Andrew asked: "My question to this would be that, as brought up in class, if one begins to critically think habitually is it still indeed critically thinking or, because it requires less conscious deliberation, is it something else entirely?"
It is understandably counter intuitive to conceive a habitual act as critical thought. Despite this, I think there is no particular reason to list deliberation as a necessary component of critical thinking (I will diametrically contrast habitually and deliberately for the remainder of this discussion). Consider:
Elisha is a diligent knowledge seeker and places a premium on clear logical thought. She is, unsurprisingly, a philosophy major and repeatedly subjects all information and statements she hears to rigorous analysis and evaluation. Eventually, she begins to notice that she is analyzing and evaluating things such as jokes and obviously humorous statements. She understands that the joke is not necessarily meant to convey information of how the world works and will often rely on some inconsistency or impossibility, but she cannot stop herself from noticing such things due to the habitual analysis and evaluation.
While there is probably more to critical thinking than mere analysis and evaluation, it will still be a process capable of habituation. And when that occurs, it is still critical thought. Habituating critical thought is a laudable end goal, where it becomes the automatic response to the perception of information.
Question: Are there any requisite qualities of critical thinking that would render habituating it impossible?
No comments:
Post a Comment