D’ruther eat dirt
One important characteristic of philosophy is developing questions that will lead to a better understanding. We assume many things and the questioning of our assumptions and natural inclinations inhibit our ability to think rationally. Thinking rationally is what philosophy is about.
We have often heard a sports announcer say of an athlete “she has lost her concentrationâ€Â.
Anyone who has played both party bridge and duplicate bridge will recognize the great chasm separating the two forms of bridge; playing duplicate bridge is for serious players and party bridge is what the phrase implies. Party bridge is fun and games and discussions and eating cake and drinking coffee or wine.
The individual who has struggled to improve her golf swing or tennis serve can comprehend that the duplicate bridge player is like the person who is determined to improve her game.
It appears to me that few of us have learned in our schooling how to improve our intellectual game of reading, listening, and thinking. Our schools have seldom provided any of us with the experience of reading, listening, and thinking with determination and concentration. Our schooling has aided us in becoming sleep-readers, sleep-listeners, and sleep-thinkers.
If we adults are ever to correct this deficiency we must do it on our own. The major barrier to correcting this deficiency is our ego. No vigorous self-respecting ego is going to stand idly by while its brain accepts this as being true.
How can adults correct this deficiency? Like a good golf swing; if we have never experienced it can we recognize it without a coach? I think we can but it is a pain in the brain.
It appears to me that it is basic human nature not to change our views without a struggle. The ego is generally a force for the status quo. When faced with having to change my image of myself ‘druthereat dirt’.
D'ruther eat dirt
D'ruther eat dirt
I think a large part of the resistance to change is subconscious and it is emotional in cause less than intellectual. It often takes a dramatic catalyst to cause people to reassess their understanding of themselves or of life. Then one often doesn't know something about oneself until faced with unusual circumstances.
This topic partly comes down to a learned vs innate behaviour argument, which is almost a the chicken or the egg debate. It also partly assumes that you have studied a group that fairly represents "humans". If there is a study that supports the theory I'd be interested to know which. If this is a theory of your own, and it is correct, you'd likely have trouble getting the guilty parties to admit it.
This topic partly comes down to a learned vs innate behaviour argument, which is almost a the chicken or the egg debate. It also partly assumes that you have studied a group that fairly represents "humans". If there is a study that supports the theory I'd be interested to know which. If this is a theory of your own, and it is correct, you'd likely have trouble getting the guilty parties to admit it.
D'ruther eat dirt
koan wrote: I think a large part of the resistance to change is subconscious and it is emotional in cause less than intellectual. It often takes a dramatic catalyst to cause people to reassess their understanding of themselves or of life. Then one often doesn't know something about oneself until faced with unusual circumstances.
This topic partly comes down to a learned vs innate behaviour argument, which is almost a the chicken or the egg debate. It also partly assumes that you have studied a group that fairly represents "humans". If there is a study that supports the theory I'd be interested to know which. If this is a theory of your own, and it is correct, you'd likely have trouble getting the guilty parties to admit it.
Our schools and colleges have in the last few decades began to teach CT (Critical Thinking). This is an effort to teach youngsters how to think and not just what to think. CT is about learning how to make good judgments through disciplined rational thinking.
I would say that CT consists of the knowledge learned in Logic 101 plus learning to be critically self-conscious. Critical self-consciousness is learning how to understand how we naturally tend to be irrational. It is about learning about the nature of egocentric and sociocentric inclinations.
You can find info on CT on the Internet or from books.
This topic partly comes down to a learned vs innate behaviour argument, which is almost a the chicken or the egg debate. It also partly assumes that you have studied a group that fairly represents "humans". If there is a study that supports the theory I'd be interested to know which. If this is a theory of your own, and it is correct, you'd likely have trouble getting the guilty parties to admit it.
Our schools and colleges have in the last few decades began to teach CT (Critical Thinking). This is an effort to teach youngsters how to think and not just what to think. CT is about learning how to make good judgments through disciplined rational thinking.
I would say that CT consists of the knowledge learned in Logic 101 plus learning to be critically self-conscious. Critical self-consciousness is learning how to understand how we naturally tend to be irrational. It is about learning about the nature of egocentric and sociocentric inclinations.
You can find info on CT on the Internet or from books.
D'ruther eat dirt
CT is not the solution to all problems, IMO
D'ruther eat dirt
koan wrote: CT is not the solution to all problems, IMO
You are correct CT will not solve bad breath. There are probably many other things CT will not solve. You show excellent insight.
You are correct CT will not solve bad breath. There are probably many other things CT will not solve. You show excellent insight.
D'ruther eat dirt
There are stats on the average span of attention. Shall we look and see what we can find?