What Is In Fact Critical Thinking?
Today almost everyone says that we need a society of critical thinkers. It is assumed that with critical thinking people will not be deceived by bad politicians. It is assumed that with critical thinking people will be capable of overcoming most of the problems that currently concern us, such as global warming, racism, and so on. And all these assumptions could be true; however if it is not adequately understood what such term, i.e. critical thinking, means, we might end up being misguided by many presuppositions.
What is then critical thinking? When faced by this question for the first time, it seems that it implies that there is some sort of uncritical thinking. In this respect, at least at first sight, there would be two types of thinking: critical and uncritical. What is, then, that element that distinguishes critical thinking from uncritical thinking? To this question, most people will answer that critical thinking is characterized by the fact that it operates according to what reason dictates, while uncritical thinking would be subordinated to the passionate impulses. But is actually this the essential difference between these two types of thinking?
In order to address the previous question, let us first try to clarify the meaning of the term critical thinking. To begin with, we should start by saying that critical thinking is a term originated in the field of philosophy. Subsequently, it was introduced as a technical term in the field of education. Currently, it is fundamentally taken as meaning a thinking that is crafted through logic. In other words, critical thinking is equated to logical thinking. In this regard, a critical thinker is taken as someone who knows how determine the validity of her conclusions based on certain premises. Certainly, this individual is also expected to be capable of analyzing the validity of the conclusions of other people. Therefore, a critical thinker is essentially someone who has justified beliefs.
This definition of a critical thinker at which we have landed has been developed and advocated by analytic philosophy. This school of thought reduces philosophical thinking to the mastering of the rules of logic and, consequently, also to the rules of argumentation. Once this reduction is taken for granted what we may call the world turns out to be an irrelevant element of consideration. In other words, if a critical thinker is essentially regarded as someone who holds logical systems of thought, then it seems irrelevant to take into account what the world might yield.
The phenomenon of the overlooking of the world for the sake of coherent logical systems is closely related to what nowadays is called the post-truth era. Truth is not anymore what the world might yield as phenomenon in its etymological sense as that-which-appears in relation to us, but truth is some representation intentionally articulated which must first and foremost abide by what we might consider the rules of logic. In this regard, the concept of truth is reduced to the well-articulated relationship between arguments, i.e. propositions. Accordingly, insofar as a critical thinker is regarded as an individual who is capable of reaching the truth, this individual turns out to be a creator of coherent logical systems which might dispense with any adequate consideration of both experiences and facts. These latter are, practically speaking, those elements that essentially constitute what we call the world. So, turning away from experiences and facts means overlooking the world. In this regard, a critical thinker that is solely, or at least primarily, concerned with the coherence of his system of beliefs in detriment to hearing what the experiences or facts might have to say, is as someone who builds a castle on quicksand and boasts about the accurate structure of the castle while not paying attention to the foundations of the structure. Sooner or later such castle will stumble down, insofar as its foundations are not secure. It is not reasonable to ignore the world for the sake of preserving our system of beliefs. To do this is actually a sign of intellectual poverty.
How are we, then, going to define a critical thinker? Recall it was taken for granted that a critical thinker is an individual who in fact reaches what we may call the truth of the things. We also hold that such reaching is not primarily nor essentially constituted by the justification of certain beliefs, for such position would not conveniently take into account the experiences, that is, the world, with which we are constantly interacting. What does it, then mean to think critically? In fact, critical thinking is a technical term in order to make reference to an adequate thinking. And since an adequate thinking is thinking in the proper sense, then critical thinking turns out to mainly mean thinking. Accordingly, uncritical thinking would be a thinking but not in its most proper sense. This explanation can be better understood with the following example. There is an adequate way of swimming, and every other form of swimming that differs from it could be considered as swimming too, although not in the proper sense of the term. The same applies to thinking.
That being said, we ought to continue by saying that thinking is an activity, and as such it can be performed either in a good or bad way. The criteria that would enable to determine which ways of thinking are good can be reduced to three essential factors: analysis, synthesis and experience-basis. This amounts to saying that a good way of thinking is that which is analytic, synthetic, and experience-based. And although some analytic philosophies would agree with us in this point, as has been said they put so much emphasis on analysis and synthesis that they end up overlooking the experience-input in any good way of thinking. What is more, even those analytic schools of thought that pretend to give due respect to the role that experience plays in developing systems of thinking lack an adequate explanation of the way in which experience should serve as a basis of thinking. In other words, these schools of thought do not clarify how we are to create truthful propositions based on experience. Put simply, how are we supposed to analyze experience? Certainly many of us have been properly trained in analyzing propositions in order to determine what it follows from them as well as what their presuppositions are. And certainly it can even be held that what we call experience is ultimately a set of propositions or that the experience can only be reached through the analysis of a set of propositions, and yet this would not change the fact that when we usually talk of a critical thinker, in most of the cases we are talking of someone who bases his ideas on others’ ideas. In other words, people do not go after their own experiences. So, for instance, when someone wants to understand what fear might be, this person usually reads some articles, books, and so on, and afterwards, after consuming all sorts of information, this person ends up creating “her own idea” of what fear might be. However, in most of the cases, due to a lack of proper understanding of what it means to read, this person will be incapable of analyzing her own experience of fear. Hence, without being aware, she will force her experience of fear into the conceptual systems she had absorbed from other thinkers, obtaining, thereby, an inauthentic understanding of fear.
A critical thinker must be someone who is capable of producing knowledge, rather than merely be a consumer of knowledge. It seems our societies are becoming every time more and more as echoes of influencer thinkers. In this respect, societies are turning to be as some sort of mirror which just reflect what certain individuals think. Whenever we want to know what something is, most of the times we solely rely on what books say. It seems we have forgotten that it is our duty to think for ourselves. Certainly, it is not a bad idea to get acquainted with what others have thought about the topic we are interested in, but when our point of departure is the others’ thinking and afterwards we just remain within such thinking, we end up being mere followers in varying degrees, but followers in the end. When did we start forgetting about thinking for ourselves? When did this oblivion take place? What is its origin?
Have you, for instance, ever asked yourself how Aristotle came up with his definition of fear? Aristotle held that fear was some sort of mental disturbance due to the entertaining of some bad event that might happen in the future. Where did the Stagirite get this idea from? Did he copy it from other thinkers? Certainly he was acquainted with many ideas of his time in respect to fear, yet this definition of fear is proper to Aristotle. So how did he come up with this idea? The answer seems simple: he got this idea by thinking. The question that at this point one should raise is about the object of his thinking from which Aristotle got his idea of fear. And the answer is that he ventured into thinking about the nature of the experience that corresponded to the word fear. In other words, Aristotle thought about his experience of fear in order to be able to give a definition of fear. And certainly he must have known most of the salient definitions of fear of his time, but he did not attach to them as a mere ideas-follower. The Philosopher entered into discussion with such ideas, but the decisive point was not what the others may have thought but his experience. And this is exactly what nowadays has been forgotten to be done: think about the experience. At this point, the attentive reader should ask: What is, then, experience?
What we call today as experience is what the ancient Greeks named as phenomenon. And as Heidegger correctly explains in Being and Time, phenomenon ought to be primarily understood as that-which-appears, since it is a participle form that derives from the verb phainesthai which means to appear. This interpretation of phenomenon still holds valid in our current understanding of the word experience, for under this latter term we understand that with which we are unavoidably interacting whenever we are alive. And that with which we are relentlessly interacting is that which we perceive. Every time we perceive something, this something appears to us. Hence, as Heidegger correctly says, to perceive something is essentially letting something appear to us. In this regard, since the experience is that which we perceive in the sense that we are constantly in interaction with it, then the experience is that which we let to appear to us. Therefore, the experience is the phenomenon in the sense of that-which-appears. And since it has been said that thinking should take as its point of departure the experience, this amounts to saying that thinking should start with the phenomenon as its basis. In other words, that-which-appears should be the base of any authentic thinking.
At this point, we should make a brief summary of all the salient points already reached. First of all, it has been established a critic against the common understanding of the term critical thinking. Secondly, it has been provided an alternative interpretation of this common understanding of the term. Thirdly, it has been established a convenient way in which experience ought to be understood as the basis of thinking. So, according to all of these points, what still remains as unanswered is how we are to understand critical thinking. For these matters, recall it was said that critical thinking is essentially a technical term to refer to adequate thinking which is none other but thinking in the strictest sense. So, as Heidegger would say, let us then analyze the experience of thinking in order to understand its true nature.
How is the experience of thinking? How would we describe it? Let us then put a concrete example where we could see the unfoldment of thinking. So let us image we need to solve a problem, so we start thinking about its possible solution. How could we characterize our thinking while we are in the pursuit of a solution for this problem? First of all, we would try to accurately determine what the problem is. Secondly, we would start by analyzing the problem. That is, we would try to figure out what the causes as well as the consequences of the problems might be. In doing so, we could be able to imagine a possible scenario wherein the cause(s) of the problem would be eradicated. In other words, after analyzing the problem, we could, in our heads, synthetize the elements that constitute the problem in such a way that this latter stops existing. Accordingly, after putting into practice this synthesis, we would entertain the solution of the problem. So if we carry out all the aforementioned steps in the way in which it has been explained, we would be performing what experts name as critical thinking. Put simply, we would reach an adequate way of thinking.
According to the previous description of the thinking steps required in order to solve a problem, it turns out that such thinking steps would be essentially constituted by two processes: analysis and synthesis. And since it has been said that such thinking steps constitute what we may term as critical thinking, it is, then, the case that analysis and synthesis are the two processes to which critical thinking can be essentially reduced. Now, at this point, it should not be overlooked one important element of the description of solving a problem: the solution. This latter is not visible in the beginning when the problem for the first time appears. The solution appears after thinking enters into action. It appears directly after the synthesis, and consequently after the analysis too. In this regard, it turns out to be that the appearing -as in the sense of the act of appear- of the solution is the result of thinking. Accordingly, thinking is the cause of the appearing of the solution.
Interestingly, thinking derives etymologically from the Indoeuropean verb thencan which essentially means to cause to appear to oneself. And this is exactly what, according to our analysis, thinking fundamentally means, since it has been said that thinking is that which enables the appearing of the solution. And certainly we could add that this appearing is in reference to us, so that in this way it can be better viewed that the matching between the etymology and the actual meaning of thinking works conveniently. Now, at this point, recall it was said that the phenomenon is that which we perceive, insofar as it is that-which-appears. Accordingly, if our point of departure is the perception of a problem, and afterwards through the activity of thinking a solution is put into view, it is then the case that thinking has the capacity of bringing about a phenomenon from another phenomenon. In other words, if we venture into thinking due to the perception of a problem, i.e. the phenomenon of a problem, we can get to the perception of a solution, i.e. a phenomenon of solution, through the processes of both analysis and synthesis. Simply put, the phenomenon that corresponds to the solution arises thanks to the activity of thinking from within the phenomenon that corresponds to the problem. In this regard, thinking can be considered as that which enables the arising of certain phenomena. And since it has been suggested that the world is nothing but the totality of phenomena, and it has also been admitted that thinking is the producer of a certain kind of phenomena, it turns out then to be the case that thinking constitutes the world to a certain extent.
Now, it is necessary to say that every solution is constituted by certain structure(s). On the other hand, recall it has been determined that synthesis is that which enables the arising of any solution. Moreover, to synthesize essentially means to form a structure out of a certain number of elements. And since it has been said that synthesis is the final step of the activity of thinking whenever this latter operates, it is then the case that every time thinking properly engages into any phenomenon, this thinking brings about structure from within the phenomenon at issue. In this regard, thinking reveals structures in the phenomena that we naturally tend to encounter. And since it was said that the phenomenon is in fact the experience, thinking reveals itself as being that dynamis that puts into view certain structure(s) of the experience. Accordingly, it can be said that we have finally reached a proper definition of what critical thinking ought to be. Critical thinking is the thinking that through the essential interplay between analysis and synthesis puts into view the structure(s) of the experience.
