Stop Thinking, Act: A Concept Worth Pondering
Roy Maynard
Say what you will about our politicians, you must give them this: They're not French. Thank goodness. And neither are we.
Confused? I will explain, mon petit fromage.
In a speech last week in which she proposed a (gasp) tax cut, France's Finance Minister Christine Lagarde told the French to give up their "old national habit."
"France is a country that thinks," she told the National Assembly. "There is hardly an ideology that we haven't turned into a theory. We have in our libraries enough to talk about for centuries to come. This is why I would like to tell you: Enough thinking already."
That's right, a politician is recommending her constituents give up thinking.
Sure, I can see the up-side of the idea, at least for the politicians. Governing would be much easier if you didn't have to worry about a thoughtful, reasoning electorate.
To be fair, Ms. Lagarde ended her lengthy appeal with "Roll up your sleeves." Her point, I believe, was not just that the French shouldn't think so much, it was also that they should act more.
I'm all for action; in one of my favorite books (currently), Terry Pratchett's "The Wee Free Men," a teacher tells a girl, "If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and not being so lazy. Goodbye."
That's sound advice. But action and thinking are not mutually exclusive.
What the political process needs, in my opinion, is a bit more thinking, and then a good dose of action.
One of my favorite classes to teach is Informal Logic. We can also call it critical thinking; it's just the simple practice of applying a few brain cells to what we're hearing.
As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in 1947, "The function of education, therefore, is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. ... The complete education gives one not only power of concentration but worthy objectives upon which to concentrate."
The first and most important lesson is simple: the Law of Non-Contradiction.
A cannot be A and non-A, at the same time and in the same manner. You can't be slightly pregnant, mostly dead, or - and here we're getting into some delicate territory - a big-spending fiscal conservative.
Teaching that one rule goes a long way to transforming my students into clear thinkers. That's because these days, that rule is violated all the time. We're asked to believe by some, for example, that something is true for you isn't true for me, or may have been true then, but not true now (laws against speeding and lying to congressional committees are two examples that come to mind).
In a more troubling example, but taken from recent statements from Middle Eastern governments, we are asked to believe that blowing up civilians is bad (when U.S.-dropped bombs go astray) or noble (when done for the glory of God, or in response to a political grievance).
Obviously - at least to you and me - it can't be both.
In the same way, a government big-spender cannot be a fiscal conservative. Republicans who supported the Farm Bill last week have a lot to answer for in this regard.
Political candidates love to break this law, because of their desire to please as many people as possible. Who can forget Sen. John Kerry's "I was for it before I was against it" statement?
People, even politicians, are allowed to change their minds. That's how Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has handled the abortion issue; instead of trying to have it both ways, he simply said he changed his mind and that his views had evolved. Was that so difficult?
Even small doses of critical thinking help the political process, in my opinion. Our presidential "debates" have devolved into little more than simultaneous photo opportunities, in which no arguments are tested.
Want real debate? Allow cross-examination and subject candidates' claims to real scrutiny. And demand a little more law-and-order - particularly the Law of Non-Contradiction.
The worst thing we could do for our political process is to quit thinking so much. The same thing goes for France.
Confused? I will explain, mon petit fromage.
In a speech last week in which she proposed a (gasp) tax cut, France's Finance Minister Christine Lagarde told the French to give up their "old national habit."
"France is a country that thinks," she told the National Assembly. "There is hardly an ideology that we haven't turned into a theory. We have in our libraries enough to talk about for centuries to come. This is why I would like to tell you: Enough thinking already."
That's right, a politician is recommending her constituents give up thinking.
Sure, I can see the up-side of the idea, at least for the politicians. Governing would be much easier if you didn't have to worry about a thoughtful, reasoning electorate.
To be fair, Ms. Lagarde ended her lengthy appeal with "Roll up your sleeves." Her point, I believe, was not just that the French shouldn't think so much, it was also that they should act more.
I'm all for action; in one of my favorite books (currently), Terry Pratchett's "The Wee Free Men," a teacher tells a girl, "If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and not being so lazy. Goodbye."
That's sound advice. But action and thinking are not mutually exclusive.
What the political process needs, in my opinion, is a bit more thinking, and then a good dose of action.
One of my favorite classes to teach is Informal Logic. We can also call it critical thinking; it's just the simple practice of applying a few brain cells to what we're hearing.
As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in 1947, "The function of education, therefore, is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. ... The complete education gives one not only power of concentration but worthy objectives upon which to concentrate."
The first and most important lesson is simple: the Law of Non-Contradiction.
A cannot be A and non-A, at the same time and in the same manner. You can't be slightly pregnant, mostly dead, or - and here we're getting into some delicate territory - a big-spending fiscal conservative.
Teaching that one rule goes a long way to transforming my students into clear thinkers. That's because these days, that rule is violated all the time. We're asked to believe by some, for example, that something is true for you isn't true for me, or may have been true then, but not true now (laws against speeding and lying to congressional committees are two examples that come to mind).
In a more troubling example, but taken from recent statements from Middle Eastern governments, we are asked to believe that blowing up civilians is bad (when U.S.-dropped bombs go astray) or noble (when done for the glory of God, or in response to a political grievance).
Obviously - at least to you and me - it can't be both.
In the same way, a government big-spender cannot be a fiscal conservative. Republicans who supported the Farm Bill last week have a lot to answer for in this regard.
Political candidates love to break this law, because of their desire to please as many people as possible. Who can forget Sen. John Kerry's "I was for it before I was against it" statement?
People, even politicians, are allowed to change their minds. That's how Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has handled the abortion issue; instead of trying to have it both ways, he simply said he changed his mind and that his views had evolved. Was that so difficult?
Even small doses of critical thinking help the political process, in my opinion. Our presidential "debates" have devolved into little more than simultaneous photo opportunities, in which no arguments are tested.
Want real debate? Allow cross-examination and subject candidates' claims to real scrutiny. And demand a little more law-and-order - particularly the Law of Non-Contradiction.
The worst thing we could do for our political process is to quit thinking so much. The same thing goes for France.
FAQ
Search Forums
Log in
Register
