A Philosopher Must Be a Critical Thinker

A Philosopher Must Be a Critical Thinker
{b }- By Vaughan Jones

One might automatically believe that every philosopher is naturally a logical and/or a critical type of thinker; not that logical and critical necessarily automatically go together. A critical thinker is one who first questions everything, eliminates everything that is untrue, and then considering only the truth.

A critical thinker needs knowledgeable understanding, thoughtful perspective, penetrating insight and sophisticated thinking.

Some philosophers, like French philosopher Rene Descartes who was born in 1596, is said to be the father of modern philosophy, have extreme views in this regard; as explained in later chapters. Since Descartes had qualified in mathematics, theology, and medicine, he believed that all truths were ultimately linked and thus he sought to uncover the meaning of the natural world with a rational approach, through science and mathematics. Another interesting philosopher is Bertrand Russel who was born in 1872. He believed that anything exists solely because we behold it, or look at it, and everything is different to everyone because it depends on how each person perceives it to be, and from which angle it is viewed. One of his books, 'Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy', is poignant to his method of thinking; logical and critical.

Rene Descartes said in his writing that, "If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things?" This statement, made by Descartes, opens one's mind to a multitude of further thoughts if considered in the context of what it takes to be a philosopher and to be termed a critical thinker.

If this statement is taken in context with other statements made by Descartes in his multitude of writings, like the Cogito statement of "I think, therefore I am", which appears in his Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason (1637); and one introduces the following definitions of being philosophical, or what constitutes philosophy, one might produce a portrait of a critical thinker.

In order to doubt all things at least once in one's life one would need to have a great deal of knowledge and understanding of life, and one would need to have thought about it extensively (have a thoughtful perspective and penetrating insight). Much of the knowledge of life is gained from personal experience, not only that which can be learned from books however, Descartes actually devised a scientific and mathematical method of thinking in order to consider the truth of anything, when he introduced his renowned Cartesian theory.

The question arises, "does one need to be a mathematician or a scientist in order to think in a sophisticated manner and produce logical conclusions as to the truth of anything in life?" I think that as long as one uses a method of thinking that produces a logical conclusion based on knowledge of life, one can be regarded as being in the realm of a critical thinker.

Would one be right in saying that in order to be a philosopher, or a critical thinker, one would need to be all knowledgeable concerning all life? I think this is actually a precursor, because otherwise, one would merely be able to make limited and limiting conclusion based on being only partially informed. It would be like making a final decision without considering the known facts, and thus not making a considered opinion, but rather an informed decision. Descartes introduced rules in his thinking in the determination of the truth.

Rule 1. Accept as true only what is indubitable.

This is a good starting point because it excludes everything except those matters which one knows are true. One can use Descartes as an example here; he believed there were only two things that were indubitable; the existence of God and that one exists because one thinks (I think, therefore I am). Therefore, this brings everything else into question, which can then be branded as untrue untilproven otherwise.The other rules basically use rule number one as the basis upon which to formulate decisions as to what is truth.

Constructive Versus Destructive criticism
This premise is exactly what Descartes urges one to do in using the above rules. It is clear that as long as one accepts only those things as true that are indubitable, and then builds one's judgement only on these truths, one cannot be esteemed to have used criticism, or to have been critical. To reject all that is not indubitable is not to criticize it.One can assume that constructive criticism makes up the objective viewpoints that are considered in discerning a truth with a view to determining whether it is true or not. Whilst destructive criticism is used to recognize anything which makes it untrue. One cannot have a constructive view of anything that determines something to be untrue, except that the determination itself is constructive and aids one in logically coming to the final conclusion.Descartes' method seems to fit the above description in the sense that it destructively eliminates, or excludes, everything concerning any matter and then constructively puts back together all things that make it true; thus proving or disproving it's truth.

A critical-thinking model to emulate who embodies the characteristics of a good critical thinker
Critical thinkingis said to be thatmode of thinking,about any subject, concept, or problem, in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skilfully analysing, assessing, and reconstructing it. Some research done through theCriticalThinking.org website has produced the following contribution:

Thus a critical-thinking model can be developed which produces logical decisions in the following manner:
Assess thinking
Check it for clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, significance, logic, and fairness.
A well-cultivated critical thinker:
Raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely
Gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively
Comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against          relevant criteria and standards
Thinks open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as needs be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences
         
Communicate effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems

These criteria can be used to assess whether a critical thinking model is solid. I believe though that Descartes' method of using mathematical logic, first doubting everything, and only then building on known truths to establish whether a thing is truth or not, is a solid methodology; thus it can be tested for clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, significance and logic.

I think; therefore I am. Is this the only definite truth that we all can be certain of, besides the existence of God? It is food for thought.

Let me know what you believe in this regard.