BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Conversation >

Cynicism vs Critical Thinking

  
 
webmadman
14:20 / 24.01.08
I came up with this as the result of what happened in the Sadness is happiness as sadness.
I figured I would post it here in Conversation so that it could go off in whatever direction the conversational winds care to take it...

From my perspective, critical thinking takes work, whereas cynicism is a simple act of negation. To be cynical is to simply reject that which doesn't neatly fit with your already presupposing assumptions about how something operates. In contrast, critical thinking challenges one to look at all sides of an issue before drawing any conclusion. In this regard, cynicism can all to often act as a defense mechanism, shutting out anything that may challenge ones world view. This observation of cynicism can fit a number of different points of view, including many (if not all) orthodoxies.
In communication, cynicism shuts down all but the internally congratulatory self-agreement of any given school of thought- it creates a vacuum that is all but impossible to penetrate. These hermetically sealed environments are destined for stagnation. Critical thinking, on the other hand, can facilitate an opening up to new possibilities, pruning away the dead-weight of old assumptions and allowing for new growth to occur. Exercising critical thinking within communication can take a bit of extra work, it means taking pause for reflection- when something strikes you as wrong, take the time to think about why- is it a possible factual error? Then do a bit of research to check if you have your facts right and state that, according to your research, the facts are... Be aware that it may be a case of a communication break down, the person you are disagreeing with may have stated their point in a way that you misinterpreted, in which case a clarification may be all that is necessary. Something I try to do is dig below how somebody is saying something in to what it is they are actually trying to say, asking for clarification when necessary to do so, to me, anything less is linguistic snobbery. If what is being discussed is a matter of opinion, then try to state your response as such, opinion is relative, important- yes, absolute- no. You don't have to agree with someone else's opinion in order to learn from it, that's why it can be extremely valuable to take in other people's opinion, it can help to enhance your own, and that can be a pretty good thing- challenging, yes, but rewarding as well.
All this of course, is just my opinion and, as such, I don't mind having it challenged- as a matter of fact, I enjoy having my opinion challenged. What I don't appreciate is being personally attacked or insulted, that accomplishes nothing but hurt feelings. That's my opinion anyway.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:43 / 24.01.08
The problem with this, old chap, is that essentially if somebody behaves the way you want, they are thinking critically, and if they don't then they are being, in your terms, cynical. What mechanisms exist to ensure that you are thinking critically about what constitutes critical thinking?
 
 
webmadman
14:54 / 24.01.08
Well, as I stated, critical thinking is looking at what is being stated and trying to address it directly, whereas cynicism is simply ridiculing and dismissing that which doesn't conform to your own way of thinking, at least, again, that's my opinion.
Does that clarify?
 
 
*
15:09 / 24.01.08
One sign that something is not critical thinking is that it ends in "that's my opinion."

In order for this to count as critical thinking, you have to be able to show the reasoned progression you make from what someone says to your conclusion that they are "trying to address it directly" vs. "simply ridiculing" what has been said. Unfortunately it is all too easy to believe that someone is simply ridiculing if you don't like what they're saying, whereas if you agree with them they're just addressing the statement directly. (Whatever that means: "Statement, I am thinking critically about you and I believe you are a big meanie! and fat!" But at least you'll say it to its face, right?)

Opinions are not critical thinking. If you have thought critically about this, then you should feel confident enough to say "I've thought about this, and this is what I believe and, and this is important, here's my reasons why I believe this." To call it an opinion is to excuse it from the burden of being labeled critical thinking, but also to excuse everyone else from taking it seriously.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:24 / 24.01.08
Well. Hoom. OK, here's an example. You said in the Head Shop thread:

I guess I'll be leaving now, have fun in your special world folks

Came looking for a conversation, but just found a bunch of up tight what, gits I believe you call them.

As for the comments on my name, well, judging a book by it's cover- happens to be a name I've been using since 96, has a bit behind it...

Glass houses dudes, glass houses.

Now, that sounds to me as if you are storming off the board, and that in the traditional wise of people who are storming off the board, you'll come back in the fairly near future with an "and another thing". This does not involve a critical examination of your words, but it does save a lot of time.

Heidegger talks about authenticity and inauthenticity- there is a common assumption that inauthenticity is a bad thing, but this is quite untrue. If one is putting up some shelves, for example, one does not want to engage in a constant critique of the institution of shelving, the iniquities of the timber trade, the possibility that one might die at any moment and one has still not read Moby Dick, and thus that in a sense these shelves would be the cruel epitaph to one's pretensions. Instead, one has an understanndng of the state of the wall (shelfless), of what one does to the wall (put up shelves) and of what the wall will be like at the end of this process (shelf-possessed). This is well and good, and as long as everything goes as expected, one can get through that process successfully. If something unexpected happens - the shelves catch fire, the hammer is missing, a beloved relative explodes in the next room - then one experiences authentic existence as a reaction to that traumatising circumstance.

Now, I think to an extent cynicism, as you describe it, functions as a kind of inauthentic -in the Heideggerian sense - response to text. It may not be _appropriate_, but it is not inevitably worthless. What you might, rather, protest about is that people were mean to you, not that they were cynical about your position.
 
 
webmadman
15:30 / 24.01.08
I can see what you're saying, but I do ascribe to the school of thought that, as an individual, I can not know everything and therefore, can not, with full resolve, state anything as absolute because there will inevitably be some factor I have not taken into consideration. As a result, I temper everything I say by stating it in relative terms, ie, as opinion. I think opinion is important, from wherever it comes from, and whether I agree with someones opinion or not, I will do my best to take it into consideration.

So, I will pretty much always temper everything I say with that kind of relative perspective, if this is something you have a hard time with then you might find my way of speaking irritating, but that's not something I have any control over.
 
 
webmadman
15:59 / 24.01.08
Oops, some overlapping posts, I should have said my last post was in response to zippy... I would add to that, you can arrive at an opinion through a process of critical thinking, in fact, I feel that that is the best way to arrive at an opinion.

To respond to WBHP- I haven't jumped too deep into Heidegger, so, until I do, I will just dig into the specific analogy you have given. If I need a shelf and start building one, but someone comes along and points out that the wood I'm using may not be the best wood for the job, that it may fall apart in a short period of time, I have a decision to make, I could say, well, this is what I have now, and if I don't do it now, with the materials I have, then it might be a while before it happens, or it may, because of putting it off initially, never happen, as a result I may decide to build the shelf temporarily until better materials come along so that I might rebuild the shelf later on with better materials as and when I get them.

As for the storming off, well, as I said, I wasn't too happy with the reactive nature of that post, hence why I came back with a more reasoned response and have decided to "dig in" and see what kind of conversation I could find here.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:17 / 24.01.08
If I need a shelf and start building one, but someone comes along and points out that the wood I'm using may not be the best wood for the job, that it may fall apart in a short period of time, I have a decision to make, I could say, well, this is what I have now, and if I don't do it now, with the materials I have, then it might be a while before it happens, or it may, because of putting it off initially, never happen, as a result I may decide to build the shelf temporarily until better materials come along so that I might rebuild the shelf later on with better materials as and when I get them.

Oh, absolutely, and that would be a form of authentic engagement with the concept of shelving, although the conclusion you reach is not immediately important to the question of how you are engaging with it. But yes, you can certainly do that. On the other hand, if somebody were tosee you apparently putting up shelves using bananas instead of shelves, they might be entitled simply to tell you that your shelves are not workable shelves, without feeling obliged to examine with you each way in which a banana is not a functional replacement for a shelf.
 
 
webmadman
16:27 / 24.01.08
Okay, so are you telling me that my shelves are made of bananas or that you don't like the look of the nails I'm using?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
20:15 / 24.01.08
Well, at least this hasn't turned into that Monty Python sketch,
"You're not being cynical, that's just negation!"
"If I'm to be cynical I must take up a negative worldview!"

I would suggest that cynicism is bigger than just simple negation and that a 'proper' cynic would be employing a wider range of behaviours than simply calling something 'crap'.

There is something I'd appreciate you explaining more fully:

Something I try to do is dig below how somebody is saying something in to what it is they are actually trying to say, asking for clarification when necessary to do so, to me, anything less is linguistic snobbery.

How so?
 
 
Alex's Grandma
11:23 / 25.01.08
Okay, so are you telling me that my shelves are made of bananas or that you don't like the look of the nails I'm using?

Maybe the point is that you shouldn't be attempting any sort of DIY at all, at the moment?

That it might be better to hire a 'little man' from out of the Yellow Pages, to deal with whatever philosophical issues have cropped up recently?
 
 
Closed for Business Time
11:58 / 25.01.08
I always thought cynicism was using irony, sarcasm and suchlike to critique certain Enlightenment notions of virtue, progress, truth and the essential goodness of man. As such, I've always been under the impression that cynicism, far from being a reflexive scatological negation of any given state of affairs is a reflective process of derailment, deconstruction and deferral of judgment. For me (and this is of course tremendously subjective) cynicism is usually bound up with doubt in someone's claims, and as such has a lot in common with critical thinking.

I do get what Haus and webmadman is saying, though, that cynicism can also be the name for quick, rule-of-thumb assessments. I don't however think the two are mutually exclusive.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:28 / 25.01.08
I'm not really saying that, although I am certainly cynical about the changes of Alex's Grandma contributing anything to the discussion except a fervent hope that someone can be goaded into losing their rag.

You've certainly highlighted one of the problems, however - "cynicism" has number of possible meanings - when Half Man Half Biscuit sing that it is cliched to be cynical at Christmas, they mean something very different from what Antisthenes the Cynic would mean by it - the aggressive deconstruction of the claims of anything other than the attainment of virtue in one's own life to confer happiness - or indeed Bertrand Russell - an attitude of mistrust of institutions which have generally expected your trust, expressed through mockery and irony.

Webmadman, however, has defined his terms - that for the purposes of this discussion he is using "cynicism" to mean an attitude through which propositions felt to be inadequate are rejected out of hand, and in an impolite manner, rather than "critically thought about". However, I think that this is a soupy distinction, because it does not take into account that sometimes a proposition is rejected out of hand not due to a failure of critical thinking but due to a significant disparity between the abilities of the interlocutors to think critically through a position or about a statement.
 
  
Add Your Reply