Philosopher's craft
- Thread starter Michal
- Start date
First of all I wouldn't teach anything but recommend playing with active reading. The difference between active reading and passive reading is that in active reading, one engages in an inner monologue with the author of the text where any assertion or thought process is questioned and argued with: Does this assertion makes sense? Does it apply always or only in certain circumstances? In which cases does it apply and which cases doesn't it apply? Is it logical an true? Is it logical and untrue? Is it illogical? How does it compare with that other assertion I've a read about the other time? Can it be harmonized with that other model of categorization or is there a dissonance? What is it to learn from this idea, does it require to question that other idea? Is it a point of data to put a side for further analysis? etc.
OSIT
OSIT
Hi, Michal. I think the idea in the question sounds somewhat “intrusive”, maybe because you didn’t include enough context. The idea of teaching a person “how to think” can potentially raise an issue of violation of free will. You say “if you were to…” but what would create such a necessity? I don’t say it’s not possible or natural, I just wonder why or how.
Since you also mentioned “philosophy” in the title, I’ll say this issue is closely related to the concepts of STO and STS. Putting OP’s aside, probably almost everyone incarnates with a certain inclination towards either STO or STS, despite the great problem of spiritual stagnation, which results in a general lack of effective polarization in either direction. I think the STO and STS inclinations, and the possible or probable interactions or counteractions between them, will determine to a great extent how one will tend to think and reason, and how healthy or effective such thinking and reasoning can be.
So, the “inclination” of the “teacher” and the “student” will each be important, I’d say.
As for interactions between more-or-less (or “potentially”, maybe) STO-inclined persons, I think the most important is to support or promote high morale / high spirits, or, as the C’s say, “mirth”. Like many other things, mirth contains a knowledge or awareness, a high or deep, basic, and strong one (that of STO or positivity). The extreme negativities pressed on us by the owners/operators of the “matrix” can often cause us to suffer various losses in that awareness. So, both in ourselves and for other potentially co-linear ones, promoting positivity, hope, mirth, etc. is very beneficial, I think. This is probably not exactly what you asked about, but could be relevant.
Since you also mentioned “philosophy” in the title, I’ll say this issue is closely related to the concepts of STO and STS. Putting OP’s aside, probably almost everyone incarnates with a certain inclination towards either STO or STS, despite the great problem of spiritual stagnation, which results in a general lack of effective polarization in either direction. I think the STO and STS inclinations, and the possible or probable interactions or counteractions between them, will determine to a great extent how one will tend to think and reason, and how healthy or effective such thinking and reasoning can be.
So, the “inclination” of the “teacher” and the “student” will each be important, I’d say.
As for interactions between more-or-less (or “potentially”, maybe) STO-inclined persons, I think the most important is to support or promote high morale / high spirits, or, as the C’s say, “mirth”. Like many other things, mirth contains a knowledge or awareness, a high or deep, basic, and strong one (that of STO or positivity). The extreme negativities pressed on us by the owners/operators of the “matrix” can often cause us to suffer various losses in that awareness. So, both in ourselves and for other potentially co-linear ones, promoting positivity, hope, mirth, etc. is very beneficial, I think. This is probably not exactly what you asked about, but could be relevant.
Yeah. If, or to the extent, you lack happiness, joy, hope, positivity, you probably can’t effectively promote it for others. I don’t claim you suffer such a problem, and, in fact, I must admit that I do, and therefore I intend to face and counteract it, and also enjoy discussing it.
As should be obvious, I don’t mean being happy for the extreme negativities wide spread all around the world. I mean being happy for, or enjoying, the higher/deeper truths or “absolute truth” highlighted by the Ra-Cassiopaean cosmology, for one example.
I believe “work on self” involves this fundamentally. And the more we grow in this higher/deeper awareness, the more we can contribute to others in this respect.
As should be obvious, I don’t mean being happy for the extreme negativities wide spread all around the world. I mean being happy for, or enjoying, the higher/deeper truths or “absolute truth” highlighted by the Ra-Cassiopaean cosmology, for one example.
I believe “work on self” involves this fundamentally. And the more we grow in this higher/deeper awareness, the more we can contribute to others in this respect.
Last edited:
Wandering Star
The Living Force
Yes! Learning to think and reason STO-wise! :)I would try to learn to think and reason.
It would be nice to achieve that.
3D/earth-centered/egotistical/STS thinking complicates it, but we need to counteract this problem by learning, working on self, and networking, obviously.
Why I start this topic:
Every subject has it's schema or in other words: if I want to understand some subject I need some necessary knowledge prior to that.
Few examples from engineering:
Fluid mechanics calculations:
1. mathematics including second order differential equations and all that entails to get there
2. physics: concepts of pressure, velocity, energy, etc
Construction calculation:
1. calculus
2. tensors
3. necessary knowledge of the construction materials
4. building blocks of the construction
5. loads
6. connections etc.
Maybe not the best examples but my point is that I cannot read books until I learn abc.
So I assume that this should be similar with learning how to think.
I called it philosopher's craft maybe a bit unfortunate as more common name would be
- critical thinking
- reasoning skills
I guess that the reason for Trivium in classical education was that: learn how to think. Independently, autonomously. For what? Because it is foundation for any other human activity. Mind is before matter. Mind controls matter.
Currently all civilized world is in battle of ideas. New Left, Neo Marxism was very successful in decomposing foundational ideas by destroying for example definitions of words: what is human? what is truth? what is freedom? etc
Every subject has it's schema or in other words: if I want to understand some subject I need some necessary knowledge prior to that.
Few examples from engineering:
Fluid mechanics calculations:
1. mathematics including second order differential equations and all that entails to get there
2. physics: concepts of pressure, velocity, energy, etc
Construction calculation:
1. calculus
2. tensors
3. necessary knowledge of the construction materials
4. building blocks of the construction
5. loads
6. connections etc.
Maybe not the best examples but my point is that I cannot read books until I learn abc.
So I assume that this should be similar with learning how to think.
I called it philosopher's craft maybe a bit unfortunate as more common name would be
- critical thinking
- reasoning skills
I guess that the reason for Trivium in classical education was that: learn how to think. Independently, autonomously. For what? Because it is foundation for any other human activity. Mind is before matter. Mind controls matter.
Currently all civilized world is in battle of ideas. New Left, Neo Marxism was very successful in decomposing foundational ideas by destroying for example definitions of words: what is human? what is truth? what is freedom? etc
BlueKiwi
Jedi Master
The best way, and most fun I have found to learn how to think, is when learning with others. We learn some material and them test each other by proposing "but, what if ..." and coming up with some possibility of that hypothesis being good, or flawed - getting everybody to think on that. In that way we keep remembering what it is we just learned, reinforcing the information.
If you are alone, the you have only yourself to postulate on things. In this case I find you need to be mindful that you are not being biased in your thinking (with others present they will easily point biases out, if they are honest with you)
Does this help ?
If you are alone, the you have only yourself to postulate on things. In this case I find you need to be mindful that you are not being biased in your thinking (with others present they will easily point biases out, if they are honest with you)
Does this help ?
Good questions, important I believe. Under different circumstances I think we need to make use of different techniques.
Some things you can learn from reading them. Some you cannot. Just ask anyone who bought Ikea furniture. Actually that example shows a lot. One person will insist on making sense of the instructions. Another person will insist on putting the furniture together 'hands on' and learn their mistakes along the way.
Perhaps you now require a 'hands on' approach to learn something. Maybe instructional videos or even a class/teacher scenario. Even a one-on-one with a mentor with experience in what you are trying to learn/master. What worked for one lesson will not necessarily work for another. Once you know what you need to move forward, you usually find it.
I think critical thinking is not learned, it is practiced. You can learn critical thinking uncritically after all, because if you learn it critically you don't need to learn it to begin with. Even in the engineering analogy, learning the mathematical tools and the theory doesn't make one an engineer. The engineer has to apply those things to design and build in the real world to be considered as such. That's why good textbooks have exercises. As for the philosophy analogy, one may notice that many good philosophical works are dialogues (Dostoyevskii for instance), and even if the dialogues are not explicitly presented as such, there is a back and forth, argument and counter-argument.