Critical Self-Consciousness

coberst · 11th November 2007 04:43 AM

Critical Self-Consciousness

I once asked a professor of philosophy what is philosophy about, she said “philosophy is about radically critical self-consciousness”. I have decided that CT (Critical Thinking) is the first important step on to this stage of critical self-consciousness. CT is philosophy light.

Our mind tends to be dominated by the ego and the group when we have not yet become critically self-conscious. I am not an expert in these matters (such has never hindered me from expressing my considered opinion) but from the things I read regarding critical self-consciousness they make sense to me.

Ego influences me by:
I think it is true therefore it is.
I want it to be true therefore it is.

Group influences me by:
The group name identifies me.
The group influences my associations.
The group is us and the other group is them.
What we do is good what they do is bad.

I suspect that the ego domination was the natural human condition during early evolution and slowly the ego morphed (transformed) into a group in some areas of consciousness (focused attention).

I think that Madison Avenue (advertising agencies) and the oligarchy (non elective group running the nation in that group’s interest) have learned to manipulate our egocentric and sociocentric characteristics for the advantages of marketing interests. Our ego drives us to buy the BIG car and our group drives us to dominate the other group in the interest of our group.

‘To be critical’ is often, I think, confused with ‘to be negative’. To be critical is to stop, think, analyze, and seek comprehension and possible improvement. To be critically self-conscious is to focus the critical effort inward with the self as the object of criticism.

I think that most of our personal and international tragedies are a direct result of our lack of critical self-consciousness.

Is that a ‘bunch of baloney’ or do you find truth contained therein?

I think that we can do a much better job building a better society if we developed a critical self-consciousness. What do you think?

chu chu rocket · 11th November 2007 09:25 AM

Then again, normal people can live normal lives without being aware that they occationally think "i want this to be right, therefore it is right." I am sure there is a reason why this self-criticism isn't developed more highly among us, and it tells me that biologically, self-deception is good. If you think society would be better if humans were more critical towards their own attitudes, then question is; what is your frame of reference for good and bad.

I discussed aspects of this in a thread on death penalty using the logic: punishment doesn't rehabilitate-- still we need revenge-- = we tell ourselves that penalty does work, then we don't have to see ourselves as vengeful creatures. Seeing as being vengeful is contradicting common cultural morality, as it is not about what is right and wrong ultimately, but about how much revenge each of us needs.

Biologically, I think most of us are programmed as moral absolutists, not moral relativists. Everything not beneficial to us, or our group is bad, and constructed as generally bad, like stealing. Moral absolutism is a robot doing daily operations. Moral relativism is either an intellectual exercise where the robot starts thinking about how he works, or he has lost some circuits inhibiting him.

coberst · 11th November 2007 11:30 AM

chu chu

The most important job the ego has is to control anxiety that paradoxically the ego has created. With a sense of time there comes a sense of termination and with this sense of death comes anxiety that the ego embraces and gives the “me” time to consider how not to have to encounter anxiety.

The ego determines what thoughts, situations, and feelings create anxiety; then focuses upon avoiding these anxiety inducers. The ego ‘vaccinates’ the organism for anxiety by allowing small amounts of inducers to reach consciousness. It skews perception and limits action to avoid anxiety.

The ego grows in strength by limiting the child’s inner biological drives. This is a mechanism for self-deception. This is what psychology calls neurosis. The basic humanization process is itself is neurosis. We are all neurotic to one degree or another.

The child develops motives for action based upon a family context. The child inhibits it’s inner world in an effort to satisfy the need to fit into the family world of what are mysterious symbolic meaning. Therein lay the mechanism for conscience. When the child says “I’ll punish myself now” s/he is affirming a life-long attitude to be guided by conscience determined by ego that makes the organism in command over “the anxiety of his whole sense of being, of life and death.”

The child keeps control by following a formula of following his or her conscience; “then and only then is he safe from annihilation.” One’s motives are buried deeply within the unconscious and veiled by ignorance of the self and guarded by the ego into a strong degree of self-ignorance. Therein lay the inhibition to self-reliance that Emerson found to be so very important.

coberst · 12th November 2007 05:54 AM

It’s a Judgment Call

Most decisions we have to make are judgment calls. A judgment call is made when we must make a decision when there is no “true” or “false” answers. When we make a judgment call our decision is bad, good, or better.

Many factors are involved: there are the available facts, assumptions, skills, knowledge, and especially personal experience and attitude. I think that the two most important elements in the mix are personal experience and attitude.

When we study math we learn how to use various algorithms to facilitate our skill in dealing with quantities. If we never studied math we could deal with quantity on a primary level but our quantifying ability would be minimal. Likewise with making judgments; if we study the art and science of good judgment we can make better decisions and if we never study the art and science of judgment our decision ability will remain minimal.

I am convinced that a fundamental problem we have in this country (USA) is that our citizens have never learned the art and science of good judgment. Before the recent introduction of CT into our schools and colleges our young people have been taught primarily what to think and not how to think. All of us graduated with insufficient comprehension of the knowledge, skills, and attitude necessary for the formulation of good judgment. The result of this inability to make good judgment is evident and is dangerous.

I am primarily interested in the judgment that adults exercise in regard to public issues. Of course, any improvement in judgment generally will affect both personal and community matters.

To put the matter into a nut shell:

Normal men and women can significantly improve their ability to make judgments.
CT is the domain of knowledge that delineates the knowledge, skills, and intellectual character demanded for good judgment.
CT has been introduced into our schools and colleges slowly in the last two or three decades.
Few of today’s adults were ever taught CT.
I suspect that at least another two generations will pass before our society reaps significant rewards resulting from teaching CT to our children.
Can our democracy survive that long?
I think that every effort must be made to convince today’s adults that they need to study and learn CT on their own. I am not suggesting that adults find a teacher but I am suggesting that adults become self-actualizing learners.
I am convinced that learning the art and science of Critical Thinking is an important step toward becoming a better citizen in today’s democratic society.