Of course critical reflection is fundamental to teaching and scholarship, but fetishizing disbelief as a sign of intelligence has contributed to depleting our cultural resources. Creative work, in whatever field, depends upon commitment, the energy of participation and the ability to become absorbed in works of literature, art and science. That type of absorption is becoming an endangered species of cultural life, as our nonstop, increasingly fractured technological existence wears down our receptive capacities.

…

Liberal learning depends on absorption in compelling work. It is a way to open ourselves to the various forms of life in which we might actively participate. When we learn to read or look or listen intensively, we are, at least temporarily, overcoming our own blindness by trying to understand an experience from another’s point of view. We are not just developing techniques of problem solving; we are learning to activate potential, and often to instigate new possibilities.

…

Yes, hard-nosed critical thinking is a useful tool, but it also may become a defense against the risky insight that absorption can offer.

The above passages come from a great article in the NYT by Michael S. Roth. Roth’s essay made me think of Marshall McLuhan’s famous saying: “I neither approve nor disapprove. I merely try to understand.” I also thought about this blog post by Peter Rollins in which he talks about how uncritical thinking can masquerade as critical thinking, because when people say stuff like “I agree with much of it, but…” what they’re actually doing (in many cases) is comparing the new material/idea to something they already hold to be correct. This is why philosophy has been so important for me, because rule number one in philosophy is to confess that you don’t know anything, which will ultimately–as Rollins points out–allow the thinker’s vision to impact our own.

Tags:epistemologyMichael RothNew York TimesPeter Rollinsphilosophythinking