SOCRATIC QUESTIONS FOR CRITICAL THINKERS

How did we arrive at the place where it's necessary to apply critical thinking to critical thinkers?

A few questions are in order.

Should we dismiss questions based on our perception of them, or should we apply standards to determine their value? And shouldn't we apply effort to questions that have value?

How do we know when we are being engaged or confronted by a qualitative thinker? And what should we do when we determine that a thinker is qualitative?

If we are being confronted by qualitative thought, shouldn't we pursue it, even if it causes discomfort, even if we dislike the person, even if it comes from a beggar?

Who is qualified to ask questions? What qualifies a person to partake of discourse? Does one have to be institutionally certified in order to ask questions of value? Does institutional certification guarantee dialectical quality?

Are Ad Hominems a legitimate way to evaluate questions?

I don't believe the critical thinkers, I think they are phony, I think they are after authority as opposed to truth.

Am I doing something wrong by asking these questions? Are these questions valid? Should an honest and intelligent thinker engage them? The real tragedy is that they have to be asked at all!

Mature thinkers should be able to engage in discourse on the basis of substance, it should not be a matter of meeting superficial criteria in order to qualify for conversation.  

What do so many fear? Is it not, having their authority contradicted, having to start over from scratch, losing their idealistic hold on the world? But how can an academic start from scratch when they are told what to believe, instead of being taught how to think? In truth, everyone fears the thinker because his questions shatter their delusions.

To some we are not allowed to ask questions, this is their authoritarian criteria, their academic snobbery, their tyrannical and dehumanizing anti-intellectualism. At whom should a thinker direct his questions? Surely at those who import to be thinkers and intellectuals? Don't intellectuals enter into a rational arena, of the which, they don't have the right to exit without some kind of justification?

What indeed, does it mean to dismiss questions? Can one be a good thinker and evade valid questions?

If I want to be a good thinker, am I not bound by the authority and validity of the question?

If one says my questions are foolish, can they substantiate this claim, or is it just a shallow and fallacious way of avoiding the question, a way to preserve one's delusional self-image as a thinker?

In truth, I am tired of the evasion of intellectuals. I don't understand why they flee from the prospect of refutation, when it remains vital to the expansion of knowledge? This tells me they are not after truth but some kind of social or psychological validation. But their psychology is very unlikely to discern this defect, precisely because their education has conditioned them to presuppose their sufficiency and expertise. Surely this is backward, shouldn't their ability to engage questions (to think qualitatively) be the determining factor of their intellectual sufficiency?

I would prefer not to have to ask these questions, I would prefer to move on with the discourse of intelligence, but man's stupidity and ego will not allow it. In our time it has become necessary to preempt the thinker against the resistance of his own psychology. That this is required, merely to begin the conversation, is a heartbreaking disappointment that gives testimony to the lack of maturity and intelligence of our species.

Where are the thinkers who care about the qualitative development of thought?


-
-
-