Critical Thinking.
This implies that there are thoughts which are not critical, and thus should be categorized as such and then discarded as relevant to anything critical.
Open of course to subjective interpretation, but by and large the subjective can be criticized through the process of show and tell (evidence).
Most importantly, the object focused upon in relation to deciding what is critical and what is not has to be of critical importance in relation to individual subjectivity and collective objectivity - how the collective 'sees' the objective and goes about getting there.
As example of critical thinking in response to one recent item of data off the net...
New Zealand pastor blames gays for earthquakes
How do I approach this event critically?
I ask myself.
Q: Is this critical in relation to the objective?
A: No.
Q: Why not?
A: Because it is petty. It lacks substance and can be understood to be a symptom of the situation.
By that I mean to say, I understand the pastors beliefs but they are not critical to the situation as they offer no direct human made solution. It is simply an opinion, but one which contributes to the threat against solution.
So it is not discarded either. It still affects the critical.
Q: What else do i know about the pastor?
A: He is influenced by Christian morality. It is also and Islamic morality as well, as can be seen on the net.
Also the pastor is of Maori decent and thus will carry those traditions of belief with him in some way...related to the god of the Earth and her being a living conscious entity.
This of course has all transferred to the G-d of Abraham - probably the most influential phantom of the whole planet.
Q: How do I reconcile that with the critical objective when the two seem to be poles apart?
A: I cannot easily but am working on finding ways. All I can do is remain focused upon the critical objective and try to reason with anybody as to why they would be best to do the same...once of course we all agree on what that objective is.
Q: Is that which can be criticized therefore in opposition to the critical objective?
A: Yes - but that does not mean of course that it will overcome the critical objective.
Q: Is there a funny side to any of this?
A: Well I was wondering if the pastor meant that the two plates which were rubbing together were both male...I thought that was funny anyhoo...
Do you agree with my interpretation of critical thinking processes. There is a seat at my table.
This implies that there are thoughts which are not critical, and thus should be categorized as such and then discarded as relevant to anything critical.
Open of course to subjective interpretation, but by and large the subjective can be criticized through the process of show and tell (evidence).
Most importantly, the object focused upon in relation to deciding what is critical and what is not has to be of critical importance in relation to individual subjectivity and collective objectivity - how the collective 'sees' the objective and goes about getting there.
As example of critical thinking in response to one recent item of data off the net...
New Zealand pastor blames gays for earthquakes
How do I approach this event critically?
I ask myself.
Q: Is this critical in relation to the objective?
A: No.
Q: Why not?
A: Because it is petty. It lacks substance and can be understood to be a symptom of the situation.
By that I mean to say, I understand the pastors beliefs but they are not critical to the situation as they offer no direct human made solution. It is simply an opinion, but one which contributes to the threat against solution.
So it is not discarded either. It still affects the critical.
Q: What else do i know about the pastor?
A: He is influenced by Christian morality. It is also and Islamic morality as well, as can be seen on the net.
Also the pastor is of Maori decent and thus will carry those traditions of belief with him in some way...related to the god of the Earth and her being a living conscious entity.
This of course has all transferred to the G-d of Abraham - probably the most influential phantom of the whole planet.
Q: How do I reconcile that with the critical objective when the two seem to be poles apart?
A: I cannot easily but am working on finding ways. All I can do is remain focused upon the critical objective and try to reason with anybody as to why they would be best to do the same...once of course we all agree on what that objective is.
Q: Is that which can be criticized therefore in opposition to the critical objective?
A: Yes - but that does not mean of course that it will overcome the critical objective.
Q: Is there a funny side to any of this?
A: Well I was wondering if the pastor meant that the two plates which were rubbing together were both male...I thought that was funny anyhoo...
Do you agree with my interpretation of critical thinking processes. There is a seat at my table.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2fXgmpv
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire