When I was studying philosophy, some philosophers were classified as "free thinkers". Others don't. The former received little attention. The second, detailed. And that set off the alarm in me. Because if you are not a free thinker, you don't think.
If the thought is tied to the rules and has to follow a script, it becomes dogmatic. And that's when we stop thinking. ipso facto.
Stopping thinking is very dangerous. We become susceptible to manipulation. We run the risk of developing extreme positions that someone will diligently take care to capitalize in their favor. So we become automatons following the orders of others.
The false dilemma: we can unite even if we think differently
The coronavirus has turned the world into a huge one reality show played with emotions. Rigor and objectivity shine through their absence while we are dragged into theinfoxication (excess of information). The more contradictory information our brain receives, the harder it is for us to tidy up, think and sink into chaos. This is how our ability to think is reduced. And this is how fear wins the game.
In these times, we have talked about theimportance of empathy and the ability to put ourselves in the other's place, to accept our vulnerability and adapt to uncertainty. We talked about altruism and heroism, of commitment and courage. All laudable skills and qualities, no doubt, but what has not been talked about is critical thinking.
Using euphemisms of all kinds, an implicit message has become so clear that it becomes explicit: it is time to help, not to criticize. "Thinking" has been duly circumscribed and stigmatized so that there is no doubt that it is undesirable, except in such small doses as to be completely harmless and, therefore, completely useless.
This belief has introduced a false dilemma because helping does not conflict with thinking. The two things are not mutually exclusive, on the contrary. We can join forces, even if we don't think alike. And this type of agreement is much stronger because it comes from confident people who think and decide freely.
Of course, this arrangement requires a tougher intellectual effort. It requires that we open ourselves to positions different from ours, we reflect together, we find points in common, we all give in to achieve a common goal.
Because we are not in a war in which blind obedience is required of soldiers. The war narrative turns off critical thinking. Condemns anyone who disagrees. It submits through fear.
This enemy, on the contrary, is overcome with intelligence. With the ability to look to the future and anticipate events, to design effective action plans based on a global vision. And with the necessary mental flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances. Flattening the critical thinking curve is the worst thing we can do.
Thinking can save us
"Designing and implementing the cultural vaccines needed to prevent catastrophe, while respecting the rights of those who need the vaccine, will be an urgent and extremely complex task," wrote biologist Jared Diamond. "Expanding the field of public health to include cultural health will be the greatest challenge of the next century."
These "cultural vaccines" go from stopping watching television sweeping to developing a critical awareness against media manipulation. They go through the search for a common point between individual and collective interest. They go through the assumption of an active attitude towards the search for knowledge. And they go through thinking. Free if possible.
Unfortunately, critical thinking seems to have become public enemy number one, just when we need it most. In his book "Essay on freedom“, The English philosopher John Stuart Mill argued that silencing an opinion is "A peculiar form of evil".
If the opinion is correct, we are robbed "Of the opportunity to change the error for the truth"; and if it is wrong, we are deprived of a deeper understanding of the truth in hers "Collision with error". If we only know our opinion on the subject, hardly this: it withers, becomes something that is learned by heart, is not tested and ends up being a pale and lifeless truth.
Instead, we must understand that, as the philosopher Henri Frederic Amiel said, "A belief is not true because it is useful." A society of freely thinking people can make better decisions, individually and collectively. That society does not need to be supervised to comply with common sense rules. In fact, he doesn't even need those rules because he follows common sense.
A thinking society can make better decisions. It is able to weight multiple variables. Giving voice to the differences. Anticipating problems. And, of course, find better solutions for each of its members.
But to build that society, each of its members must take on the difficult task of "Fight an enemy who has established outposts in your head", as Sally Kempton said.
Admission When do we flatten the critical thinking curve? was published first in Corner of Psychology.
