Comments on: Sausages, enlightenment, and “critical thinking”

By: Scott

Scott — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 06:29:49 +0000

Roger “The sound and the fury” Kimball.

By: famous epigrams

famous epigrams — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:03:55 +0000

[...] art lest we perish from the truth.??? His disturbing thought was that art, with its fondness for …http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2008/06/20/162/Phrase index for "epigrams"christian epigrams: famous epigrams: satire and epigrams: [...]

By: Tim Doyle

Tim Doyle — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:52:50 +0000

How prolific.

Is “critical thinking” not simply the more recent euphemism for “reason”?

Is it not simply a term of defence against the constant threat we face from baseless presumptions? “cutting the crap”?

In practical matters the absence of “critical thinking” leads to very real failures precisely because false assumptions are allowed to be implemented.

Beyond the mundane nuts and bolts of day to day functionality, the term also expresses an antidote to the constant threat of unsubstatiated superstition imposed upon us all in the form of expectations and laws derived from myths, i.e., reason.

It seems likely that, absent that threat, the term would have no need to, and would probably not, exist.

Is the author irritated at the thought processes “critical thinking” implies or simply annoyed by the term?

If the latter – all this simply because a reasonably descriptive phrase is over-used and trite?

…unlikely, yet possible – (therapy recommended)

If the former, it begs the question: should we endeavor to discover and define our reality in increasingly accurate, real, and precise terms or bask in the more comfortable and false certainty of our imaginations?

This age-old conflict shall continue so long as there are those incapable of understanding, appreciating or even accepting reality and yet, possess the all-too primal need to assert themself as knowlegable, significant, superior, important, etc. – and – insist on imposing their will on others.

(I always find that incredible and astoundingly arrogant.)

Again – “critical thinking” is but an arrow in our quiver against such tyrany. Embrace it, make it your own, love it.

Peace

By: Arts & Ammo » Small Arms Fire

Arts & Ammo » Small Arms Fire — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:10:18 +0000

[...] the Sophistication. Roger Kimball sums up the philosophy of our times: “It is an axiom of criticism that the extent of our disillusionment [...]

By: njcommuter

njcommuter — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 02:34:39 +0000

Bismark’s position is ironic in the extremem given the skill of Karl von Clausewitz in what he called “critical analysis.” If you don’t care to read vom Kreig, you can get a strong taste in Philip Bobbitt’s new Terror and Consent and his previous book, The Shield of Achilles. (Both valuable reads, but not for the intellectual lightweight.)

By: Scott Hebert

Scott Hebert — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:46:48 +0000

This is very interesting. I’m reminded (vividly) of Chesterton and Lewis. Specifically, this line by Chesterton.

‘To preach egoism is to practice altruism.’ (in reference to Nietzsche) — G. K. Chesterton, _Orthodoxy_

In fact, this entire issue is one of the central themes of Chesterton’s work, and insofar as he follows that work, of Lewis.

By: Richard L.A. Schaefer

Richard L.A. Schaefer — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:34:12 +0000

I think both Buber and Marcel distinguished between a problem and a mystery. For a problem, one has the answer; Lonergan would say: there are no further relevant questions on that problem; one has virtually unconditioned truth regarding that problem. Even though some truth can be discerned and affirmed regarding a mystery, there are always further important questions, more to be pursued and elucidated. As Karl Rahner argued, the ultimate mystery is Mystery itself, God.
Both in the case of problems and of mysteries, it is the knower–a subject and therefore, by that definition, subjective– who knows. When the knower asks the right questions and affirms the answers that thus emerge, objective truth is attained, no matter how partial. Thus, true subjectivity is objectivity.

The splitting of truth, virtue, and beauty adverted to by RiverC is made worse by a narrow definition of truth, e.g., reductionism or the refusal to acknowledge other paths to the truth–scientism eliminating common sense and transcendence, for instance; or any of the three degrading or eliminating the other two.

By: From Around the Web: Worth a Look « Vox Nova

From Around the Web: Worth a Look « Vox Nova — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:55:07 +0000

[...] George Weigel on Benedict and the revival of the Latin Mass. Art critic Roger Kimball on critical thinking and the Enlightenment. Two good pieces from The Atlantic: Is Google Making Us Stupid? and a consideration of the [...]

By: RiverC

RiverC — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:49:41 +0000

Also, to risk being redundant, what I mean is that the entire Truth – which is Reality itself, is not accessible by dissecting and recording and classifying everything. While these have truth to them, they are only part of it. When we, like the Enlightenment thinkers, think that this is all there is, we will eventually – having mistaken a section or mode of Truth for the whole thing, find it lacking and discard it for mere feelings or experiences.

The Mad Prophet was right in on sense, I think, that the appearances are important – but wrong in that Truth is against Life. If you define truth to mean merely – as I said above – discursive facts and analysis, you may find that this killing part of truth (the Law which brings Death) is against life.

This truth is incomplete because it lacks beauty – since beauty is about the ‘true depth’ of appearances. Beauty does not stand on its own, but is a result of truth and virtue. When any of the three are defined narrowly enough to be consistent they become incomplete (because of our limitations) and thus one heads down the path to butchering Wisdom in the service of one’s own personal gods.

The beauty in a particular tree, for instance, can not be understood either by an emotion or fantasy, nor by precise measurement of all of its parts and processes. The first describes either a reaction to beauty that might occur, or the human ability of imagination, and the second reveals that there is a pattern of sorts behind it.

Having severed Truth and Virtue and Beauty, it seems obvious that you would on one hand have fantasy (which is beauty without truth) romanticism (which is beauty without virtue) and rationalism (which is truth severed from both virtue and beauty.) Virtue without truth becomes a kind of egoism, and virtue without beauty eccentricism.

The enlightenment cut the body of philosophy – of wisdom – into pieces. It’s no surprise the maggots started to gather.

By: RiverC

RiverC — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:32:45 +0000

To some of the commenters who are shouting down Kimball, you probably are missing the point of philosophy (which this is) — have you read Aristotle?

I think it comes down to this. Reality is a veil – and you can’t figure out what makes sausage sauage just by tearing it open or watching it get made. It’s deeper than just the appearance (so much deeper) but the depth is not measured in inches or years.

The interior can only be reached ‘from the inside’ – and thus Bismarck, while a sonufabich in some ways was right – you risk losing Sausage for what it really is by learning more facts about it – facts which don’t so much tell you what makes it sausage as much as how particular sausages ended up where they are now.