Of Criticism and Judgment

[tcpip]

airiefairie has written an excellent post at The Isocracy Network on the perceived need of political pundits (of which I must admit adding a few elaborations and footnotes). Apart from the direct issue of personal involvement in civics, it also raises the question of the core faculties of the thinking process. By this I mean not the passive absorption of information, nor the ability to regurgitate such perceptions, but the conscious ability to criticise and judge, which should be available to any with an adult mind.

Such reflective thinking often seems missing in the minds of many adults and this causes me some concern. For without it a person simply isn't capable of expressing any rational judgment except over the own sensations, and even then not necessarily to their own good, as they are incapable of reflecting in their own tastes; I suspect such people are particularly prone to unconscious drug and alcohol abuse.

More serious pathological behaviour occurs however when moral decisions are made without criticism, and judgment, the former defined as faculty to engage in reflection and the latter to express it. With the example of Adolf Eichmann, confirmed by the famous Milgram psychology experiments and followed up by the Stanford Prison experiments, individuals who don't not engage in criticism and reflection are prone to follow what is socially expected of them - even if it means sending tens of thousands to concentration and extermination camps (Eichmann), or electrocuting people (Milgram experiments), or engaging in a physically abusive misuse of power (Stanford). Even if they claim "oh, I would never do that", the reality is most people would and do. They will follow an authoritative figure representing their church, nation, or state, or ideology to the point of engaging in the worst abuses of human rights and especially is it is socially sanctioned to do so.

Immanual Kant (whom I may not care for his metaphysics, but I often like his rationality - and no, the latter does not require the former) has two great contributions to this matter. One is the third in the philosophical trilogy, Critique of Judgment. But perhaps more important is the pithy essay 'What Is Enlightenment'. In it he quite correctly describes enlightenment as the moment when one overcomes their own mental immaturity; when they have faith in the own ability to learn through criticism and accept the criticism of others. When they no longer fear the social sanction from who become upset from 'uncomfortable comments' (which, of course, Socrates specialised in).


Now before passing my own judgment on such people, there are exceptions and caveats to be stated. Some people are simply not capable of engaging in criticism; as noted above those who have a cognitive deficiency that means they effectively do not and cannot have an adult mind. Others, capable of criticism, may have genuine fears for their physical security if they pass judgment (e.g., under a totalitarian government) - but only in such cases is a temporary silence justified. In all other cases, we should state, honestly and forthrightly, what is true and false as we perceive it (and admit our own possibility of error), to espouse what we consider right and wrong (and test these claims to universality), and even to sincerely express our tastes (acknowledging that the tastes of others will vary).


Those who do not engage in criticism are idiots; those who do not engage in judgment are cowards.

Comments

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

I must also say the conclusion of "What is Orientation in Thinking?" does remind a great deal of the conclusion of "What Is Enlightenment?"

Accept whatever seems most credible to you after careful and honest examination, whether it is a matter of facts or of rational arguments; but do not deny reason that prerogative which makes it the greatest good on earth, namely its right to be the ultimate touchstone of truth. If you fail in this respect, you will be unworthy of this freedom and will surely forfeit it; and you will bring the same misfortune down upon those other guiltless souls who would otherwise have been inclined to employ their freedom lawfully and hence in a manner conducive to the world's best interests!"

I have to say, he's pretty good when he's pissed off! :)

[ironed_orchid]

Yeah, I tend to treat them as companion pieces, which is what it's annoying that while "What is Englightenment?" is available EVERYWHERE, "What is Orientation in Thinking?" is not.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

You could do the world a great service by making an OCR scan of the essay :)

(Because if you don't do it, I will..)

[ironed_orchid]

oh hey, I DO have a scanner....

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

An OCR scanner? Wouldn't want the great work as single page images... :)

[ironed_orchid]

Actually, no. But I can make pdfs.

I should hand it over to you. One problem is that the Reiss translation is still in copyright. Whereas there have been several translations of "What is Enlightenment?".

Oh, and speaking of translating "What is Enlightenment?", check out this review of the Kuehn bio of Kant, well, skim to the end, and see if you notice anything odd regarding their complaint about how he translated it...

Something odd indeed.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Semper ... Sapere... Now that's an unfortunate Latin fail..

So... "always [use] courage" versus "dare to think"?

Hmmm... Courage without thinking. Now that's possibly pathological; now imagine if that was the motto of the Enlightenment!

Perhaps Kuehn is of the opinion we should be more like a lion, or other beast, rather than the judgmental and critical philosopher!

Look forward to the PDF...

Re: Something odd indeed.

[ironed_orchid]

Yeah, their German may be okay, but they FAIL at Latin.

Kuehn's book has "Sapere Aude".

I wonder if it was the reviewer or a proof reader or editor who changed Sapere to Semper, which I admit, might be more familiar to most.