Conventions of Thinking

The title Conventions of Thinking implies a philosophical point of view that I must acknowledge up front. Conventions are practices that have been formed and adopted by general agreement and validated by precedent. Some people - the followers of Plato - may be loath to accept the view that our thought processes are mere conventions, and I readily acknowledge their right to object.
In choosing this title, I had no desire to provoke a philosophical debate but rather to point out that there are various approaches to thinking. The major divisions are personified by Plato and his student Aristotle. Despite their teacher/student relationship, these two men approached thinking from very different points of view.
Plato was an idealist who considered ideas to be ultimate realities. In his Parable of the Cave he described experiences as shadows on the wall, and he argued that one must emerge from the cave into the sunlight of ideas in order to “see” the truth. People who adopt Plato’s style of thinking are comfortable with abstractions, and they search for knowledge in very non-scientific ways. Religious idealists are inclined toward other-worldliness and toward spirituality. They, like Plato, believe that man has a dual nature – body and soul – and that after the body dies the soul endures. Idealists also generally assume that they are capable of learning absolute truth, and their methods of gaining certain knowledge vary from revelation to mysticism to rationalism to transcendentalism.
Aristotle was a realist and a materialist. Even though his hypotheses, as Galileo demonstrated, did not always stand the test of time, he still might be viewed as the great-great-great-grandfather of science. He did not accept his teacher’s view that a world of ideas exists apart from material reality. Form, as Aristotle saw it, is embedded in reality and not a template that exists apart from the material world in a realm of ideas. When biologists and botanists classify living things into various sub-groups of animals and plants, they are justified in doing so only when such beings are present in the real world. Concepts that are not rooted in the real world are mere flights of fancy.
Realists tend toward a this-worldly orientation. Most see knowledge as a human creation that develops out of our interactions with our physical and our social environments. Relativist, however, are not all of one mind. Their views range from the existentialist’s extreme man-is-the-measure view to William James’ pragmatism. James, like most scientists, assumes that truth exists but that human understanding of that truth is always tentative.
The style of thinking that we adopt has great influence over our lives. Idealists tend to live on a highly subjective level, and many make little effort to control their emotions and their impulses. Some look for depth of meaning in religious rites. Others commune with nature. Still others, such as John Keats, search for meaning in their aesthetic experiences. In his “Ode to a Grecian Urn,” Keats opined: "Beauty is truth, truth beauty,"--that is all/ Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.”
Realists, of course, are more inclined to live examined lives. They strive to understand and to control their emotions and their impulses and their thought processes. Instead of “selling all they have for loveliness” as Sylvia Plath advised in her poem “Barter,” they are more likely to weigh and to measure several alternatives before coming to any conclusion or opting for a particular course of action.
It is not my intent in this textbook to encourage students to adopt a particular style of thinking. In fact, we are all torn between the Platonic and the Aristotelian world views. My hope is to encourage young adults to live examined lives, as Socrates advised, and to adopt whatever style of thinking that they choose as a conscious and willful act.
This book might provide the foundation for a critical thinking curriculum.