A Primer in Thinking

Consider the lipstick...

Bonnie Kristian’s piece this week is not primarily an argument for or against cosmetic treatments. She didn’t write it primarily as a case study in thinking well. But it is one, because thinking, as a habit of mind, is what Kristian does on any subject.

Which makes her an ideal, if inadvertent, teacher of thinking. So, if you like, read it first.

The beauty of her subject (i.e. beauty) is that it might not seem to merit extensive thinking. You might think Kristian a crank, or an obsessive, for making such a big deal out of it.

It’s the kind of subject you might approach gut-first. As in, if there is a moral judgment to be made at all, you will choose the one that supports your instinct. Do you like it? Do you want it? Does it make you uncomfortable? Does it creep you out?

You can choose a position accordingly. Bonus points if you choose a buttressing argument for that position. The end.

But just as you begin to feel pat and satisfied, Kristian socks you, by which I mean herself, with…

The Counter Example

Definitions first, always. The Counter Example is a hypothetical situation that applies your argument to expose its weaknesses. It is a technique Socrates often uses in his dialogues.

(Sidebar: I don’t mean in a “Socratic” circle. Socrates never facilitated roundtable student discussions. You can read about that in Anne Phillips’s excellent article.)

Which of course brings me to Monty Python. Sir Bedevere has led some clod-headed villagers down a dubious course of logic to conclude that

a) Witches are made of wood, and

b) Woodenness can be determined by using the alleged witch to build a bridge.

To which the wise Knight adds, “Ah! But can you not also build bridges out of stone?”

And here is the pivotal response: “Oh…Yeah…” says the villager, scratching at his matted hair.

On second thought, let’s not take any lessons from Monty Python. It is a silly group.

But all kinds of arguments sound good until they meet with a well-chosen counter example. Then the thinker may need to circle back. Definitions may need refinement, relationships may need clarification.

The “Oh…Yeah…” is the crux of thinking. Bedevere is no Socrates. But context is king, and though it’s the butt of their joke, Monty Python still situated this discussion in the story of a search. And a search, and the humility to stay on it, is prerequisite to learning.

Beware simple certainty: it covers wells of ignorance. Every time you apply a good question and cycle back, pivoting on the “Oh…yeah…,” you both deepen your thinking and reduce your absolute certainty.

Refining a definition this way is HITT training for the mind; reflexive responses are more like the recliners of mental function.

Mobs are simple. Soundbites are often simple. Thinking is not.

Last note: Knowledge is made up of relationships. Metaphors and analogies and even prepositions are the stuff of knowledge because they suggest relationship, imaginatively bridging our minds from what is known through the senses to what is accessed in the abstract by means of likeness or unlikeness to known things.

Asking how things are alike and different is part of the work of the counter example.

In Romans 6:19, Paul explains this dynamic of language: ^“I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations.” In other words, I am painting pictures using earthly images so that you can lift your eyes and try to apprehend heavenly things.

So…read Kristian’s piece. Or one of Plato’s. And note their way of considering like, unlike, and counter example.

Kristian ends without certainty.

A thinker can do that and lose not a wink of sleep.