Immanuel Kant articulated his primary position on critical thinking in his essay "What is Enlightenment?" In there he defines enlightenment as "man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity" and he defines immaturity as "the inability to use one's reason without the guidance from another." What he means by this is that critical thinking is thinking for oneself and so he affirms the Latin term "Sapere Aude!" which means to have the courage to use one's own understanding.
The problem is according to Kant that people are reluctant to use their own understanding and are afraid to think things through for themselves. They would rather have other people think for them. So they go to their doctor for a diet or prescription. They demand that their pastor serve as their conscience. They memorize what books say. They don't ever question the authority of their doctor or pastor or books. Books have unquestioning authority because they are in print. It isn't just that people believe they don't have the expertise that the pastor or doctor has, it is that they are not willing to use their own thoughts to question that authority. People don't want to use their own reason. They want others to tell them what to do.
The solution to this problem is not to avoid doctors, the church, or refrain from reading, but rather to let the expertise of one's doctor, pastor, or books come into question. One needs to be open to opposing explanations and instruction. One should think about the alternative and reflect on what the doctor, pastor or books says. People need to seek a second opinion. People should always be open to the opposing thought. And this is precisely the work of scholars.
However, when using one's private reason, one isn't required to be free in one's thinking. For example, a pastor must adhere to dogmatic beliefs because they are required by his denomination. If he were to give us these dogmatic beliefs he would no longer fulfill the requirements of the position. A pastor who doesn't claim to believe the propositions of the Apostle's Creed is not really a Christian. The same thing holds for soldiers in the military; a soldier must obey his orders. A soldier who doesn't obey but calls the orders into question by his own understanding is going to disrupt the battlefield. These are private uses of one's understanding and it is right to hold to unquestioning beliefs in these cases.
Nonetheless, the public use of one's understanding must be liberated from these restraints. Scholars have this requirement. The number one example of using one's own reason, for Immanuel Kant, is the scholar in academia. The scholar requires freedom from authority so that she can use her own reason. For example, it was traditionally believed that Moses was the author of the five books of Moses. Scholars who began to see contradictions in the text and entertained the idea of multiple authors faced expulsion from their jobs. It was first in the 20th century that scholars were finally given permission to entertain a position in opposition to tradition. This freedom is not extended to students however who often are required to regurgitate a professor's opinions instead of being permitted to question those opinions. In a university a scholar and her students need to be able to entertain new ideas and call traditional beliefs into question so that new truths can be discovered.
Although Immanuel Kant is right that the private use of reason restricts thinking for oneself, it is not true that pastors and soldiers and patients don't need to think for themselves. Pastors will meet people, circumstances, and issues that are not dealt with in the bible or the tradition. Soldiers still need to think how best to carry out the orders given to them. Patients may need to trust the expertise of their doctors but they should also seek a second opinion or research the issue on the internet for themselves. So everyone needs to be like a scholar in some sense. We all need to see ourselves in the pursuit of the truth. So good critical thinking is necessary for everyone in every circumstance in life, not just for the scholar.
The problem is according to Kant that people are reluctant to use their own understanding and are afraid to think things through for themselves. They would rather have other people think for them. So they go to their doctor for a diet or prescription. They demand that their pastor serve as their conscience. They memorize what books say. They don't ever question the authority of their doctor or pastor or books. Books have unquestioning authority because they are in print. It isn't just that people believe they don't have the expertise that the pastor or doctor has, it is that they are not willing to use their own thoughts to question that authority. People don't want to use their own reason. They want others to tell them what to do.
The solution to this problem is not to avoid doctors, the church, or refrain from reading, but rather to let the expertise of one's doctor, pastor, or books come into question. One needs to be open to opposing explanations and instruction. One should think about the alternative and reflect on what the doctor, pastor or books says. People need to seek a second opinion. People should always be open to the opposing thought. And this is precisely the work of scholars.
However, when using one's private reason, one isn't required to be free in one's thinking. For example, a pastor must adhere to dogmatic beliefs because they are required by his denomination. If he were to give us these dogmatic beliefs he would no longer fulfill the requirements of the position. A pastor who doesn't claim to believe the propositions of the Apostle's Creed is not really a Christian. The same thing holds for soldiers in the military; a soldier must obey his orders. A soldier who doesn't obey but calls the orders into question by his own understanding is going to disrupt the battlefield. These are private uses of one's understanding and it is right to hold to unquestioning beliefs in these cases.
Nonetheless, the public use of one's understanding must be liberated from these restraints. Scholars have this requirement. The number one example of using one's own reason, for Immanuel Kant, is the scholar in academia. The scholar requires freedom from authority so that she can use her own reason. For example, it was traditionally believed that Moses was the author of the five books of Moses. Scholars who began to see contradictions in the text and entertained the idea of multiple authors faced expulsion from their jobs. It was first in the 20th century that scholars were finally given permission to entertain a position in opposition to tradition. This freedom is not extended to students however who often are required to regurgitate a professor's opinions instead of being permitted to question those opinions. In a university a scholar and her students need to be able to entertain new ideas and call traditional beliefs into question so that new truths can be discovered.
Although Immanuel Kant is right that the private use of reason restricts thinking for oneself, it is not true that pastors and soldiers and patients don't need to think for themselves. Pastors will meet people, circumstances, and issues that are not dealt with in the bible or the tradition. Soldiers still need to think how best to carry out the orders given to them. Patients may need to trust the expertise of their doctors but they should also seek a second opinion or research the issue on the internet for themselves. So everyone needs to be like a scholar in some sense. We all need to see ourselves in the pursuit of the truth. So good critical thinking is necessary for everyone in every circumstance in life, not just for the scholar.
About the Author:
Looking to find information on Immanuel Kant, then visit www.kantianschool.blogspot.com to find the best advice on critical thinking and how it can help you.
No comments:
Post a Comment