读过 How to Think
This is what thinking is:not the decision itself but what goes into the decision, the consideration, the assessment. It's testing your own responeses and weighing the available evidence; it's grapsping, as best you can and with all avilable and relevant senses, what is, and it's also speculating, as carefully and responsibly as you can, about what might be. And it's knowing when not to go it alone, and whome you should ask for help.
This is thinking: the power to be finely aware and richly responsible.
In perhaps the most heartbreaking passage in his account Mill comments,"I sought no comfort by speaking to others of what I felt. If I had loved anyone sufficiently to make confiding my griefs a necessity. I should not have been in the condition I was."
Our ability to think well will be determined to some considerable degree by who those others are: what we might call the moral form of our community. A willingness to be "broken on the floor," for example, is in itself a testimony to belief that people you're debating are decent people who don't want to harm or manipulate you - whereas if you don't trust people you're unlikely to allow them anything like a "victory" over you. This suggests that the problem of belonging and not-belonging, affiliation and seperation, is central to the task of learning how to think.
So yes: argument can indeed be war, or at least a contest in which it is possible to lose. But there's another side to this story: what is lost not in an argument but through passive complicity with that militaristic metaphor. Because there are many situations in which we lose something of our humanity by militarizing discussion and debate; and we lose something of our humanity by dehumanizing our interlocutors. When people cease to be people because they are, to us, merely representatives or mouthpieces of positions we want to eradicate, then we, in our zeal to win, have sacrificed empathy: we have declined the opportunity to understand other people's desires, principles, fears. And that is a great price to pay for supposed "victory" in debate.
The Thinking Person's Checklist
1. When faced whith provacatioin to respond to what someone has said, give it five minutes. Take a walk, or weed the garden, or chop some vegetables. Get your body involved: your body knows the rhythems to live by, and if your mind falls into your body's rhythem, you'll have a better chance of thinking.
2. Value learning over debating. Don't "talk for victory".
3. As best you can, online and off, avoid the people who fan flames.
4. Remember that you don't have to respond to what everyone else is responding to in order to signal your virtue and right-mindedness.
5. If you do have to respond to what everyone else is responding to in order to signal your virtue and right-mindedness, or else lose your status in your community, then you should realize that it's not a community but rather an Inner Ring.
6. Gravitate as best you can, in every way you can, toward people who seem to value genuine community and can handle disagreement with equanimity.
7. Seek out the best and fairest-minded of people whose views you disagree with. Listen to them for a time without responding. Whatever they say, think it over.
8. Patiently, and as honestly as you can, assess your repugnances.
9. Sometimes the "ick factor" is telling, sometimes it's a distraction from what matters.
10. Beware of metaphors and myths that do too much heavy cognitive lifting; notice what your "terministic screens" are directing your attention to - and what they're directing your attention away from; look closely for hidden metaphors and beware the power of myth.
11. Try to describe others' positions in the language that they use, without indulging in in-other-wordsing.
12. Be brave. 引自第14页