Critical Thinking: Acting Towards and Within Simultaneously

Critical Thinking:
Acting Towards and Within Simultaneously

InfiniumEtAl
December 9, 2004

“Critical thinking, or reflection, is the courage to make the truth of our own presumptions and the realm of our own goals into the things that most deserve to be called into question.”[1] If we fail to critically think, and thus apply only calculative thinking, we have set ourselves into a trap. This trap is due to us only asking philosophical questions, and we are at risk of confining critical thought into calculative thought. We can break this circle by defining critical thinking and asking why we need to think critically. We must allow them to interact, and check one another. To think critically we must perform in a manner towards critical thinking and simultaneously act within critical thinking.

The memorial address is a perfect example of the courage Heidegger himself speaks of, the speeches interaction between critical thinking and calculative thinking is purulent exudate filled with the very elements required to meditatively think. It asks not only how do you think critically but also why you think critically.
We must define the difference between critical thinking and calculative thinking in order to utilize them correctly. Critical thinking is not calculative thinking, which is simply planning and computations, it never stops and is without reflection. On the other hand meditative thinking is reflective in nature. Its very essence is to merge concepts, and not allow calculative thinking to dominate or control in hegemonic fashions, it is to shatter the actions of fallowness.
It is essential to slide away from Veritas, or what we feel are the only true facts in front of us, and move towards Alethia, or the new exposed options and facts. We must never let ourselves stop this mode of thinking or we will fall back into calculative thinking. The worst part is that we will not even be aware that we have fallen back into calculative thought. It will blanket our thoughts and actions just as the hegemonic empires we live within do. We must pierce the shields that block us from being truly free. We must realize that these shields, which we are told block the harmfulness of what they are concealing, are in fact protecting those dominating and controlling us by forcing us to accept that the options they offer us are the true free-will choices and not the only available options. This understanding of what dominates us should be enough to make one realize that they must break free. However, being that we have been educated in a manner congruent with calculative thought, and that we are mired in it, I will elaborate on why we must think critically.
By relating critical thinking to a virus we can readily answer the above related questions and see its relationship to veritas while understanding its true essence and potential pathology. Armed with these answers it will be apparent why we must think critically.
To clarify, we must think critically at all times. More importantly, we must realize why it is important to think critically. We will always be in a state of flux trapped between the imposed conditions upon us and attempting to pull away and think for ourselves. If one realized and truly understands the mechanisms of Veritas one can understand how to break free from its bondage. Veritas is dependant on a number of elements. Veritas will not budge when pushed against. Veritas is the trickiest of all for it is dynamic and alive; it changes with the times and remembers how we attempted to circumvent it centuries ago. It is a creative and a powerful force. We can never underestimate its power and control. That being stated how can we defeat it, and why is thinking critically of the utmost importance in the respect of breaking free from the prison of veritas?
Calculative thinking surrounds us. It is the way we are educated. It is in the way we do research, the way we read, and the way we enjoy life. It is constantly attempting to get inside us and dominate our minds and machinery. More specifically, in relation to technical devices, yet correlated to education and our informatics way of life, “We can affirm the unavoidable use of technical devices, and also deny them the right to dominate us, and so warp, confuse, and lay waste our nature.”[2]Once it gets inside us (sadly this happens at an early age) it mimics and deceives us into not recognizing its presence. It also forces us to perpetuate its existence and help it survive at all costs. It fools us into becoming an advocate for it by concealing other options that abounds us. Critical thinking gives us options to choose from, and we lead happy lives. However, these options are false. The choices may be correct; in fact they are correct most of the time, yet, this is one of its methods of fooling us: Its concealment of other options.
We must be careful in attempting to proclaim that we know what the other options are as this is still residing within calculative thought. “Its ontologically prior spatialization of being, that is, by its reduction of knowledge to a material and gridded space to be ‘conquered’ and ‘settled’.”[3]To combat this we must only accept that we need to contemplate each and every occasion that arises and demand to break free from the circle of choices, within that very moment. While also taking into account the previous histories and prejudices we bring to the interpretation. We must simply open up other avenues and dissect each and every one. Some may be new and useful options while others may be dead trails leading nowhere. However, we must travel down them all if we want to accept that we have broken out of the cycle.
Occasionally, we can be fooled twice by calculative thinking. We feel we have found new options and are enmeshed within calculative thought when all we are really doing is cherry picking from the elements veritas has given us. If we look at all the options around us that give us new choices we can combat this act of cherry picking, which is an element of the vicious circle. However, seeing that we reside in reality, it is impossible to contemplate each and every path that has a potential for traveling down. How can we then remain meditative thinkers? We remain meditative thinkers by contemplating ideas that pertain to the here and now, by exposing our prejudices that have led us to this path, and understanding how we look at the situation.
We must first muster the courage to think critically. We must accept that we are being dominated. We need to expose the assumptions of the situation and simultaneously demand to know if we are simply seeing these assumptions because we are assuming these things as an external listener. We must reevaluate our solutions and determine if we are truly unconcealed or perhaps we are unconcealed because we cherry picked elements that were imposed on us. Were our interpretations of the situation dominated in a concealed manner by the facts imposed upon us? We can ask how to think critically and why we must think critically. However, the complexities of the never-ending process will be more apparent if I elaborate on this process by discussing a movie.
A documentary was made on ‘The Weather Underground’. They were a revolutionary group formed in the 70’s to combat racism and the Vietnam conflict. They were formed from a student group and eventually evolved right off the campus becoming an independent entity. They primarily were involved in exposing those who where responsible to the public via bombings and other actions. David Gilbert was one of the active members of The Weather Underground as it made its transition from the campus to the broader scope of actions it finally became known for. The documentary interview was a thirty minute clip taken in 1998 in prison. David had been involved in a Brinks truck robbery that involved two murders. He will be up for parole in 2065.
David Gilbert remarks that a revolution means turning over. In his definition and explanation he remarks that he was arrogant in believing that his “turning over” was the only correct choice. Throughout the interview he is consistent in explaining his view from the various angles of his life. If we examine the various things that he speaks of, like why he became a revolutionary, how he viewed his actions, and how he feels currently, we can readily see that he has fallen into a trap of calculative thinking while making every attempt to be a critical thinker.
In the beginning, David Gilbert was a typical citizen. He was educated within a system ingrained with calculative thought. He reacted towards the world with a predefined set of actions and responses. He believed in a democracy for all. However, when the civil rights movement came knocking on his door he began to rethink his position to the happenings around him. He felt that it was his duty to actively question and engage the power structure that framed his life. He redefined his way of life to consistently shake the moral conscious of Americans. He wanted to bring forward the issues of hegemony to the alethia suppressed society. But, he failed to realize that he did not fully understand the nature of the regime and its power. This lack of understanding denied him the chance to combat it effectively. He was cherry picking the elements he chose to believe in and the hegemonic system supplied choices to him while making him believe that he was in fact meditative in thought.
What began as an amazing journey from critical thinking to a meditative approach on life began to spiral out of control. David remarks that the women who sided with the revolution were entering it to become liberated as well as help ‘The Weather Underground’ liberate society. Nevertheless, the women were victims of dominance. They justly felt like they were capable of raising issues in a male dominated cause. They were in truth merely elements of the macho mood, and treated as sexual objects under the guise of complacency.
Currently David feels good about having the chance to cut off pieces of the arms of the octopus that was soaking up money under the protective umbrella of democracy. He is enraged that he is the one in jail as apposed to those who were actually perpetuating the war against racism and liberation via violence. He feels that the corporations are the ones who should be in jail not himself. Concurrently, David was applying humanitarian ideals to resolve issues. He was raising constructive criticism on the government, their power, and the era, but, he had to do this without jockeying for power himself. For otherwise he would be displaying the actions of those he was trying to appose. How did he expect to command and take power without being democratic himself? The sad truth was that he was acting as our government but on a smaller scale.
In retrospect, David Gilbert thought he was acting in a manner congruent with meditative forethought. When in reality he was suppressed by critical thinking and didn’t even realize it due to being caught up in the moment. But, in order for me to bring these issues to light I must ask this very question of myself. Perhaps the cover has been pulled over my eyes early on by the forces of calculative thinking.
I may have gone through this entire process and exposed David’s assumptions, and his prejudices, yet, if I don’t question my motives at this very moment in my personal history I may miss my impositions and prejudices that I am no doubt imposing on this material. Without exposing my history, I have a potential to make stronger the case for calculative thinking. Perhaps, I have picked out the elements of this documentary that pique my interests. I would then be spinning in a circle that purely defines calculative thought. Or maybe I am not actually opening the door to a universe of pathways for me to contemplate and find new meanings. I may dream of being within a world where I am a continual meditative thinker, yet despite my generalizations I may be drunk with power over his words and simply spinning in a never-ending circle. For, “In fact power produces; it produces reality; it produces domains of objects and rituals of truth.”[4]
I could also be imposing restrictions on this text well before I even heard a word from David Gilbert. I certainly heard of revolutionaries before, was I considering David to be just another one of these self-righteous individuals with a fancy justification for their actions? Was I placing my inadequate knowledge base on the statements he made of women and revolution? These are only some of the specifics that must be answered before I can determine if I am actually participating in meditative thinking.
In response to this question I can actually answer yes and simultaneously no. For just as one who is in love is moving towards love and is within love concurrently. So too I have participated in critical thinking and moved towards it simultaneously. I do not have a destination. For when I reach my destination I have thus stopped acting in the manner that has brought me towards it. If one stops and tries to look at all angles they are also switching from being towards and within simultaneously to only towards.
I have begun the interpretation of determining if I am actually imposing my personal attributes on the subject I am attempting to interpret, or if perhaps they are truly unconcealed in the proper manner of meditative thinking? I may have exposed certain assumptions only because I am assuming these things as a listener and this may have been not what David did or was thinking at all. Thus in conclusion, I can only state that in relation to the question of whether I have, in fact, thought critically of David Gilbert I can answer that I made only an attempt to depart from the vicious cycle of critical thinking. In the process of questioning I have acted towards movement of meditative thinking and simultaneously acted in a manner resembling meditative thinking. We must remember that Heidegger tells us to not sit idle. He tells us, “yet releasement toward things and openness to the mystery never happens themselves. They do not befall us accidentally. Both flourish only through persistent, courageous thinking.”[5]
[1] Martin Heidegger, Discourse on Thinking (New York: Harper Touchbooks, 1996), 56.
[2] Martin Heidegger, Discourse on Thinking (New York: Harper Touchbooks, 1996), 54.
[3] William V. Spanos, Empire of the Gaze (Unknown) 269.
[4] William V. Spanos, Empire of the Gaze (Unknown), 267
[5] Martin Heidegger, Discourse on Thinking (New York: Harper Touchbooks, 1996), 56.