This website was created
initially as the culmination of many years of classroom presentation of the
subject entitled, "CRITICAL ANALYSIS," emphasizing Clear, Critical, and Analytical Thinking, now incorrectly but
conventionally called, “Critical Thinking,” starting on the high-school
level, to fill what I consider to be an urgent need not only for the pre-college
student but for college freshmen as well.
It
is my hope that the website will stimulate an awareness of the need for our
euphemistically called “educational” institutions to awaken to their
enormous failure to emphasize the study of our abuses of language in which we conflate
falsifiable and verifiable language with unfalsifiable and unverifiable
language, terms few students ever hear or know the usages of, to the
point of designating them equal in clarity of communication.
Such a failure is the catalyst for the exponential rise of the ills of
the world.
Historically, there have been thinkers before me, unheeded, who have repeatedly
stated that the development of “critical thinking” is an essential but
unfulfilled need.
Teachers across the nation, however, since it has become a shibboleth of our
age, insist they teach it. Few of them understand the complexity of the subject or that
it cannot be instilled in a student by an osmotic residue in teaching another
subject.
It requires special attention and effort as an autonomous study in which special
concepts and language, that most subjects do not require and most teachers do not
have in their vocabulary, are essential to understand.
More worrisome, however, is that there appears to be little concern for
the damage our failure to address the issue creates.
I found in my forty-nine years of
teaching philosophy to high school students and college freshmen, who have never
before been introduced to philosophy, that they tend to be emotionally
immobilized and intellectually restricted, suffocated, and hampered by strict,
formalized methodologies. The exceptions are the few who do well in what
ever they study primarily with inquisitiveness, and the joy in acquiring
knowledge -- all characteristics which make for easy absorption of new ideas
Until those (or many of those) characteristics are inculcated upon (i.e.,
attitudes are changed) in relation to the pursuit of wisdom, knowledge, and
truth, students will barely come to understand the relevance of that pursuit to
life, man, labor, and to self growth.
The primary goal should be to reawaken in the student the natural curiosity
that once permeated his being. This can be accomplished, in general,
by letting his mind soar free in at least one subject, Critical Analysis.
In referring to
"students," however, we must refer not merely to
"gifted," "good" "college-bound' students, but also
and especially to those who have been conditioned to be "average' by
present systems of "education," by socially conceptual taboos, by
parental mismanagement, and by instilled unexamined preconceptions inherited
from by-gone ages -- too often medieval in character.
"Average" students, too, can be released from their hard core and
retarding misconceptions.
One of the social
misconceptions in the minds of too many teachers and parents is that
philosophy is suspect as to its motives and is to be shunned either as an
instrument of sin, as too difficult for the average person, or as the study
that "goes 'round' to nowhere." The
community at large has some radical re-education to undergo.
There is, however, a "synonym" for philosophy which is not only
not shunned but is considered honorific. That term is CRITICAL
ANALYSIS, a palatable term to teachers and parents alike. If we
want philosophy or its critical and analytical techniques taught on the
pre-college level, let us re-name it CRITICAL ANALYSIS.
Perhaps philosophy will then cease to be the one (the most important one for
development of clear thinking), academic subject for which most students go
to college without prior preparation. Or, equally important, students
not going to college will gain at least some insight into what constitutes
clear thinking.
As to priority of ideas,
there are certain basic concepts a student must study; i.e., must be
"compelled" to investigate if he is to learn to think
clearly. Given a background of rote learning, the growth of a
student's ability to think clearly, in any discipline, depends primarily
upon and is proportional to his awareness is prerequisite to a study of the
complexity of the nature of truth; and both of these are prerequisite to a
study of the complexity of the source and nature of knowledge..
Experience has shown that the
techniques for teaching children to think are not necessarily in
"method," pedagogy, or innate ideas ( of the structure of
language), but in depth analysis of the three basic" concepts:
language, truth, and knowledge. Dewey is right in thinking of ideas as
instruments and in believing that the chief role of a good teacher is that
of stimulating the student into becoming excited about the pursuit of
knowledge.
It matters not what "method" is used so long as the
"method" allows for dialogue and free exchange of ideas.
Free dialogue, however, does not mean uncontrolled, unchanneled and
unreasoned dialogue. Rather, it is a disciplining process analogous to
that which frees a pianist to create beautiful music. While the
student should not be hampered by pedagogical methodologies that restrict a
free pursuit of thought, this is not to say that organization is
unnecessary. Dialogue, for instance, if it appears to have a
grasshopper characteristic, must be shown to be related to the
"solution" being pursued. Nor is dialogue to be construed to
give a student permission to monopolize class time espousing or proselytizing
one's deep unfoundable convictions. But more than that, we need to
give serious thought to what we mean by "Philosophy" when we speak
of teaching it on the pre-college level.
If we mean "to teach the thoughts of philosophers," that is one
thing. If we mean "to teach how to philosophize," that
is, to think rationally, critically, analytically, or, if you will, clearly,
that is something else. If we persist, in those early years, in
introducing philosophy into pre-college institutions as it is taught in
college, we are doomed either to failure, as we have experienced it in many
programs in the past, or to such a long, tortuous, and drawn-out effort that
those who initiated the concept, after passing from the scene, will have
left but legacy of futile effort. That is to say, it is unlikely to
receive wide acceptance for decades to come. Or even more disastrous,
Philosophy will become so diluted that it, in turn, will take its place
as another watered down rote subject of mediocrity contributing nothing to
the present crucial need for improvement in pre-college level
"education."
There are lesson to be
learned from past efforts to introduce Philosophy to the pre-college level
and by refusing to be highly selective. Too often introductory
philosophy is taken to mean, "Throw the student into the waters of
philosophy and let him try to learn to swim." He is soon
submerged, as will be the effort to bring philosophy to pre-college
education.
There is an important difference
between Critical Analysis, as I use the term, and Philosophy, just as
there is between metaphysics and philosophy. In each case, the former is
less inclusive, more specialized than the latter.
Philosophy is so
extensive in its perspectives that to offer it on the pre-college level
(even as an "Introduction to Philosophy"), to most students,
parents, and teachers, generally, it would be not only frightening but
too ambitious. Furthermore, it takes many years of pursuit of the
study of Philosophy before clear, critical and analytical thinking evolves,
primarily because there are so many diverse currents of philosophic thought,
so many in fact, that often philosophy majors pursue special directions of
philosophic thought to the detriment of developing critical and analytical
acuity. This is accomplished easily because so little study on their
part is given to the subjects that form the core of Critical Analysis:
Language, Truth, and Knowledge. Fortunate majors in philosophy happen
to study those aspects of philosophy either accidentally or late in their
college careers. Hence, the development of their critical and
analytical acuity acquires a kind of scattered, "shotgun"
result.
A study of these three areas: Language, Truth, and Knowledge, is clarity of
thought; and an understanding of the complexities of other philosophic
studies or perspectives are to be achieved. Too many of our
institutions put the cart (wide range of philosophic perspectives) before
the horse (the critical analysis through which the perspectives should be
examined and the techniques by which they should be reconstructed.
It requires only one semester
of a study of Language, truth, and knowledge to open a new world of thought
and vision to the philosophically uninitiated. Nothing is more
relevant to the life and experience of the student than the pursuit of and
emphasis upon these three areas. Such relevance can easily be made by
drawing upon the personal and conflicting experiences and thoughts of man
and the related pertinent currents of multiple philosophic perspectives and
thoughts of the great philosophers.
It seems evident that
differences of opinion as to what, how, and whether philosophy should be
taught on the pre-college level should be no deterrent to introducing the
subject. We need to move forward even if in separate ways after which
there must be communication and comparisons of our individual efforts
. Out of our individual efforts, out of our dialogue may evolve
acceptable standards for the teaching of philosophy (Critical Analysis) on
the pre-college level.
The above material has been oriented primarily toward high school
students. There is however, some (though very limited) effort in the
development of approaches for offering philosophy on the pre-high school
level.
Following, with minor corrections and additions,
is a lecture I presented at the Honor
Society Banquet on a Wednesday evening, in 1968 at 7:00 p.m. at the Junior High
School in Bemidji, Minnesota delineating my concerns and
what measures are absolutely required to correct this gross failure of our
inattentive monolithic pre-college institutions to take heed to the admonitions
of some of the greatest minds in the history of thought.
ON HOW TO THINK VS WHAT TO THINK
This evening I should like to avoid making pleasant platitudes and agreeable and
pithy remarks. I shall, too,
forsake the usual opening joke that is so often a function of language used by
speakers to warm an audience to their presentations.
Because I address an honors group and because their parents fall, in
large respect, into this category also, I should like to appeal to your sense of
right and reason, to your minds.
If what I say sounds somewhat harsh, please know that it is my deep concern,
whether I be right or wrong, for you and for students in general, for our
nation, and for our world that induces me to speak out in regard to what I
consider to be a gross and crucial failure on the part of American education,
college and pre-college alike.
May
I hasten to say, however, that our schools do accomplish the near impossible,
i.e., schooling for all, commendably well.
But I have not set for myself this evening the task of delineating Education’s
achievements. Rather, I wish to
dwell on its failure to teach our students to think clearly, critically, and
analytically.
Scholarship, at its very least, must mean the inculcation of clarity of thought,
critical, and analytical acuity. Rarely
is clear thinking acquired to any significant degree by rote learning or by
parroted phraseologies.
This, in essence, is what I would like to convey to you this evening before you are let loose upon the world, or more to the point before the world is let loose
upon you.
It can be a dangerous place out there, full of quagmires of deceit, and unfair
and immoral competition. But it is
also the open sesame to things of beauty, happiness, and wisdom, to glorious
accomplishments for mankind. You
are the catalyst. You can be the
makers, in this case the re-makers of the world.
Obviously we adults have botched it up -- badly. So will you if education continues to be, as it seems to be,
not any different from what we received.
In any event, you must seek help from every conceivable source: from science,
philosophy, teachers, parents, friends, your church, even from the simple wisdom
and curiosity of your baby brother and sister.
More than that, your sources constitute every corner of the earth, not to mention
vaster frontiers opening to us, such as the far reaches of space, the depths of
the ocean, and the micro-domain.
It
should be evident by now, however, that if these are to be the sources of your
help, your advice, your knowledge, your truths, that the multiplicity of the
sources means a multiplicity of conflicting opinions, truths, and knowledge.
You must ask yourselves, then, “Who is right?”
“What are the true answers among all these purported true answers?”
For instance, which history text about the Civil war is the correct
account, that of the South? The North? A
French account of it? An English or
a Russian?
Yesterday’s truths will remain yesterday’s truth because education has
become the passing on from one generation of teachers to another of student
teachers a body of irrelevant data of the past and present.
The unexamined idea must remain suspect and no idea is properly examined in
today’s classrooms unless the concepts of the teacher and the textbook are
permitted to be contested openly and freely – unless at least two truly held
conflicting opinions wage war discursively – respectfully and without rancor
– not once, but whenever two minds disagree.
If one plans to enter the arena of conflicting ideas, however, one has an
obligation to prepare for it and there is no more arduous preparation than that
of learning to think clearly, critically, and analytically.
Such training is made all the more difficult because one must, in the process,
learn also not to destroy the spirit of humanity, love, and concern for one’s
fellow man, the perspective of humility, a sense of beauty, the ability to see
things whole as well as in parts.
In other words, in becoming thinkers, we must be careful not to become pedants
or snobs; otherwise, the benefits of learning will be lost.
But the method of developing thinkers has been traditionally relegated to the
category marked “by-product.” To
some small degree, thinking does emerge as a by-product.
But it can easily be shown that one does not become a thinker merely by being
highly trained in one of the usual academic disciplines and superficially
trained in some of the others.
For instance, one becomes only a limited thinker by majoring in physics and
minoring in English. It is a fact
that many good scientists know less about what is science than do some
non-scientists.
It is ever a source of amazement that people, “educated” and uneducated
alike, will spend years training to play baseball or to manipulate mathematical
symbols or chemicals in a test tube, but naively believe that thinking (the most
difficult of all mental activities) requires no special preparation at all.
If one wishes to become a thinker, he must take special training and education,
just as he must to become a physicist, a baseball player or a pianist.
Does any institution, any one person or group of persons have priority on truth
and knowledge? Certainly not!
That is one hot line that doesn’t exist.
There is no person on this earth, be he scientist, mathematician,
teacher, or what have you, who is not a human being; and one aspect of a human
being is a large propensity for being wrong most of the time.
History attests to that.
But it is by correcting our mistakes that man has acquired some semblance of
truth and knowledge. We constantly
exchange new truths for those that become false or at least inadequate for our
needs. To paraphrase John Dewey,
today’s truths are tomorrow’s errors.
For instance, consider the history or our knowledge concerning the shape of the
earth.
The usefulness or uselessness of an idea to society is not sufficient to insist
upon or to deny its truth or falsity. Furthermore
a seeker after truth cannot afford to be afraid of truth or falsity or to be
intimidated by threat of ostracism, oppression, or disagreeable looks from his
neighbors, friends, and enemies.
To do so is to deprive mankind of many possible profound or even merely useful
ideas for the sake of security, comfort, the approbation of the ignorant, the
frightened, or the insecure.
In education, the student should be the teacher’s respectful antagonist lest
the latter slip into hard formulas of truth untested by the sharpness of
curious, vigorous, and incisive minds.
But today’s institutions are not nor will they, for years and perhaps decades
hence, be ready or equipped for the classroom to become the arena of a battle of
wits between the “learned” and the learner.
Instead, the “learned” propound and the learner” accepts.
At the year’s end, truth and knowledge too often become education’s casualties because some of the most inane ideas are unquestioningly accepted.
But, in the words of the philosopher, John Stuart Mill:
PREFACE 
Language
is no more than crudely acquired before children begin to suffer from it, and to
misinterpret the world by reason of it.
SEE FILE 21: PERENNIAL QUESTIONS 
Next file 
For more information: passch2@verizon.net
