, "omigod, she is me!" But, of course, I came to my senses. What was happening when I read her description of battling with body image--the pressure on women to conform to certain beauty standards, and her drive for perfection--was that she was giving me a frame, a way of making sense out of disparate and fragmented experiences of my own.

The way I see it, we come into the world and develop certain intuitions about what other people are like or what kind of place home is. We see people as kind, suspicious, or foolish, for example. The more we encounter other people, places, atrocities, or triumphs, our intuitions of the world are either confirmed or challenged. Our experience with the world makes the most impact on our overall worldview. If you learn the important tools of philosophy, like critical thinking, you become better at clarifying to yourself in consistent and defensible ways what your worldview is.

However, what sort of person you are--liberal, giving, compassionate, withholding--has little to do with how rigorous or skilled you are at making arguments. What gives me the most satisfaction as a teacher, therefore, is helping students develop empathy for others.  I often find that the process of making sense of the fragments of our own life is intertwined with coming to understand other people. 

What happened when I read the Happy Feminist's post is that she helped me put together a bunch of experiences I had about my own body image issue stuff and helped me see it as part of my intutions that much of my identity has been impacted by sexist practices. The "Ah-Ha!" moment, when you start to see yourself in another's story is a familiar process to most of us.  A writer friend once told me that the more idiosyncratic that she makes her characters, more people identify with the characters.  In the particular, in the most intimate features of another's story, we begin to better  grasp ourselves.  We might also begin to care about others who once seemed so foreign to us, so unrecognizable, until we saw ourselves in their stories. 

The latter process can only happen, however, if and only if we are able to really listen to someone else, believe that he or she has something of value to say, and that we might learn more about ourselves by paying attention.

Cross-posted at MMF.

Comments

[MT]

We also deceive ourselves in unconscious ways that critical thinking often can't touch and can even distract from.

[Njorl]

I don't think critical thinking is incapable of penetrating self deception. I think critical thinking does not provide incentive for recognizing self deception.

I think self-deception, or more likely ignorance of my own thought processes has been responsible for most of the lack of empathy or callousness in my life. I believe most of that ignorance and deception has been laid to rest via critical analysis. What I will readily admit to though, is that the decision to analyze some aspect of my beliefs almost never arrises from logical processes. It is always something emotional that paints the target - that singles out some belief for analysis.

I spent the better part of my life as an intelligence bigot. While I didn't openly proclaim, "Smart people are better!", I lived that belief. In fact, I'm sure I superficially felt just the opposite. I don't think that my critical thinking skills failed to bring me to the point where I am today, it is more accurate to say that they never were brought into play in the matter. I never had any fundamental need to resolve the issue. If it arrose, I assumed I thought about it and came to some logical conclusion. It wasn't until my daughter was diagnosed that I had to resolve the inconsistancy between my superficial notions, and deep-seated beliefs.

I believe critical debate without a visceral connection to the outcome is like playing poker for matchsticks. If the pot is a year's pay, you'll have a much more realistic view of what your cards are worth.

[aspazia]

"I believe critical debate without a visceral connection to the outcome is like playing poker for matchsticks. If the pot is a year's pay, you'll have a much more realistic view of what your cards are worth."

If I have understood you correctly, then I couldn't agree more. What I would add to your comments is that students seem much more motivated to learn critical thinking skills the more passionate/committed they are to persuading others of their views. I can't think of one student who asked to learn critical thinking skills so they could be better at hearing other peoples' views and reconsider their own.

[gordo]

aspazia--

"I can't think of one student who asked to learn critical thinking skills so they could be better at hearing other peoples' views and reconsider their own."

I think that's why the most strident and doctrinaire commentators tend to be the ones who are most widely circulated and interviewed. Unless a person is motivated to subject her views to analysis, her only use for critical thought is to dismantle contrary arguments.

You and Njorl, it seems to me, have an answer for those who have given up the task of persuading others to honestly examine their beliefs. The complexity of human experiences arouses empathy, which motivates self-analysis. Illuminating such experiences seems like a good first step toward getting people to begin the self-examination process.

Bernard-Henri Levy has a good article that relates these ideas directly to leftist American politics in The Nation:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060227/levy

One last thing:

"The more idiosyncratic that she makes her characters, more people identify with the characters."

When one reads that paradox, one knows immediately from experience that it's true. It's one of the most insightful observations concerning fiction that I can remember reading.

[herbert browne]

Re .."As a teacher, I regularly give my enemies tools to win arguments against less articulate folks who share my basic intuitions about the world.."
Well, now, what could be more existentially satisfying than actively contributing to one's own demise?.. esp in a noble cause?

Re .."we come into the world and develop certain intuitions about what other people are like or what kind of place home is.."
Do those early intuitions also reflect how we are valued?.. ie is "home" the place our guardians feel comfortable? Do we develop "cute baby" skills in order to avoid being eaten?
Re .."Our experience with the world makes the most impact on our overall worldview.."
Most of this early experience is a tete a tete (or tete a tit for the lucky ones) with a protective human, whose view of us may approach that of a chattel, of sorts...

Re .."If you learn the important tools of philosophy, like critical thinking, you become better at clarifying to yourself in consistent and defensible ways what your worldview is.."
Or, possibly, (as Njorl implied) you develop a sophistry that rivals reality.

RE.."However, what sort of person you are--liberal, giving, compassionate, withholding--has little to do with how rigorous or skilled you are at making arguments.." True- perhaps because, at one time or another, we are ALL of those things... ^..^

[aspazia]

Herbert--

"Well, now, what could be more existentially satisfying than actively contributing to one's own demise?.. esp in a noble cause?"

LOL. Sure, if you take being preoccupied with existential questions as being the same as being an existentialist who thrives on anxiety. The latter, I am not.

"Do those early intuitions also reflect how we are valued?.. ie is "home" the place our guardians feel comfortable?"

Sure. That seems crucial to developing our sense of what the world and others are like.

"Do we develop "cute baby" skills in order to avoid being eaten?"

I am guessing those are hard-wired. ;)

"Most of this early experience is a tete a tete (or tete a tit for the lucky ones) with a protective human, whose view of us may approach that of a chattel, of sorts..."

I like that "tete a tit" twist. And, sure, early attachment stuff impacts us profoundly. Not sure I follow the view that the protective human (which you imply is the mother) sees the child as chattel.

"Or, possibly, (as Njorl implied) you develop a sophistry that rivals reality."

Couldn't agree more, partly what inspired the post, btw.

"True- perhaps because, at one time or another, we are ALL of those things... ^..^"

Fair enough.

[Harold Mann]

I have known individuals who became more compassionate as their thinking processes became clearer and more logical in form--
and I have known those who only became more entrenched in their own bigotry the clearer and more logical their thought became.
In general, the habit of discourse and focused thought is a good habit--- it
is one of the foundations of civilization.
Yes, some very nasty things are said by one person to another --often--
but better to channel acrimony into speech and thought than to
break out the brickbats and bloody the sidewalk instead. Granted ,
eloquent and angry speech can also move a mob to violent action
but generally, training to be a thoughtful individual serves to counter impulsive action and the habit of talking it out conduces to defuse passion.
One biblical statement I have found very true and useful is:
"a soft answer turneth away wrath' .
The spirit of that saying is civilization in a nutshell: the spirit of cooperation and compromise, keeping some distance from the passions, some understanding of others--a general reasonableness--- these things are the bedrock of society and without them ---I am convinced, back we slide into the "nasty brutish and short" realms of existence.
War is such a realm. The current barbarian regime used its sophistical reasoning powers to argue the foolish majority into supporting invasion. I credit my mental training for enablng me to see through the ruse. If more were so trained perhaps the war would not be------on second thought, nah, that sounds naive.
I agree that logic is a good servant but a bad master. Serious thinking involves the whole person-- the feeling, the experience,
the compassion and the anger and the amusement--the imagination.
Logical argument has played a midwife's role in birthing the greatest ideas of this western life--as a form for thought it is superior --but it is infertile by itself. It can be seen as a kind of compelling mental leavening or perhaps, from a sophistical point of view, a kind of gift wrapping-- for our deepest and most sublime intuitions --- as well as our worst motivations.

[herbert browne]

Aspazia- we may agree about this:
Q: "Do we develop "cute baby" skills in order to avoid being eaten?"
A: I am guessing those are hard-wired. ;)
It's true, (at least in my case) that "cute baby" skills extend beyond species... and one particular conflation (if that truly describes it) is the attribution of "innocence" to this state. If this IS a "hard-wired" response, then there's really nothing "innocent" about it. Rather, it is an expression of "experience"- Great experience- whose roots I'd love to examine. It implies to me that Beauty is also "hard-wired", to some degree. It fascinates me that, with age, (in my case) there's been an expansion of compassion- which often expresses itself as glimpses of beauty in a multitude of settings, and situations... ^..^