Critical Self-Consciousness

[coberst]

Critical Self-Consciousness

 

I once asked a professor of philosophy what is philosophy about, she said “philosophy is about radically critical self-consciousness”. I have decided that CT (Critical Thinking) is the first important step on to this stage of critical self-consciousness. CT is philosophy light.

 

Our mind tends to be dominated by the ego and the group when we have not yet become critically self-conscious. I am not an expert in these matters (such has never hindered me from expressing my considered opinion) but from the things I read regarding critical self-consciousness they make sense to me.

 

Ego influences me by:

I think it is true therefore it is.

I want it to be true therefore it is.

 

Group influences me by:

The group name identifies me.

The group influences my associations.

The group is us and the other group is them.

What we do is good what they do is bad.

 

I suspect that the ego domination was the natural human condition during early evolution and slowly the ego morphed (transformed) into a group in some areas of consciousness (focused attention).

 

I think that Madison Avenue (advertising agencies) and the oligarchy (non elective group running the nation in that group’s interest) have learned to manipulate our egocentric and sociocentric characteristics for the advantages of marketing interests. Our ego drives us to buy the BIG car and our group drives us to dominate the other group in the interest of our group.

 

‘To be critical’ is often, I think, confused with ‘to be negative’. To be critical is to stop, think, analyze, and seek comprehension and possible improvement. To be critically self-conscious is to focus the critical effort inward with the self as the object of criticism.

 

I think that most of our personal and international tragedies are a direct result of our lack of critical self-consciousness.

 

Is that a ‘bunch of baloney’ or do you find truth contained therein?

 

I think that we can do a much better job building a better society if we developed a critical self-consciousness. What do you think?

[jedaisoul]

Is that a ‘bunch of baloney’ or do you find truth contained therein?

 

Yes, it's a bunch of baloney. Next question?

 

No seriously, coberst, why do you persist in flooding this site (and possibly others) with your thoughts? You admitted to me once that you did not know the difference between belief and knowledge. I hope that you've moved on since then, but here you are banging on again about critical thinking. Yes, critical thinking is a good idea. Enough said.

[Queso]

The way I see it he's just flowing his philosophical energy into Hypography where we can all read it and critique it.

 

His posts give us something to read, while he reads our opinions and it's an infinite feedback loop.

 

It feels good to release stale creative energy into words tap tap.

 

These have been my critical thoughts.

[coberst]

It’s a Judgment Call

 

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:

1. Normal men and women can significantly improve their ability to make judgments.

2. CT is the domain of knowledge that delineates the knowledge, skills, and intellectual character demanded for good judgment.

3. CT has been introduced into our schools and colleges slowly in the last two or three decades.

4. Few of today’s adults were ever taught CT.

5. I suspect that at least another two generations will pass before our society reaps significant rewards resulting from teaching CT to our children.

6. Can our democracy survive that long?

7. 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.

8. 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.

 

Perhaps you are not familiar with CT. I first encountered the concept about five years ago. The following are a few Internet sites that will familiarize you with the matter.

 

Critical Thinking and Its Relation to Science and Humanism

 

cache:mkodBBrpMg0J:www.criticalthinking.org/TGS_files/SAM-CT_competencies_2005.pdf critical thinking multi-logical - Google Search

 

Critical Thinking: Expanding the Paradigm

 

Glossary - The Critical Thinking Community

 

http://www.doit.gmu.edu/inventio/past/display_past.asp?pID=spring03&sID=eslava

[jedaisoul]

His posts give us something to read, while he reads our opinions and it's an infinite feedback loop.

 

Well, as you enjoy coberst's posts, I'd be the last to deny you the pleasure.

[Buffy]

Well, as you enjoy coberst's posts, I'd be the last to deny you the pleasure.

Well, sometimes he surprises us by doing things like posting two separate but related ideas to the same thread, like he just did above! (And it would be nice if he did more of that too!)

 

He's gotten better at responding and discussing our comments, so we don't mind it much, as we don't bother reading all those other sites he posts on. As long as its within our rules we'll tolerate such posts...

 

Keeps us on our toes!

 

It is good a philosopher should remind himself, now and then, that he is a particle pontificating on infinity, :warped:

Buffy

[HydrogenBond]

Critical self consciousness, as coberst discussed it, has to do with making oneself aware of themself, so they can separate inner things that can have an impact on their critical thinking. For example, the old philosopher question, is the glass half empty or half full, can allude to a bias, that will influence one's critical thinking. If one is not aware of this bias, via critical self consciousness, one can still reason, but the result is already predetermined. It can look critical, but is pre-biased.

 

Let me give another example. The lions share of research money for global warming is on the man-made global warming side. Scientists have to earn a living, support houses, families and advance careers. The best way to do that is go where the money is. Keeping that money flowing will require the results of the research act as grease to keep the bandwagon moving. The results will look like valid science using critical thinking, but an inner motivation is leading that thinking. It is not purely rational.

 

If there was critical self consciousness, one would have to wrestle with what is my motivation. Is it truth or an extended career. If it is truth, would one take a path that could cause the bangwagon to throw you out and run over you? The relativity of truth was the soluition to help one avoid this moral dilemna. If one accepts this premise, then one can remain unconscious of themselves and just go where the money flows. Just let politians define science.

 

If you put it into perspective, Al Gore is the top scientist. He even won a Nobel Peace Prize. The truth is relative. He is enjoying his new found celebrity and needs to keep that going. If he was that concerned, he would not have invested in an off-set company. The goal should be every little bit counts. Gore thinks money can offset the CO2.

 

An analogy, for critical thinking, are diet offsets. We want all people to lose weight. If a person loses extra, someone can buy a fat offset. This piece of paper allows me to have an extra 50lbs and appear fit and trim. That piece of paper also allows me to avoid medical problems, since the weight loos by others will magically make me healthier. A little critical self awareness makes this critical thinking look less than objective.