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?
Critical Self-Consciousness
-
Tater Tazz
- Posts: 2938
- Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:25 am
Critical Self-Consciousness
I think I agree with that.
Critical Self-Consciousness
Tater Tazz;718582 wrote: I think I agree with that.
I am pleased that we agree. I think that everyone of us who comprehends the importance of these matters needs to promote these ideas to our fellows on these Internet forums. The Internet is a great way to introduce these important ideas especially to young people. Take your understanding to other forums and tell everyone who will listen the value of these ideas.
I am pleased that we agree. I think that everyone of us who comprehends the importance of these matters needs to promote these ideas to our fellows on these Internet forums. The Internet is a great way to introduce these important ideas especially to young people. Take your understanding to other forums and tell everyone who will listen the value of these ideas.
Critical Self-Consciousness
Much of what you said is Buddhist philosophy as well. Their prime goal for beginners is to destroy ego for many of the reasons that you've listed and then some.
Critical thinking is a good alternative for people not interested in Buddhism to relieve themselves of some misery.
Critical thinking is a good alternative for people not interested in Buddhism to relieve themselves of some misery.
Critical Self-Consciousness
koan;718622 wrote: Much of what you said is Buddhist philosophy as well. Their prime goal for beginners is to destroy ego for many of the reasons that you've listed and then some.
Critical thinking is a good alternative for people not interested in Buddhism to relieve themselves of some misery.
I know very little about Buddhism but It seems to me that Buddhism seeks to remove the individual from reality whereas CT attempts to help the individual manage reality and thereby make for a better society and a better self.
Critical thinking is a good alternative for people not interested in Buddhism to relieve themselves of some misery.
I know very little about Buddhism but It seems to me that Buddhism seeks to remove the individual from reality whereas CT attempts to help the individual manage reality and thereby make for a better society and a better self.
Critical Self-Consciousness
What makes you so sure you know what reality is?
Critical Self-Consciousness
koan;718699 wrote: What makes you so sure you know what reality is?
Reality comes in two forms: there is what Kant calls the thing-in-itself which is beyond our ability to know and then there is the reality that we create in our head which is a represenatation of the thing-in-itself. Our senses help us create a representation of reality. Those creatures that were able to create satisfactory representations of the thing-in-itself managed to survive and those who did not did not survive.
Reality comes in two forms: there is what Kant calls the thing-in-itself which is beyond our ability to know and then there is the reality that we create in our head which is a represenatation of the thing-in-itself. Our senses help us create a representation of reality. Those creatures that were able to create satisfactory representations of the thing-in-itself managed to survive and those who did not did not survive.
-
Tater Tazz
- Posts: 2938
- Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:25 am
Critical Self-Consciousness
coberst;718844 wrote: Reality comes in two forms: there is what Kant calls the thing-in-itself which is beyond our ability to know and then there is the reality that we create in our head which is a represenatation of the thing-in-itself. Our senses help us create a representation of reality. Those creatures that were able to create satisfactory representations of the thing-in-itself managed to survive and those who did not did not survive.
Well said!!
Well said!!
Critical Self-Consciousness
coberst;718844 wrote: Reality comes in two forms: there is what Kant calls the thing-in-itself which is beyond our ability to know and then there is the reality that we create in our head which is a represenatation of the thing-in-itself. Our senses help us create a representation of reality. Those creatures that were able to create satisfactory representations of the thing-in-itself managed to survive and those who did not did not survive.
If the "thing-in-itself" is beyond our ability to know, does that mean that we are all merely playing around with the representation of reality that we create in our heads, with no hope of ever knowing anything?
If the "thing-in-itself" is beyond our ability to know, does that mean that we are all merely playing around with the representation of reality that we create in our heads, with no hope of ever knowing anything?
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
Critical Self-Consciousness
theia;719043 wrote: If the "thing-in-itself" is beyond our ability to know, does that mean that we are all merely playing around with the representation of reality that we create in our heads, with no hope of ever knowing anything?
Survivability is not just playing around. If a creature's representations of the thing-in-itself is too far off, that creature is toast.
Humans are creatures who create meaning. We create the culture that we live for, die for, and kill for.
Survivability is not just playing around. If a creature's representations of the thing-in-itself is too far off, that creature is toast.
Humans are creatures who create meaning. We create the culture that we live for, die for, and kill for.
Critical Self-Consciousness
coberst;719084 wrote: Survivability is not just playing around. If a creature's representations of the thing-in-itself is too far off, that creature is toast.
Humans are creatures who create meaning. We create the culture that we live for, die for, and kill for.
But if we don't know the "thing-in-itself" how do we know if we are close to it, or far from it?
Humans are creatures who create meaning. We create the culture that we live for, die for, and kill for.
But if we don't know the "thing-in-itself" how do we know if we are close to it, or far from it?
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
Critical Self-Consciousness
theia;719098 wrote: But if we don't know the "thing-in-itself" how do we know if we are close to it, or far from it?
If you are still alive you have accomplished the minimum. There are no absolute truths. We are fallible creatures. Our knowledge is sometimes bad, sometimes good, and sometimes better. That is why it is smart to learn from the best minds available.
If you are still alive you have accomplished the minimum. There are no absolute truths. We are fallible creatures. Our knowledge is sometimes bad, sometimes good, and sometimes better. That is why it is smart to learn from the best minds available.
Critical Self-Consciousness
coberst;719267 wrote: If you are still alive you have accomplished the minimum. There are no absolute truths. We are fallible creatures. Our knowledge is sometimes bad, sometimes good, and sometimes better. That is why it is smart to learn from the best minds available.
So this statement itself is not an absolute truth?
So this statement itself is not an absolute truth?
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
Critical Self-Consciousness
That is a very Buddhist definition of reality. Where we differ is the implication that Buddhists don't survive, there seem to be a lot of them in the world, and most likely in what you subjectively refer to as the "best" minds.