Culture General
philosophy dissertation.
"To think is to say no." Alain.
What meaning and what value you give to this ruling?
Given the established order, advertising media and social pressure, we often give in to the facility to give our assent to the views commonly admitted, however, which involve the future of the community, without taking the necessary time to reflect on what could, if necessary, justify or deny them. While it is clear that this attitude is somewhat common, it is nevertheless incompatible with the requirement of reason. It is undoubtedly this fact which leads the philosopher Alain said that "To think is to say no."
Does this mean, however, that anyone would pretend to think, then wallow in the systematic denial?
For Latins pensare mean weigh. Would think so, a point of view etymological assess the weight of opinion, or theory. Thinking is therefore to do a job evaluation in the sense that we give credit or not a given trial. In this sense, thinking would be to construct a proper reflection in order to make a rational adjudication between alternative choices. This construction
what the thought seems not to have one purpose: to get closer to the truth. However, the errors of thinking are commonplace. It is only to consider the multitude of deductions summary and conclusive remarks can be heard by the through the media, only to find that the fruits of human brain activity are often an expression of truth. The path leading to it seems fraught with pitfalls, and the human mind is probably too often lost in its maze. The first trap is to have the impression of thinking, then we simply adopt the ideas of others. Thinking, so it's not easy, and requires courage and commitment. Will and courage must not know most of our peers, who give up thinking and prefer to wallow without reason, in evidence a dogma, they are not even aware that they are imposed.
In "What is Enlightenment? "Kant showed that it is less demanding for a human mind, to be guided by others, as do not think for himself. Laziness and cowardice explain that many men prefer to give up the sovereignty of their thought, and too willingly submit themselves to the mentoring of others. This refusal of maturity is convenient, since it relieves the stress of thinking, but dangerous, because it finally submits to the individual requirements of despotic guardian. This will certainly Moreover, not to persuade him that any attempt to represent emancipation for him a great danger. Trapped in a straightjacket of false truths, the victim is so manipulated, it feels like to use more of his free will. This guardianship is fatal to Kant, who urges man not to reduce himself to slavery, by delegating its authority to declare: "Sapere aude! Have the courage to use your own understanding! "
The second trap is more subtle, insofar as it does even more to be deceived by others, but to be deceived by its own lack of clarity. We can not pretend to think, when we shall be guided by his senses. To think is to say no to the evidence of intuition.
In the Meno, Plato, Socrates says to Meno the cause of the error of the young slave, who is asked to represent a square on the ground, whose area is twice that of the square that he himself has previously drawn. Spontaneously, the slave answers that you double the length of the side - which of course is false, because in such cases, quadruple the area, instead of double - and only after a long work questioning, Socrates managed to bring it to the correct result, namely, construct a new square using the diagonal as the previous side. The slave did not think he was content to believe that he knew the answer, without taking the time to evaluate his first intuition. It is the doubt, and he alone, which allowed him to progress. Access to knowledge necessarily involves the questioning of prejudices. In this sense, think, is saying no: no to opinions, prejudices, preconceived ideas. To think is to refuse to accept without explanation, refuse everywhere, all the time, this evidence, which is believed to need no justification to be commonly accepted. As highlighted in Montaigne's Essays, "They make me hate the things likely when I plant them as infallible." (Essais, III, 11 "boyteux).
The Greek word "Krinein means to judge. The concept assimilates trial in this case, that of criticism. Or criticize, does not object violently to an idea? Disassemble the inaccuracy or falsehood in a word, reject? In this sense, think, is saying no.
Thus, just to think, should we often rush his contemporaries, to fight against the inertia of spirits hostile to anything new and any change, inevitably disturbing. Can this mean that the opposition - the fact of saying no - or a sufficient condition for claiming think?
You can not seriously claim that the systematic opposition is a form of intelligent thought. If thinking is to say no, there are cases where saying no, refusing to think objectively. The systematic and without justification is just as questionable as docile acquiescence. The great difficulty of the human mind, is to think objectively. Every human being has lived its own, and guides his world views. It is unfortunate, but oh so common that we lack discernment in our positions, we are influenced by what we experienced in the past. The fierce rejection of the religion of Homais pharmacist in Madame Bovary Flaubert, and his almost mystical veneration of science and progress made him to be obtuse, limited and narrow-minded, when it is the same name of open-mindedness they claim to oppose the religion and its influence on his contemporaries. Homais opposed, of course, but so epidermal and unreflective. Its relationship to religion is passionate, and rejection can not be regarded as thought, but felt. Flaubert moreover well studied these mechanisms that cause the human mind to wallow in stupidity. To think, so do not just challenge, but doing it wisely, knowing, and able to justify his opposition. What's more annoying than these speech activists, learned by heart and recited at every opportunity to oppose that have only doctrinal justifications and arguments of any cut tangible reality?
This complacency in the negation is represented by the figure of the skeptic. The skeptic's doubt opposes any attempt to cause, and refuses every argument under the pretext that we can not access any certainty. From that premise is simply the denial of a loophole in the dark. Indeed, since no assurance is available, it undermines the very idea of rational thought, which should allow access to the truth. As such, our time is marked by a stream of thought, which tends to prove that in matters of morality, there is no universal truth, but there are different legal entities, each according to its own culture. This form of denial, systematic, is inherently destructive to the extent that it inhibits any attempt to identify universal moral principles. However, Kant, in Foundations of the Metaphysics of morals, shows that the reason objectively based morality, which is defined by the neglect and lack of affect of pity. This means that skepticism in this regard undermines the very idea of morality, because when morals are relative, we can substitute each other, and therefore there is no more moral. Morality in the Kantian sense is dictated by reason, therefore, deny the moral is prohibited due to its expression.
In this case, saying no, not thinking, saying no is to deny the existence of a possible truth, and all intellectual journey that would seek to discover. Denying the existence of a solution to a problem is voluntarily refrain from having any chance to fix it. However, if it happens that one was deceived, and that indeed a solution existed, it would have wasted valuable time, which would have been more useful for research. In this case, saying no is not subject themselves to think.
other hand, think it may also say yes. Thinking it may be a free position in favor of a theory. Can anyone argue that the astrophysicist who accepts the theory of big bang as his predecessors have scaffolded refuses to believe? It would be ridiculous and unfair. Contrary to what happens routinely in opinions, the scientist takes the trouble to check the path that has lead to theories. It's sort of learning. In science, there a point of submission, and intellectual honesty is perfect: everything is allowed to start, assumption or hypothesis, can legitimately be questioned, if it is a tangible fact just upset that it would only one of its logical consequences ... The scientist therefore think, in the sense that he built himself his knowledge of certain truths that others have demonstrated rationally, and be aware of what the new observations do not deny in any way consistent Overall, failing which he will attempt to construct a broader theory that takes into account these new developments. There
is no fundamental opposition between the act of thinking, and accept that, nor is there a link with one being that of denial. Think, it is therefore not always say yes or say no, but knowing when to say one or the other, and especially to justify their actions. To think is to be satisfied in the sense of Pascal's term, that is aware of the truth, because it imposes through reason, not because it results from a heteronomous attitude. Such is the vocation of the teacher, trying to track that of the cocoon of the blind childlike obedience through the chrysalis of adolescent rebellion, will lead to the flight of the adult responsible and autonomous, to its destiny as a free man. His freedom will only be effective from the time, sure of himself, he knows how to think, that is, why join, why or disprove.
0 comments:
Post a Comment