If there was ever a sign that academia's crappy attitude was getting a little stale, it was when even liberal journals started mocking its norms. The same thing is happening with the left-wing Atlantic, warning that “Universities are lying to students.''
No, this news outlet isn't complaining about various forms of leftism that permeate the average campus, it's complaining about something much more fundamental. So all of today's college tours seem to have something in common, says The Atlantic's Caitlin Flanagan. The guide will one day say, “What's different about University X is that the professors don't tell you what to think,'' Flanagan writes. “They teach you how to think.”
At the Y, wash, rinse, repeat, Flanagan laments — and all the way up and down the alphabet. And she questions the very idea that anyone can tell us how to think. She also wrote:
Each guide seems to think this is a difference between their universities, but as such they spend more time in higher education schools 'what they think' than 'how they think'. It shows that you have spent a lot of time. One. When visiting a university, take a walk through the hallways of the Faculty of Humanities. Look at posters advertising upcoming events and speakers, read course listings, or just stand silently in front of the semiotics that fill your instructor's office door. will be displayed.
Does this seem like a faculty that teaches how to think?
Of course, the idea that children should be taught how to “think” has become a reflexive dogma, much like “diversity” or “equality.” The difference is that it's not really questioned by the left, right, or center. But it should be.
thinking about thinking
Flanagan certainly has his doubts about that. “The truth of the matter is that no one tells you how to think,” she writes. But “all you can do is teach them how to think for themselves.'' That's certainly better than mindlessly following the herd. (As opposed to being careful and following the herd. In other words, sometimes the herd is right.)
But should we really focus on this? Is it enough? In the end, something is missing, whether it's the way we think or the way we think for ourselves. What should we think?
More precisely, what should we aim for when thinking “on our own”?
Goals shape your actions and thoughts. If a student's goal is to make the school tennis team, he or she will take actions (lessons, training, etc.) toward that goal. If you want to reach a geographic destination, know the route (or turn on your GPS these days!). And what about thoughts?
the goal
Let's use this as an analogy. Imagine someone who fervently advocates Lysenkoism, which believes in the heritability of acquired traits. (For example, if a man loses an arm, his children will be born without an arm. This belief was officially supported in the Soviet Union until 1964.) Now, if you say, Imagine standing up. To this, the person replies: All Chinese people have black hair, so their children also have black hair. Descendants reflect their parents. So a one-armed person will give birth to a one-armed baby. (That's logical. The problem is that the premise is flawed.) Then you get furious and retort: Good man, think for yourself! ”
But the problem is that the person may be thinking for themselves. The problem is that he is not truly looking outside of himself for what is truly important.
In other words, science is the search for truth. Doing this, finding and accepting truth shapes (and reshapes) our thinking. That makes it consistent with reality. And by doing this habitually, you come into contact with reality. As an example, when French chemist Louis Pasteur proved the germ theory, human thinking about disease became even more in line with the truth. This has led to improvements in health and discoveries such as antibiotics to fight pathogens. (Research continues, with antibiotic alternatives being developed.)
Of course, the same is true in philosophy, except that truth is not discovered by the scientific method. Rather, reason and logical analysis are employed, starting from axioms.
That way you can follow the breadcrumbs, so to speak. Just as understanding pathogens led to the creation of antibiotics, the discovery of one aspect of the truth can lead to another.
Knowledge prerequisites
If you think back to Flanagan, what's clear is that she had a father who provided that inspiration. In this regard, she related what happens when, as a young and energetic young lady, she describes a position to his face with complete conviction. Once she reached her conclusion, he gently derailed her with a simple question. “So what is the other side's strongest argument?” he would ask.
If we actually want to be right (and not just popular), we have to become our own worst critics. We must learn how to argue with our own positions in our minds rather than with those who are arguing beyond our own positions. Only when we examine our beliefs from all angles can we become complete and thorough thinkers.
But again, there are prerequisites for this. And we need to draw a little more analogy. Imagine a society that firmly believed that disease was a punishment imposed on humans by a capricious god. Imagine that each of its members fully believed that there are no “laws” of nature, that there are no scientific truths. What are the chances that they will discover the real cause of the disease? Why would they conduct such an investigation? It's like searching for a priceless treasure in the cold depths of the ocean, knowing for sure that no such treasure exists.
Similarly, if people are convinced that an answer to a moral/philosophical question does not exist, will they seek that answer? Would you ask? Another way to say this is:
If they believe that “everything is relative”, will they seek that answer?
nothing comes from nothing
Ultimately, this belief is moral relativism and ultimately amounts to moral nihilism. Because if everything is relative (as the modernist refrain says), who can say what is right or wrong? As research shows, this belief pervades our civilization as well. result?
As these studies also show, people are most likely to make “moral” decisions based on their emotions. And this makes sense. After all, if that (metaphysical) treasure doesn't exist, if there's no moral “answer”, why look for it? What should you think? You can choose what feels right.
Note that this is precisely why emotionalism is so prevalent in our time. That's why almost all of us have had this common experience when discussing someone (of a certain ideological bent). That is, when you present a logical argument, the individual gives an irrational response based on emotion. And then you understand why the British satirist Jonathan Swift once said, “You cannot reason about a man from a position from which you have not reasoned yourself.''
Simply and broadly speaking, if young people believe in the truth, they will naturally seek it out. If they don't believe in the truth, then of course they won't. Emphasizing “what to think,'' “how to think,'' and “how to think for yourself'' becomes meaningless when the reason for thinking itself disappears.
